Christianity in the Postmodern Era

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

What about Luke 2:33?

KJV = Luk 2:33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

but:

NET = Luk 2:33 So the child's father and mother were amazed at what was said about him.

Why? The New English Translation is working with the manuscript evidence and earlier MSS has "the child's father." It was changed to remove Joseph as the father.

So there again, Joseph is the biological father of Jesus. All the visitation by an angel to a virgin teenager is just hagiography.

I'm still waiting for the day when ole awareness will become "aware" of one good thing to say about Jesus and the Bible.

[UntoHim]

Actually I think awareness has immense respect for the Bible and the Jesus of the Bible. He's just not a big fan of those of us who try to interpret the Bible and claim to represent the Jesus of the Bible. And can you blame him after his experience in the Local Church of Witness Lee?

He lives in the Bible belt...and one day the Bible is going to belt him right in the mouth...He'll never know what hit him. It will be like the Saul of Tarsus experience where he get's knocked off his high horse. Until then, he's like Saul of Tarsus...he's just not going to believe us Joe Schmo believers....He needs to hear it from God himself.

Yee hah! I can't believe it... I think I was channeling my inner Countmeworthy!
-

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm still waiting for the day when ole awareness will become "aware" of one good thing to say about Jesus and the Bible.

What? I think it IS good that the Bible says Joseph was the biological father of Jesus. Not that I think it's a good thing for an old man to get with a young virgin, but it happened all the time back then. And even today. Have you seen Hugh Hefner's wife these days?

Besides, this is not a new notion, that Joseph fathered Jesus. It's not only the most plausible explanation of how Mary (with no last name) got pregnant, it was believed by some very early Jewish Christians from back in that day. They're called Ebionites. They were adoptionists, that believed, that Jesus was born like everyone else -- not of a virgin -- and was adopted by God at his Baptism.

Your good ol' buddy Professor Bart Ehrman, in his book, "Misquoting Jesus" says they, or their heresy, was the reason Luke 2:33 was changed. Isn't it good to get closer to the autograph copies of the books of the NT?

Hey, at least we're talking Bible here. Isn't that good? I thought that was good. My bad.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

He lives in the Bible belt...and one day the Bible is going to belt him right in the mouth...

Why thanks for coming to my aid bro Untohim. I need all the aid I can get.

You are right. I live in the buckle of the Bible belt. And my mouth has gotten me into trouble plenty of times. Moreover, these country hillbilly Christians won't hesitate to drop their Christianity just long enough to kick your ass. So I could get clobbered in the mouth with a Bible any day now. That's a real possibility. I've seen it in some preachers eyes hereabouts.

But I like that you point out that I have to hear it straight from God. That strums the strings of my heart. Isn't that the gospel, according to some great Christian thinkers, that is? That salvation is by the grace of God coming to the undeserved. I certainly qualify as an undeserved. Ask bro Ohio.

Thanks again CMW, er ah, I mean Untohim.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

He lives in the Bible belt...and one day the Bible is going to belt him right in the mouth...He'll never know what hit him.

LOL seriously

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Why thanks for coming to my aid bro Untohim. I need all the aid I can get.

You are right. I live in the buckle of the Bible belt. And my mouth has gotten me into trouble plenty of times. Moreover, these country hillbilly Christians won't hesitate to drop their Christianity just long enough to kick your ass. So I could get clobbered in the mouth with a Bible any day now. That's a real possibility. I've seen it in some preachers eyes hereabouts.

But I like that you point out that I have to hear it straight from God. That strums the strings of my heart. Isn't that the gospel, according to some great Christian thinkers, that is? That salvation is by the grace of God coming to the undeserved. I certainly qualify as an undeserved. Ask bro Ohio.

Thanks again CMW, er ah, I mean Untohim.

I wouldn't know anything about that. I thought salvation was by faith in Jesus Christ.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I wouldn't know anything about that. I thought salvation was by faith in Jesus Christ.

Grace has nothing to do with it?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Grace has nothing to do with it?

What about all these "undeserving" folks who refuse to believe?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Seriously? If you are adopted you can refer to your adopted father as your father. A step father is a father. Even orphans like Mike Tyson can have "father figures". Just because Joseph wasn't Jesus biologic father doesn't mean he wasn't his earthly father. From the time of birth Jesus grew up in a family in which Mary was His mother and Joseph was His father. Just ask Zeek, there is no scientific evidence provided whatsoever that Joseph was the biologic father in the NT, however there is very clear statement of fact that Jesus was born of a virgin and that God was the Father.

In the canonical gospels, Jesus repudiates his mother in Matthew 12. He advises his followers to do the same to their parents. He never acknowledges any kind of relationship with Joseph. Common sense recognizes the conflicting virgin conception stories are work of hagiographers apparently to cover the story that Jesus was an illegitimate child which would make Mary a whore in the eyes of traditionally minded people, a problem that Joseph is said to have been concerned about in Matthew 1:19.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

In the canonical gospels, Jesus repudiates his mother in Matthew 12. He advises his followers to do the same to their parents. He never acknowledges any kind of relationship with Joseph. Common sense recognizes the conflicting virgin conception stories are work of hagiographers apparently to cover the story that Jesus was an illegitimate child which would make Mary a whore in the eyes of traditionally minded people, a problem that Joseph is said to have been concerned about in Matthew 1:19.

This makes Hillary's "vast right wing conspiracy" look kindergarden by comparison. Just need a heavy dose of zeek's "common sense."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This makes Hillary's "vast right wing conspiracy" look kindergarden by comparison. Just need a heavy dose of zeek's "common sense."

Jesus understood what it was to be a social pariah because as a "bastard" the people treated him as one himself. As a boy who never knew his real father he must have experienced the hunger for acceptance by a strong male figure that is common among boys in the absence of a Father figure. That acceptance came to him when he was baptized by John. "And there came a voice from Heaven, saying, “Thou Art My Beloved Son, In Whom I Am Well Pleased.” Is it any wonder that the power of acceptance in a father-son relationship with God was the foundational experience of Jesus' faith and teaching.

[zeek]

The canonical gospels downplay the probable fact that before John's death, Jesus was his disciple. The fact that John baptized Jesus was a source of embarrassment because it implies that Jesus recognized John's spiritual superiority at that stage of his life, and that Jesus needed to repent. Nevertheless, in John Jesus seems to have found the strong male father figure that he needed to overcome the absence of a father when he was growing up.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This makes Hillary's "vast right wing conspiracy" look kindergarden by comparison. Just need a heavy dose of zeek's "common sense."

What does Hillary have to do with Mary, Joseph, and Jesus?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

What does Hillary have to do with Mary, Joseph, and Jesus?

Most historians recognize that the Gospel of Mark was the earliest written of the gospels and the one with the most historical facts. There is no mention of Joseph in Mark. The "Joseph" story may have been part of a later tradition.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Jesus understood what it was to be a social pariah because as a "bastard" the people treated him as one himself. As a boy who never knew his real father he must have experienced the hunger for acceptance by a strong male figure that is common among boys in the absence of a Father figure.

Of course Jesus knew His real father. He told us clearly at age twelve.

Your speculation of Jesus as a social pariah is based on what? The Jews called Him the son of Joseph.

If the Jews knew the story of His birth, then they would not have said He was born in Galilee, and would have known He came out of the seed of David, born in Bethlehem.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

The canonical gospels downplay the probable fact that before John's death, Jesus was his disciple. The fact that John baptized Jesus was a source of embarrassment because it implies that Jesus recognized John's spiritual superiority at that stage of his life, and that Jesus needed to repent. Nevertheless, in John Jesus seems to have found the strong male father figure that he needed to overcome the absence of a father when he was growing up.

Another twisting of scripture from an unlearned and unstable poster. (II Peter 3.17)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

The canonical gospels downplay the probable fact that before John's death, Jesus was his disciple. The fact that John baptized Jesus was a source of embarrassment because it implies that Jesus recognized John's spiritual superiority at that stage of his life, and that Jesus needed to repent. Nevertheless, in John Jesus seems to have found the strong male father figure that he needed to overcome the absence of a father when he was growing up.

Now, now bro Ohio. Just because brother zeek gets your knickers in a knot doesn't mean you have to speak from that region.

Bro zeek seems to be arguing from a psychological perspective. He has made his living as a shrink all his life, so that's easily understandable.

But his approach that Jesus was missing a strong father figure can be refuted using Luke 2. I already pointed out Luke 2:33, where "father" was later replaced with Joseph. But either way Luke 2 points to Joseph being around until Jesus was at least 12 yrs old.

Joseph does seem to disappear from the accounts. He's not present when Jesus rebukes his mother. But he does reappear in the last gospel written, in John 1:43 where it says "Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."

I would hope. bro Ohio, that we could tamp down the ad hominem's, and deal with the claims of our opponents, and not the opponents personally.

And by the way, your whole attack on bro zeek is too absurd to be taken seriously.

But back to my pet peeve. We know about the bronze age. We know about the iron age. But few know about the age of no last names.

In the age of no last name people used "so and so of, this or that." So according to John 1:43, Jesus' last name was "of Nazareth." Why of Nazareth? Why not of Bethlehem? That's where he was actually from. I posit it's because he took the last name of Joseph = Joseph "of Nazareth"

Am I twisting scripture here?

But I see a Recovery of sorts right here on LCD. We're recovering back to the age of no last names. I don't see any last names out here. We have, for example, Ohio of Ohio. Yea for recovering to back in the early days in some fashion or another.

Let's lighten up bro Ohio .... Pleeeeaaaasssseeee???

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Now, now bro Ohio. Just because brother zeek gets your knickers in a knot doesn't mean you have to speak from that region.

Bro zeek seems to be arguing from a psychological perspective. He has made his living as a shrink all his life, so that's easily understandable.

But his approach that Jesus was missing a strong father figure can be refuted using Luke 2. I already pointed out Luke 2:33, where "father" was later replaced with Joseph. But either way Luke 2 points to Joseph being around until Jesus was at least 12 yrs old.

Joseph does seem to disappear from the accounts. He's not present when Jesus rebukes his mother. But he does reappear in the last gospel written, in John 1:43 where it says "Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."

I would hope. bro Ohio, that we could tamp down the ad hominem's, and deal with the claims of our opponents, and not the opponents personally.

And by the way, your whole attack on bro zeek is too absurd to be taken seriously.

But back to my pet peeve. We know about the bronze age. We know about the iron age. But few know about the age of no last names.

In the age of no last name people used "so and so of, this or that." So according to John 1:43, Jesus' last name was "of Nazareth." Why of Nazareth? Why not of Bethlehem? That's where he was actually from. I posit it's because he took the last name of Joseph = Joseph "of Nazareth"

Am I twisting scripture here?

But I see a Recovery of sorts right here on LCD. We're recovering back to the age of no last names. I don't see any last names out here. We have, for example, Ohio of Ohio. Yea for recovering to back in the early days in some fashion or another.

Let's lighten up bro Ohio .... Pleeeeaaaasssseeee???

It was a twisting of scripture, and zeek does that regularly. This must have happened to Peter also, and that's why he correctly identified these scripture twisters. And btw they are not like four letter words or ad hominems, but simple scriptural descriptions. I think zeek would be honored to know that Peter was thinking of him when he wrote his epistle.

And, btw, last names were not needed until there were just too many first names running around confusing people. Today, we need three or four names to identify people.

And thanks for explaining why zeek is the way he is.

There is no verse that indicates Jesus was missing a "strong father figure." This is pure speculative twisting from an aging shrink. (Your words, not mine.)

And besides, zeek and I get along fine. It's my turn to buy coffee.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It was a twisting of scripture, and zeek does that regularly. This must have happened to Peter also, and that's why he correctly identified these scripture twisters. And btw they are not like four letter words or ad hominems, but simple scriptural descriptions. I think zeek would be honored to know that Peter was thinking of him when he wrote his epistle.

And, btw, last names were not needed until there were just too many first names running around confusing people. Today, we need three or four names to identify people.

And thanks for explaining why zeek is the way he is.

There is no verse that indicates Jesus was missing a "strong father figure." This is pure speculative twisting from an aging shrink. (Your words, not mine.)

And besides, zeek and I get along fine. It's my turn to buy coffee.

Well amen bro Ohio. So you and bro zeek get in the ring so often that a free for all should be allowed? Well this IS AltVs. Should we place our bets?

And bro Ohio you explained the age of no last names in one sentence. Thanks. Way to go. But wasn't there already a first name problem in NT times? I mean, it's hard to keep up with all the Mary's, Jame's, and the like.

And surely, tho lacking scripture references, there were more than one of Jesus of Nazareth's. He could have been spotted in two places across town at the same time. How would anyone know if they saw the real Jesus of Nazareth or not? Did they have internet back then?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well amen bro Ohio. So you and bro zeek get in the ring so often that a free for all should be allowed? Well this IS AltVs. Should we place our bets?

And bro Ohio you explained the age of no last names in one sentence. Thanks. Way to go. But wasn't there already a first name problem in NT times? I mean, it's hard to keep up with all the Mary's, Jame's, and the like.

And surely, tho lacking scripture references, there were more than one of Jesus of Nazareth's. He could have been spotted in two places across town at the same time. How would anyone know if they saw the real Jesus of Nazareth or not? Did they have internet back then?

I thought you came to AltV's to escape moderation?

But back to your question about surnames. When each Israelite has a genealogy which goes back to David, or Abraham, or Noah, or Adam, how could any of them get mixed up?

But I understand your concern about women. Weren't there like 6 or 7 Mary's in the New Testament?

Anyways, why don't you have a talk with zeek about father figures?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

But back to my pet peeve. We know about the bronze age. We know about the iron age. But few know about the age of no last names.

In the age of no last name people used "so and so of, this or that." So according to John 1:43, Jesus' last name was "of Nazareth." Why of Nazareth? Why not of Bethlehem? That's where he was actually from. I posit it's because he took the last name of Joseph = Joseph "of Nazareth"

No, He would not have been called "Jesus of Bethlehem" because He fled to Egypt and was there until those that sought His life died, at which point He returned to live in Nazareth, hence "Jesus of Nazareth".

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Anyways, why don't you have a talk with zeek about father figures?

Can we be a little more understanding and sympathetic? Obviously this matter of father figures is a very sensitive issue with Zeek, and Awareness has danced around this indicating the extent of the interaction with psychiatrists to the point that Zeek is now talking like a shrink.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Of course Jesus knew His real father. He told us clearly at age twelve.

The story of finding Jesus in the temple at age 12 is unlikely of historical origin. It's not independently attested in the other gospels. It follows Hellenistic biographical conventions of the hero myth.

Your speculation of Jesus as a social pariah is based on what? The Jews called Him the son of Joseph.

I cited textual evidence such as when Jesus was assailed as the "son of Mary." Yours is an instance of a frequent ploy on this forum to ignore what has already been presented when you don't agree with it. Historical evidence about Mediterranean culture at that time supports my hypothesis:

"In the peasant society of Jesus' world the family revolved around the
father. The father and the mother were the source of the family, not only
in the biological sense, but because their interaction with their children
created the structures of society. In first-century Mediterranean culture,
fatherlessness led to marginalization. Seen against the background of
the patriarchal mind set of Israelites in the Second Temple period, a
fatherless son would have been without social identity. He would have
been debarred from being called child of Abraham (that is child of God)
and from the privilege of being given a daughter in marriage. He would
be denied access to the court of the Israelites in the Temple." http://www.hts.org.za/index.php/HTS/...File/1526/2819

If the Jews knew the story of His birth, then they would not have said He was born in Galilee, and would have known He came out of the seed of David, born in Bethlehem.

The story that Jesus was born in Bethlehem is not historically supported. The accounts in Matthew and Luke conflict irreconcilably. It seems to have been contrived in order to fulfill Micah 5:2.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

The story of finding Jesus in the temple is unlikely of historical origin. It is not independently attested in any other written gospel. It follows Hellenistic biographical conventions of the hero myth.

This is America and you are entitled to your screwy opinions based on speculation. Luke the writer got his account from eyewitnesses, i.e. Mary the mother of Jesus.

Originally Posted by zeek

I cited textual evidence such as when Jesus was assailed as the "son of Mary." Yours is an instance of a frequent ploy on this forum to ignore what has already been presented when you don't agree with it. Historical evidence about Mediterranean culture at that time supports my hypothesis:

Jesus was referred to as both son of Mary and son of Joseph. Duh!

Anyone can pull nonsense off the internet. It's a common ploy of yours.

Originally Posted by zeek

The story that Jesus was born in Bethlehem is not historically supported. The accounts in Matthew and Luke conflict irreconcilably. It seems to have been contrived in order to fulfill Micah 5:2.

And of course you were there to prove His birth?

We have discussed this at length. There are no conflicts in Matthew's and Luke's accounts. Too bad you don't like what the Bible record tells us.

The census by Augustus is historical fact, and the star over Bethlehem is an astronomical fact.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is America and you are entitled to your screwy opinions based on speculation. Luke the writer got his account from eyewitnesses, i.e. Mary the mother of Jesus.


Jesus was referred to as both son of Mary and son of Joseph. Duh!

Anyone can pull nonsense off the internet. It's a common ploy of yours.


And of course you were there to prove His birth?

We have discussed this at length. There are no conflicts in Matthew's and Luke's accounts. Too bad you don't like what the Bible record tells us.

The census by Augustus is historical fact, and the star over Bethlehem is an astronomical fact.

This just substantiates the Lord's word -- no one knows the Son unless the Father reveals Him.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is America and you are entitled to your screwy opinions based on speculation. Luke the writer got his account from eyewitnesses, i.e. Mary the mother of Jesus.

The writer of Luke appropriated much of his story verbatim from the Gospel of Mark. You can see that by comparing the texts in parallel. Have you ever done that? Now Mark supposedly got his info from Peter who would have been an eye-witness. In a court of law that would be impermissible because it's hearsay. The author does not actually claim that he personally got his account directly from eyewitnesses.

Jesus was referred to as both son of Mary and son of Joseph. Duh!

You're ignoring the implication that calling Jesus "son of Mary" would have in first century Galilee. Furthermore, Joseph is never referred to in Mark which suggests that the author did not know of that story tradition.

Anyone can pull nonsense off the internet. It's a common ploy of yours.

My method is to present evidence and rational arguments to support my propositions as I have done in this case. Apparently you think your own position is too weak to withstand exposure an opposing thesis, so you dismiss it without reading it or presenting reasonable arguments.

The paper I cited was written by Andries van Aarde. For those who are interested, his theological and hermeneutical work is discussed here http://www.hts.org.za/index.php/HTS/...ew/1033/html#1

And of course you were there to prove His birth?

That's silly. Of course not. You weren't there either. All we have is the texts and such evidence as our senses provide us plus our fallible human reason to guide our conclusions.

We have discussed this at length. There are no conflicts in Matthew's and Luke's accounts. Too bad you don't like what the Bible record tells us.

We did discuss it. But, we never arrived at a consensus. I don't recall you resolving the conflicts in the accounts.

There are some broad similarities between the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke. But none of the specific stories of Luke's narrative occurs in Matthew and vice versa. Matthew describes a flight to Egypt; Luke a journey to Bethlehem. In Luke Mary and Joseph leave town for a trip to register for the census in Bethlehem. Mary gives birth there and the couple returns home just over a month later following the law in Leviticus 12.

Matthew says nothing about a trip from Galilee to Bethlehem. On the contrary in Matthew the couple live there in a house and the Magi find baby Jesus there not in a stable. Herod sent troops "and slew all the children who were in Bethlehem and in all the region thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men." Apparently Herod expected to find Jesus living in Bethlehem up to two years after Jesus' birth.

The census by Augustus is historical fact,

No. The historical facts don't line up with the story.

The Census of Quirinius was a census of Judaea taken by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, Roman governor of Syria, upon the imposition of direct Roman rule in 6 CE.[1] The Jewish historian Josephus portrays the annexation and census as the cause of an uprising which later became identified with the Zealot movement. The author of the Gospel of Luke uses it as the narrative means to establish when Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Luke 2:1-5),[2] but places the census within the reign of Herod the Great, who died 10 years earlier in 4 BCE.[3] No satisfactory explanation has been put forward to resolve the contradiction,[4] and many scholars think that the author of the gospel made a mistake.[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius

and the star over Bethlehem is an astronomical fact.

Stars don't literally situate themselves over towns. A number of astronomical events have been proposed to be the Star of Bethlehem. But none of them that I am aware of correlate with the alleged facts of the birth narrative. Which one are you thinking of?

[zeek]

In another fascinating and informative paper by van Aarde entitled "Jesus' father: The quest for the historical Joseph", he includes the following internal evidence for the absent father hypothesis:

• Jesus' tension with his family;
• Jesus' defence of the fatherless;
• Jesus' judgment of the abandonment of women (and children) by an act of divorce;
• Jesus' calling upon God as his father;
• Jesus' critique of the Jerusalemites;
• the absence of a family tomb as his last resting place.

http://www.hts.org.za/index.php/HTS/...load/1410/2704

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

The writer of Luke appropriated much of his story verbatim from the Gospel of Mark. You can see that by comparing the texts in parallel. Have you ever done that? Now Mark supposedly got his info from Peter who would have been an eye-witness. In a court of law that would be impermissible because it's hearsay. The author does not actually claim that he personally got his account directly from eyewitnesses.

You're ignoring the implication that calling Jesus "son of Mary" would have in first century Galilee. Furthermore, Joseph is never referred to in Mark which suggests that the author did not know of that story tradition.

Here is the only reference to "son of Mary" ...

Mark 6 Jesus went on from there and came to His hometown, accompanied by His disciples. When the Sabbath came, He began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard Him were astonished. “Where did this man get these ideas?” they asked. “What is this wisdom He has been given? And how can He perform such miracles? Isn’t this the carpenter, the son of Mary and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon? Aren’t His sisters here with us as well?” And they took offense at Him.

Here Jesus went back to His hometown of Nazareth and preached in the synagogue. They rejected Him, and Luke independently records that they were filled with anger and attempted to kill Him for mentioning the Gentiles. (Obviously Luke was not copying from Mark.) Since Joseph obviously for some time was deceased, the townspeople here referenced His occupation and the rest of His living family, whom they all knew well.

And yes, I have read thru the gospels chronologically with a harmony. Mark is the best source for a timeline because of the manner in which he decided to write. Mark (from Peter) included the most events, the least teaching, and the best chronology. Luke 1.2 specifically states that Luke's record is based on eye-witnesses, contrary to your claims.

You love your "science" and now your reference a "court of law," as if this negates the gospel record. On another day you will negate the gospel accounts because the apostles (i.e. Peter and John) were "unlearned and unlettered." The internet will afford you infinite reasons not to believe. There are many more for you to discover.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

The Census of Quirinius was a census of Judaea taken by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, Roman governor of Syria, upon the imposition of direct Roman rule in 6 CE.[1] The Jewish historian Josephus portrays the annexation and census as the cause of an uprising which later became identified with the Zealot movement. The author of the Gospel of Luke uses it as the narrative means to establish when Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Luke 2:1-5),[2] but places the census within the reign of Herod the Great, who died 10 years earlier in 4 BCE.[3] No satisfactory explanation has been put forward to resolve the contradiction,[4] and many scholars think that the author of the gospel made a mistake.[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius

This article addresses the events referenced by Luke 2.1-5.

https://jesusprophecies.wordpress.co...esar-augustus/

So, what then was Luke referring to when he recorded that Caesar Augustus took a worldwide tax? Actually, other translations use a better English word for the Greek in this case than the King James offers. The Greek word apographo (G583) and apographe (G582) should be translated enrolled and enrollment respectively. What, then, was the world census / enrollment of Caesar Augustus, and when did it take place? In 2 BCE Augustus celebrated his silver jubilee and this coincided with the 750th anniversary of Rome. It was a year of great celebration in the Empire, and the Roman senate decided to honor Caesar by bestowing upon him the title, Pater Patriae or “Father of the Country”. In doing this, a worldwide census was taken in 3 BCE whereby every citizen of the Roman Empire swore allegiance to Caesar, and a notice stating this was presented to Caesar Augustus in February of 2 BCE.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio, of a quote

In doing this, a worldwide census was taken in 3 BCE whereby every citizen of the Roman Empire swore allegiance to Caesar, and a notice stating this was presented to Caesar Augustus in February of 2 BCE.

Except not:
Census of Quirinius
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here is the only reference to "son of Mary" ...
Here Jesus went back to His hometown of Nazareth and preached in the synagogue. They rejected Him, and Luke independently records that they were filled with anger and attempted to kill Him for mentioning the Gentiles. (Obviously Luke was not copying from Mark.)

What's obvious about that? The sentence structure is virtually identical with some embellishment and word substitution. That doesn't happen without copying.

Since Joseph obviously for some time was deceased, the townspeople here referenced His occupation and the rest of His living family, whom they all knew well.

Again, that isn't obvious. That Joseph was dead when Jesus started his ministry is an extra-biblical tradition.

Luke 1.2 specifically states that Luke's record is based on eye-witnesses, contrary to your claims.

It's probably based on eye-witness accounts. That doesn't mean Luke was privy to eye-witness accounts himself. Likely there was an oral tradition before the educated started writing things down. The disciples themselves were mostly illiterate by all accounts. Where the author of Luke was in that chain of story telling, he doesn't say. None of the canonical gospels explicitly claim to be eye witness accounts.

You love your "science" and now your reference a "court of law," as if this negates the gospel record. On another day you will negate the gospel accounts because the apostles (i.e. Peter and John) were "unlearned and unlettered." The internet will afford you infinite reasons not to believe. There are many more for you to discover.

I'm not negating the gospel record, I'm seeking to understand it.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

The canonical gospels downplay the probable fact that before John's death, Jesus was his disciple. The fact that John baptized Jesus was a source of embarrassment because it implies that Jesus recognized John's spiritual superiority at that stage of his life, and that Jesus needed to repent. Nevertheless, in John Jesus seems to have found the strong male father figure that he needed to overcome the absence of a father when he was growing up.

Sorry, but the "probable facts" about how it all come to be are not written anywhere (and surely not in the manner that you present). I know that what is presented in the Bible is difficult if it really is not something in which God is involved. So the fact of God is either accepted and the unknown is left as such, or it is not accepted and alternate theories are put forward.

But I have read a little from at least one of the books that push those alternate theories (my father-in-law is a staunch atheist at this point in life). It had a lot of statements made as if there was a contemporary record of their alternate theory and it was settled. Of course, that is simply ridiculous. So you are left with three alternatives:

1) There is God and this could be entirely true as written

2) There is God but something else happened

3) There is no God

All the interesting theories developed in the last century or so are really of little importance to the discussion. Even if they were developed not long after the claims of a resurrection, they just don't have anything other than theories. It comes back to whether or not there is God and the Bible is a record of his interaction with man, including through his Son, Jesus.

Everything else is interesting theory. And if you don't believe, then all of it is theory. And whether or not it is true, because of the nature of the subject, suggesting alternate theories is pointless. Might as well be telling radio jokes.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm not negating the gospel record, I'm seeking to understand it.

Everything you write speaks otherwise.

You once had simple faith in His word.

Today it just seems you wish to prove it is all false.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

Sorry, but the "probable facts" about how it all come to be are not written anywhere (and surely not in the manner that you present). I know that what is presented in the Bible is difficult if it really is not something in which God is involved. So the fact of God is either accepted and the unknown is left as such, or it is not accepted and alternate theories are put forward.

That statement tells me more about how you think than it does about God or the Bible. Matthew 19:26 says "... with God all things are possible.” So it's typically Christian to view things from the standpoint of possibility. Therefore, I keep an open mind.

Modern science, on the other hand, looks at things in terms of probability. Some possibilities are more probable than others. probability takes us away from the realm of the absolute black and white, yes or no, all or nothing of religion to the statistical world of more or less. it tells me what is more likely to be the case in the world of infinite possibility. Therefore, look to probability when reading a text.

But I have read a little from at least one of the books that push those alternate theories (my father-in-law is a staunch atheist at this point in life). It had a lot of statements made as if there was a contemporary record of their alternate theory and it was settled. Of course, that is simply ridiculous.

Without knowing what the book was that doesn't tell me much.

So you are left with three alternatives:

1) There is God and this could be entirely true as written

2) There is God but something else happened

3) There is no God

Your alternatives assume that we know what God is. That's a problem.

All the interesting theories developed in the last century or so are really of little importance to the discussion. Even if they were developed not long after the claims of a resurrection, they just don't have anything other than theories. It comes back to whether or not there is God and the Bible is a record of his interaction with man, including through his Son, Jesus.

Do you really know all the interesting theories? Please provide a coherent statement about what the resurrection is. Explain how it's more than images you see in your mind evoked by a lifetime of religious indoctrination. Also explain how your trinitarian belief is more than just a theory and an improbable one at that.

Everything else is interesting theory. And if you don't believe, then all of it is theory. And whether or not it is true, because of the nature of the subject, suggesting alternate theories is pointless. Might as well be telling radio jokes.

There's that black and white thinking, e.g. one either believes or not. Haven't you observed that when you don't believe one thing, you believe another? So the choice isn't about believing or not, it's about believing one thing or another, this or that or perhaps this other? Doesn't the diversity of belief even among Christians teach you that? In the post you seem to be taking a my-way-or-the-highway stance.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Everything you write speaks otherwise.

You once had simple faith in His word.

Today it just seems you wish to prove it is all false.

If I thought the Bible was false I wouldn't be looking at a theory about Jesus and claiming that it seems historically and psychologically plausible to me like I've been doing in the last half dozen posts.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

If I thought the Bible was false I wouldn't be looking at a theory about Jesus and claiming that it seems historically and psychologically plausible to me like I've been doing in the last half dozen posts.

Didn't Jesus Himself tell us that we must come to him with child-like faith?

That doesn't sound to me like some of your alternative theories based on historical and psychological statistical probabilities.

I just can't go in that direction, yet in your analysis that restricts me to a place of that dreaded "black and white reasoning" and worse. Such is a false characterization you continually make of those who believe the scriptures with simplicity.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Didn't Jesus Himself tell us that we must come to him with child-like faith?

That doesn't sound to me like some of your alternative theories based on historical and psychological statistical probabilities.

I just can't go in that direction, yet in your analysis that restricts me to a place of that dreaded "black and white reasoning" and worse. Such is a false characterization you continually make of those who believe the scriptures with simplicity.

Yes and Paul said "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me." Go figure.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Yes and Paul said "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me." Go figure.

A proper understanding of these verses require that we know what are the "childish things" which Paul said he "did away with?"

Since he follows with, "But now abide faith, hope, love, and the greatest is love," I doubt if these are included.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

A proper understanding of these verses require that we know what are the "childish things" which Paul said he "did away with?"

Since he follows with, "But now abide faith, hope, love, and the greatest is love," I doubt if these are included.

So then, there are some childish things we should retain and some we should let go as adults. Faith is one to retain. And yes, my faith is child-like. It doesn't require me to abdicate critical thinking when I read the Bible though. But, sometimes I read it that way too-- as if in prayer.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

So then, there are some childish things we should retain and some we should let go as adults. Faith is one to retain. And yes, my faith is child-like. It doesn't require me to abdicate critical thinking when I read the Bible though. But, sometimes I read it that way too-- as if in prayer.

How can you read the Bible, even with prayer, if you look upon so many scripture with "critical thinking" and then decide they don't belong in the canon record?

This is exactly what so many of us ex-LC members protested against Lee and his cadre of Blendeds -- they looked upon certain scriptures with their "critical hinking," and rejected many books of Scripture, e.g. Proverbs, James, and many Psalms.

[awareness]

Okay, back to Jesus and his father problem.

Let's figure a little here.

Young Mary got pregnant. For that to happen 23 chromosomes had to be donated to her 23 chromosomes to conceive life, and a Y chromosome to make a male child. How did that happen?

Possibilities :

1) Joseph - As some early Jewish Christians believed. He IS the mostly likely donor. But Matthew 1:25 says he DIDN'T 'know' her, until Jesus was born. (Writing decades later how would the anonymous author of Matthew know such a thing?) Anyway, if this is true -- and John says it is -- Jesus is not illegitimate ... except, they weren't married. Doesn't that mean Jesus was a bastard?

2) A Roman soldier ... a rumor that went around for a few hundred years. Or a one-night-stand. We'll dismiss that as just rumor. But if so Jesus would still be a bastard.

3) The Holy Spirit. ... like Matthew 1:20 says. This has a few problems.

a) How would the author know such a thing?

b) How would a non-physical being produce the 23 chromosomes necessary for conception?

c) Jesus wouldn't have a physical father. And since the holy Spirit and Mary weren't married (they had a one night stand) Jesus would still be considered illegitimate, thus John 8:41.

This is obviously just legend. What does bro Ohio call it? -> hagiography.

And then there's the problem of Jesus being sinless. Maybe his baptism was to wash away the sin of Mary's sinful chromosomes.

In the end we can conclude that Jesus had a father problem.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Young Mary got pregnant. For that to happen 23 chromosomes had to be donated to her 23 chromosomes to conceive life, and a Y chromosome to make a male child. How did that happen?

3) The Holy Spirit. ... like Matthew 1:20 says. This has a few problems.

a) How would the author know such a thing?

b) How would a non-physical being produce the 23 chromosomes necessary for conception?

c) Jesus wouldn't have a physical father. And since the holy Spirit and Mary weren't married (they had a one night stand) Jesus would still be considered illegitimate, thus John 8:41.

This is obviously just legend. What does bro Ohio call it? -> hagiography.

And then there's the problem of Jesus being sinless. Maybe his baptism was to wash away the sin of Mary's sinful chromosomes.

In the end we can conclude that Jesus had a father problem.

Problems? All conception is a miracle from God. So God could create the heavens and the earth, and form man of the dust of the earth, but the Spirit of God could not conceive in a chaste virgin? The Bible is filled with events which science has no answer for.

I never called any of the virgin birth hagiography.

Jesus was sinless because He never sinned. Are you now bringing a charge against Him? That's pretty serious. You got some evidence and a few eyewitnesses?

Jesus' Father was God in the heavens. The entire gospel record, and His every word confirms this. He was, however, raised by Joseph the carpenter, and even learned His profession, being called "the Carpenter from Nazareth."

.................................................. ..................................

In the end we can only conclude that awareness himself may have had a "father problem." He has said as much on a number of occasions.

Something to consider folks.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In the end we can only conclude that awareness himself may have had a "father problem." He has said as much on a number of occasions.

Something to consider folks.

Ha ha touché. Are you suggesting I'm projecting my fathers problems upon Jesus? It doesn't fit. I'm not a bastard.

And my parents were consenting adults. Conception was not forced upon my mom like it was on under age Mary.

But I guess women were just considered chattel back then, and didn't have any say in conceiving.

Let me get this right. You are claiming the the creator of everything, used a non-physical being to suddenly be able to donate 23 physical chromosomes into Mary's Ovum??? Maybe it was one of those son's of God in Gen 6, that knew the fair young maiden Mary.

And none of this strikes you as the stuff of legend?

It wasn't unknown back then. Mythologies are full of such miracles. Jesus had to be at least as great as all those legendary mythical figures and hero's. So the mythmakers got busy and wrote it into the gospels stories. It's hagiography par excellence.

Mary got pregnant because Mary had sex. And there's indicators in the gospel record that Joseph was the biological father.

Else, how would Jesus have biological lineage back to king David, as per Matthew 1:16?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

How can you read the Bible, even with prayer, if you look upon so many scripture with "critical thinking" and then decide they don't belong in the canon record?

This is exactly what so many of us ex-LC members protested against Lee and his cadre of Blendeds -- they looked upon certain scriptures with their "critical hinking," and rejected many books of Scripture, e.g. Proverbs, James, and many Psalms.

I never suggested any part of the Bible should be removed from the canon.

[OBW]

zeek,

You misunderstand. I do not say that there is nothing unknown. But what leads to an alternate outcome cannot be consistent within the framework of the scripture.

Just like admitting that the way that creation occurred (6 days, 6,000 years, or billions of years even through something like (or actually) evolution) does not really change anything. Neither does the idea of a homo sapiens-less world until one man and woman were created v the two representing (metaphorically) what had come to be mankind. I know some will argue on both of these.

But unless the goal is the undermining of all that is definitely taught in the Bible by arguing various alternative "back stories" (things that are not known and can only by hypothesized — without any actual foundation other than thinking that it "could be"), what is the purpose of going into the various trains of thought?

For example, is it simply a novel thought to wonder whether it was considered by Jesus to be a put-down to be baptized by John? If so, then what is the purpose? It would appear that John knew he was only the forerunner for someone greater. And Jesus had to talk him into actually doing the baptism. Seems Jesus was determined that it was to be that way. Not something that he was forced into that demeaned or embarrassed him.

The book I read explained away every miracle as something that just happened, or appeared to happen, and that Jesus just sort of went along with it, but was really just some average schmuck.

As for "all the theories," on what basis did you conclude that I know all the theories? I clearly have not heard every possible alternative theory that could be stated or imagined. But I see them as being primarily in two camps: 1) those that provide alternate "back story" details than what have been traditionally presumed and otherwise do not change what is recorded, and 2) those that change the nature of what is recorded in a manner that otherwise undermines what is recorded.

I realize that, like 6 day v a few billion years of evolution, some people insist that the difference is important while others yawn at it. And some of the things that I see as being in camp #2 may be understood as no different than the time and manner of creation is to me (and really in camp #1). But when it comes to those that make the whole claim of being God into a posthumous overlay by conspirators trying to creating something out of nothing (like the book my father-in-law gave me), I cannot take them seriously. Does that mean that my dividing line between camps 1 and 2 is fixed and not open to alteration? Probably not. But since I mostly think of camp #1 as being a bunch of yawns (not worth arguing about) the only thing that could come of studying either would be to somehow find actual evidence that some major aspect of what we believe was seriously misguided and should be something else.

But it seems that what the Bible actually says that appears to be of importance (concerning the person and nature of God and what should be that of the people who would return to "bear his image") is not really impacted by the yawns. And would only be impacted by the other camp as an undoing of the fabric of the scriptural record (or being analyzed into being another yawn).

You may argue that I am oversimplifying it. And you could be true. But I cannot find value in trying to discuss the ramifications of the Son of God (and he knew it at age 12 according to the record) being baptized by a mere mortal (for example) and therefore probably will ignore most of this line of reasoning as not for me. (And you will probably be fine with that, and I am fine with the fact that you are fine . . . .)

Now could we actually come up with something that better describes what we think we know about what we already see in the scripture? Possibly. But if it is that removed from the account that even the guys studying the culture, traditions, etc., of the times haven't come across it, do we really think that the God of the universe was so obtuse as to make it htat

If the goal of postmodernism is to "if" everything until it is something else, then it is a lost system. But I do not see that other than when someone is trying to change the subject or fight against what they don't like without sounding "modernistic" in their certainty.

"If" is potentially an illusion. As for the "possibilities," anything is possible if we start with the presumption that what is recorded is not accurate in the realm in which accuracy is important. (I say this because some are so enamored by each specific word that they cannot understand the sentences and paragraphs as being coherent discussions but rather as carriers of a multitude of secret messages.)

And, as I suggested, I will bow out.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I never suggested any part of the Bible should be removed from the canon.

Huh? Word games?

Just the latest from you was that the virgin birth should be removed ...

Or it it, "leave it in but consider it a myth?"

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

How can you read the Bible, even with prayer, if you look upon so many scripture with "critical thinking" and then decide they don't belong in the canon record?

This is exactly what so many of us ex-LC members protested against Lee and his cadre of Blendeds -- they looked upon certain scriptures with their "critical hinking," and rejected many books of Scripture, e.g. Proverbs, James, and many Psalms.

Methinks bro zeek is getting blame where I'm guilty. Like so many debates from even the early days, I don't think the book of Revelation should have ever been allowed in the canon. Look at all the havoc it's caused for thousands of years.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Methinks bro zeek is getting blame where I'm guilty. Like so many debates from even the early days, I don't think the book of Revelation should have ever been allowed in the canon. Look at all the havoc it's caused for thousands of years.

You and Luther have something in common.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

But I guess women were just considered chattel back then, and didn't have any say in conceiving.

Mary gave her consent in response to the angel.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Mary gave her consent in response to the angel.

Mary was not of the age of consent. What right would she have to tell the HS no? To say the least, she was way over powered.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Mary was not of the age of consent. What right would she have to tell the HS no? To say the least, she was way over powered.

She was at the age of consent for the time period.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Mary was not of the age of consent. What right would she have to tell the HS no? To say the least, she was way over powered.

So ... Now you accept the virgin birth, but have a problem with her age, yet we don't even know how old she was.

But we do know she was old enough to marry Joseph.

Is there any part of the Bible you are OK with?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Is there any part of the Bible you are OK with?

Remember, when Zeek and Awareness talk about the "Bible" they aren't talking about Jesus story, they are talking about their own story. If something doesn't fit with their story then they remove it, ignore it, distort it, etc. In the Bible according to Zeek there were 4 creations recorded in Genesis 1, and Jesus was not born of a virgin. In Awareness version an underaged girl was coerced by the Holy Spirit to have a child out of wedlock. Meanwhile the OT describes a despotic, immoral God.

The revelation is not about the scripture but about what is in their hearts and their experiences.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So ... Now you accept the virgin birth, . . .

Given Mary questioned her son's mental state, she must have forgotten the virgin birth. Or she knew she wasn't a virgin.

Originally Posted by Ohio

but have a problem with her age, yet we don't even know how old she was.

So how old was she? Was she a grown woman? And why don't we know? We don't even know when Jesus was born. Why not?

Originally Posted by Ohio

But we do know she was old enough to marry Joseph.

Back then that means she could have been 9 yrs old. And according to you, the creator of the whole universe impregnated her, so she didn't even need to have started her period. And if Joseph knocked her up he had to marry her.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Is there any part of the Bible you are OK with?

I'm alright with I Corinthians 13 ... and oh, the sermon on the mount. But those parables are confusing, requiring too much guesswork. No wonder his mother thought he lost his mind.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm alright with I Corinthians 13 ...

There's nothing in your post which could verify this.

I Cor 13 says love "believes all things."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Huh? Word games?

Just the latest from you was that the virgin birth should be removed ...

Or it it, "leave it in but consider it a myth?"

I didn't say that the virgin birth should be removed. It's part of the church's story of Jesus. I think it's a myth not in the sense of a lie or a falsehood but in the sense of a symbolic narrative.

It was a normal practice for pre-modern authors of that time to divinize admired historical figures with miraculous birth stories. Plato, Alexander and both Julius and Augustus Caesar had divine birth narratives as did Buddha, Lao Tsu and Krishna and many others.

Setting aside modern science, divine conception is problematic even in terms of orthodox Christology since if Jesus did not have a normal human conception, it isn't seen how he could be considered truly human. The resulting heresy would be a form of Docetism, i.e. Jesus is a divine being who only appears to be human. That seems to be the way most fundamentalist-leaning evangelicals look at him even in the postmodern era.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Huh? Word games?

Just the latest from you was that the virgin birth should be removed ...

Or it it, "leave it in but consider it a myth?"

I think we would all agree that in the last 2,000 years there have been more than 10 billion human births, of those only 1 was to a virgin and the Holy Spirit.

So the idea that Zeek is using human logic is laughable and idiotic. Obviously it is more logical and reasonable that there is some other explanation. But you can't change the narrative without calling numerous Bible writers as liars. Once again Zeek hems and haws on this, not a myth, lie, or falsehood, no, its symbolic (Zeek speak for putting a spin on the word lie).

He also points out that this practice was common for cult leaders, despotic leaders and false Christ's. But here is the problem with that natural viewpoint, the foundation of counterfeit dollars are always real dollars. How do you have a "false Christ" if there is no such thing as a real Christ?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think we would all agree that in the last 2,000 years there have been more than 10 billion human births, of those only 1 was to a virgin and the Holy Spirit. So the idea that Zeek is using human logic is laughable and idiotic. Obviously it is more logical and reasonable that there is some other explanation.

Bingo!

But you can't change the narrative without calling numerous Bible writers as liars. Once again Zeek hems and haws on this, not a myth, lie, or falsehood, no, its symbolic (Zeek speak for putting a spin on the word lie).

I didn't change the narrative and I acknowledged that it is myth in in the positive sense of the word which does not imply lying. The authors of Matthew and Luke wrote under the inspiration of their faith. The story may have already existed as an oral tradition. The genealogies, which don't support the virgin conception hypothesis, almost certainly did. If you want to say it's a lie go ahead, but, don't put words in my mouth. The symbolic power of the story is evident at Christmas pageants.

He also points out that this practice was common for cult leaders, despotic leaders and false Christ's. But here is the problem with that natural viewpoint, the foundation of counterfeit dollars are always real dollars. How do you have a "false Christ" if there is no such thing as a real Christ?

I said nothing about cult leaders, despots or false Christs. That's your spin. Your logic is lacking though. You can have a false Easter Bunny if there is no such thing as a real Easter Bunny. It happens every Easter.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

It was a normal practice for pre-modern authors of that time to divinize admired historical figures with miraculous birth stories. Plato, Alexander and .
. .

This is precisely why I don't believe in a literal virgin birth. Take Alexander the Great for instance.

"A story told that one night King Philip [like Joseph, said to be the biological father of Alexander] had found a huge snake in the bed next to his sleeping wife. Olympias ... The snake was said to be Zeus Ammon in disguise. After his visit to the Siwa Oasis in February 331, Alexander often referred to Zeus-Ammon as his true father."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1217210542.htm

This is obviously just a legend. A legend that was in common currency in Jesus' day.

Now by logic I read out here, Zeus is God and can do anything, and can produce a "human" child while disguised as a snake.

If I'm being expected to believe in Mary's virgin birth, then shouldn't I also except Alexander's divine birth? Both stories come from 2000 years ago, or longer. Maybe God and the gods were doing divine births back then.

You would think they aren't doing virgin births today. Think again :

Science
U.S. researchers ponder modern day virgin births

[Since 1990] Of 7,870 women, 0.5% consistently affirmed their status as virgins and did not use assisted reproductive technology, yet reported a virgin birth.

Hey, seems God, or some divine being(s) are still doing virgin births. Should we believe them? Why believe Mary and not Alexander, or the 40 women in modern times?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

You can have a false Easter Bunny if there is no such thing as a real Easter Bunny. It happens every Easter.

Really? "you can have a false Easter Bunny if there is no such thing as a real Easter bunny". I'll add that to your greatest hits collection.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So ... Now you accept the virgin birth, but have a problem with her age, yet we don't even know how old she was.

But we do know she was old enough to marry Joseph.

Is there any part of the Bible you are OK with?

"old enough" at that time was 3 years old, but more likely 12 to 14 years.

All the nativity scenes at Christmas are wrong. Joseph should look 90 years and Mary should look 12 years old.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

This is precisely why I don't believe in a literal virgin birth. Take Alexander the Great for instance.

"A story told that one night King Philip [like Joseph, said to be the biological father of Alexander] had found a huge snake in the bed next to his sleeping wife. Olympias ... The snake was said to be Zeus Ammon in disguise. After his visit to the Siwa Oasis in February 331, Alexander often referred to Zeus-Ammon as his true father."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1217210542.htm

This is obviously just a legend. A legend that was in common currency in Jesus' day.

Now by logic I read out here, Zeus is God and can do anything, and can produce a "human" child while disguised as a snake.

If I'm being expected to believe in Mary's virgin birth, then shouldn't I also except Alexander's divine birth? Both stories come from 2000 years ago, or longer. Maybe God and the gods were doing divine births back then.

You would think they aren't doing virgin births today. Think again :

Science
U.S. researchers ponder modern day virgin births

[Since 1990] Of 7,870 women, 0.5% consistently affirmed their status as virgins and did not use assisted reproductive technology, yet reported a virgin birth.

Hey, seems God, or some divine being(s) are still doing virgin births. Should we believe them? Why believe Mary and not Alexander, or the 40 women in modern times?

It does not require a miracle to have a virgin birth, I think these women got a bit careless or practiced poor hygiene.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Really? "you can have a false Easter Bunny if there is no such thing as a real Easter bunny". I'll add that to your greatest hits collection.

Just don't follow either the false or real bunny down the rabbit hole. Down there there's lots of far-out fantasy -- good and evil characters -- similar to some of the fantasies in the Bible ... like talking and walking snakes, and stars that move at walking speed.

But that was so common back then, in Bible days. For example, a pseudepigraphical gospel, that most Bible scholars date in the first half of the 2nd c., or one top respected Bible scholar places as being written before the synoptic gospels -- either way before the canon was developed -- this was another gospel, called The Gospel of Peter. In it Peter has angels as tall as the sky going into Jesus' tomb, and coming out with Jesus, who is taller than the sky, with the cross following, and telling God that it did it's job in hell.

The canonical Bible has a walking talking serpent, and the non-canonical Gospel of Peter has a walking talking cross. Same, same. As I stated, what we consider fantasy today was in common currecny back then.

The Bible was written when superstitions ruled the day. The age of science was long up the road. Most were illiterate. They couldn't help it. We can't fault them for it ... any more than we can fault the early animists when they saw spirits in everything.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Really? "you can have a false Easter Bunny if there is no such thing as a real Easter bunny". I'll add that to your greatest hits collection.

Right. The "real" Easter Bunny exists in your imagination. Every actual "Easter Bunny" that you see is a false one. Same with Santa. Hate to break it to you.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

zeek,

You misunderstand. I do not say that there is nothing unknown. But what leads to an alternate outcome cannot be consistent within the framework of the scripture.

Just like admitting that the way that creation occurred (6 days, 6,000 years, or billions of years even through something like (or actually) evolution) does not really change anything. Neither does the idea of a homo sapiens-less world until one man and woman were created v the two representing (metaphorically) what had come to be mankind. I know some will argue on both of these.

But unless the goal is the undermining of all that is definitely taught in the Bible by arguing various alternative "back stories" (things that are not known and can only by hypothesized — without any actual foundation other than thinking that it "could be"), what is the purpose of going into the various trains of thought?

For example, is it simply a novel thought to wonder whether it was considered by Jesus to be a put-down to be baptized by John? If so, then what is the purpose? It would appear that John knew he was only the forerunner for someone greater. And Jesus had to talk him into actually doing the baptism. Seems Jesus was determined that it was to be that way. Not something that he was forced into that demeaned or embarrassed him.

The book I read explained away every miracle as something that just happened, or appeared to happen, and that Jesus just sort of went along with it, but was really just some average schmuck.

As for "all the theories," on what basis did you conclude that I know all the theories? I clearly have not heard every possible alternative theory that could be stated or imagined. But I see them as being primarily in two camps: 1) those that provide alternate "back story" details than what have been traditionally presumed and otherwise do not change what is recorded, and 2) those that change the nature of what is recorded in a manner that otherwise undermines what is recorded.

I realize that, like 6 day v a few billion years of evolution, some people insist that the difference is important while others yawn at it. And some of the things that I see as being in camp #2 may be understood as no different than the time and manner of creation is to me (and really in camp #1). But when it comes to those that make the whole claim of being God into a posthumous overlay by conspirators trying to creating something out of nothing (like the book my father-in-law gave me), I cannot take them seriously. Does that mean that my dividing line between camps 1 and 2 is fixed and not open to alteration? Probably not. But since I mostly think of camp #1 as being a bunch of yawns (not worth arguing about) the only thing that could come of studying either would be to somehow find actual evidence that some major aspect of what we believe was seriously misguided and should be something else.

But it seems that what the Bible actually says that appears to be of importance (concerning the person and nature of God and what should be that of the people who would return to "bear his image") is not really impacted by the yawns. And would only be impacted by the other camp as an undoing of the fabric of the scriptural record (or being analyzed into being another yawn).

You may argue that I am oversimplifying it. And you could be true. But I cannot find value in trying to discuss the ramifications of the Son of God (and he knew it at age 12 according to the record) being baptized by a mere mortal (for example) and therefore probably will ignore most of this line of reasoning as not for me. (And you will probably be fine with that, and I am fine with the fact that you are fine . . . .)

Now could we actually come up with something that better describes what we think we know about what we already see in the scripture? Possibly. But if it is that removed from the account that even the guys studying the culture, traditions, etc., of the times haven't come across it, do we really think that the God of the universe was so obtuse as to make it htat

If the goal of postmodernism is to "if" everything until it is something else, then it is a lost system. But I do not see that other than when someone is trying to change the subject or fight against what they don't like without sounding "modernistic" in their certainty.

"If" is potentially an illusion. As for the "possibilities," anything is possible if we start with the presumption that what is recorded is not accurate in the realm in which accuracy is important. (I say this because some are so enamored by each specific word that they cannot understand the sentences and paragraphs as being coherent discussions but rather as carriers of a multitude of secret messages.)

And, as I suggested, I will bow out.

I understand. It would be a challenge to your faith to look at serious historical research on Jesus which you have mischaracterized above. Better to bow out.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Right. The "real" Easter Bunny exists in your imagination. Every actual "Easter Bunny" that you see is a false one. Same with Santa. Hate to break it to you.

There is no "real Easter bunny" living in my imagination. I think you have me confused with James Stewart. Likewise with Santa, there is no Santa living in my imagination. Just more Zeek speak.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Bingo!

You think your approach is logical and reasonable yet it isn't scientific. If you have a hypothesis based on logic and reasonableness, that is fine. Your hypothesis is that Jesus is not born of a virgin. Fine. But then the scientific approach would be to look at everything that could prove He is to see if it disproves your theory. That would be scientific, you have a hypothesis, now is there any evidence that would disprove my theory.

I on the other hand have a hypothesis that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

1. This is a one in 10 billion possibility. Yes, that is a given, but that doesn't disprove the hypothesis.

2. Jesus touched a funeral bier, that is forbidden in the OT and would cause someone with a nazarite vow to immediately lose their vow. Since Jesus priesthood was not based on the lineage of Aaron it is safe to say this would disqualify Him. However, the boy rose from the dead. So no dice. On the other hand that does support the assertion that He was the Christ the Son of God.

3. The same is true of touching lepers, but once again since they were healed that also works to support my hypothesis, not disprove it.

4. The story of the wise men from the East coming to Jerusalem and talking to the High priest is very interesting, and is either a really strange coincidence or else supports my hypothesis.

5. The killing of 2,000 children as the fulfillment of a prophesy is once again something that supports my hypothesis. Some prophecies are very clear (Son of David, born in Bethlehem) but this one was not at all clear, not something Jesus or later disciples could have manufactured, hence to a forensic investigator it would be extremely interesting.

6. Of course there are a number of prophecies that were fulfilled (His mother descended from the one line of David, her husband descended from the other), fleeing to Egypt, returning to Nazareth, the testimony of John the Baptist, etc., etc. These prophecies definitely support the hypothesis, and since it is no longer possible to trace lineage to David it is very interesting because if any of the prophecies are to be believed then the Christ has already come. You can discredit these as "myths" as you are wont to do, but every single prophecy that you have to chalk up as a myth weakens your credibility.

7. Human history pivots on Christ's death, referring to the time before Christ and the time after Christ. That is an amazing testimony that billions of people of all different cultures and faiths see this one man as so influential and pivotal.

8. Then of course there is the value of the witnesses. Every single witness that testified that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God should be weighed for their credibility. These ones should be compared to those like yourself. In a court of law your testimony would be rejected as hearsay whereas the gospel writers would be viewed as first hand or second hand witnesses, all of whom met and talked with Jesus mother Mary and His brother James.

9. Another way to look at this is to look at the fruit. When you compare Jesus to false Christ's and Cult leaders you can compare the fruit. Compare Peter, John, Matthew, Paul, Luke, Mark, Jude, etc.

All you have done is provide an explanation for your hypothesis. You have not examined the evidence that could have proved your hypothesis wrong. Bias shows through and through in your analysis. You have simply swept all evidence that is inconvenient to you under the rug.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There is no "real Easter bunny" living in my imagination. I think you have me confused with James Stewart. Likewise with Santa, there is no Santa living in my imagination. Just more Zeek speak.

If images of the Easter Bunny and Santa were not present in your imagination the words Easter Bunny and Santa would be meaningless to you. Those images and the thoughts associated with them define Easter Bunny and Santa for you. In that sense they are the real Easter Bunny and Santa to you. If you were to meet Jesus of Nazareth on the street and he didn't match up to your image of Christ you would likely reject him as another false Christ. Rare is the person who would change the ideal image in their mind to match a guy standing in front of him/her.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

If images of the Easter Bunny and Santa were not present in your imagination the words Easter Bunny and Santa would be meaningless to you. Those images and the thoughts associated with them define Easter Bunny and Santa for you. In that sense they are the real Easter Bunny and Santa to you. If you were to meet Jesus of Nazareth on the street and he didn't match up to your image of Christ you would likely reject him as another false Christ. Rare is the person who would change the ideal image in their mind to match a guy standing in front of him/her.

Let me get this straight, the Bible says there is a Christ, hence that is defined for me in my mind, i.e. "the real Christ". Then every single fake Christ can be a false Christ because they don't measure up to the definition, in my mind, that I got from the Bible.

The problem with that is that Jesus does measure up to the full definition of that Christ.

Now, so far your only explanation for this is that all of those prophecies, say 400 of them, are "myths". But how do you explain 400 myths being fulfilled by a real person?

If you use your previous analysis that since 10 billion people have been born not of a virgin the chances of one being born to a virgin is less than 1 in 10 billion.

Then by that reasoning the odds of 400 prophecies concerning Christ being fulfilled is something along the lines of 1 in 100 raised to the 400th power. I plugged this into my calculator and the answer came back "infinity". [Even if you were extremely generous and said that any one of those prophecies had a 1 in 20 chance of being fulfilled, you raise 20 to the 100th power and you get 1 followed by 130 zeros. That is as far as you can go, after that it is no longer "a number".] You have one chance in infinity that a man could be the fulfillment of 400 OT prophecies concerning Him. Any reasonable, logical person looking at the numbers would realize that these prophecies alone have proved beyond any reasonable doubt a thousand fold.

Bingo! If you want to be logical and reasonable you would realize the odds are very much in favor of my theory, rather than your hypothesis. Your reasoning merely explains why you have chosen your hypothesis, it isn't evidence. However, fulfilled prophecies are admissible evidence. 400 pieces of evidence, well that is no longer a hypothesis, that is a theory.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You think your approach is logical and reasonable yet it isn't scientific. If you have a hypothesis based on logic and reasonableness, that is fine. Your hypothesis is that Jesus is not born of a virgin. Fine. But then the scientific approach would be to look at everything that could prove He is to see if it disproves your theory. That would be scientific, you have a hypothesis, now is there any evidence that would disprove my theory.

I on the other hand have a hypothesis that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

1. This is a one in 10 billion possibility. Yes, that is a given, but that doesn't disprove the hypothesis.

No, but the odds of 1 in 10 billion are astronomically improbable. The probability that he was illegitimate is vastly greater as it has happened throughout recorded history and continues to occur.

2. Jesus touched a funeral bier, that is forbidden in the OT and would cause someone with a nazarite vow to immediately lose their vow. Since Jesus priesthood was not based on the lineage of Aaron it is safe to say this would disqualify Him. However, the boy rose from the dead. So no dice. On the other hand that does support the assertion that He was the Christ the Son of God.

It's a story. Witnessed by whom? Probably passed along by oral tradition before it was written down.

3. The same is true of touching lepers, but once again since they were healed that also works to support my hypothesis, not disprove it.

Were they? Do you have independent witnesses or did the writers of Matthew and Luke copy Mark? Side by side comparison supports the latter conclusion.

4. The story of the wise men from the East coming to Jerusalem and talking to the High priest is very interesting, and is either a really strange coincidence or else supports my hypothesis.

No corroboration of that story anywhere. Could be entirely symbolic.

5. The killing of 2,000 children as the fulfillment of a prophesy is once again something that supports my hypothesis. Some prophecies are very clear (Son of David, born in Bethlehem) but this one was not at all clear, not something Jesus or later disciples could have manufactured, hence to a forensic investigator it would be extremely interesting.

The author doesn't name the source of the story. There is no corroboration of that story in the other Gospels or by other contemporary writers including Josephus who reported many of Herod's misdeeds.

Of course there are a number of prophecies that were fulfilled (His mother descended from the one line of David, her husband descended from the other),

Neither genealogy claims to be that of Mary and the line of succession was passed through the father not the mother.

fleeing to Egypt, returning to Nazareth,

There's no mention of flight to Egypt in Luke and in Luke Jesus' family originally lived in Bethlehem not Nazareth before the flight to Egypt so it was a migration not a return. Thus do the birth stories conflict.

the testimony of John the Baptist, etc., etc.

Source?

These prophecies definitely support the hypothesis, and since it is no longer possible to trace lineage to David it is very interesting because if any of the prophecies are to be believed then the Christ has already come. You can discredit these as "myths" as you are wont to do, but every single prophecy that you have to chalk up as a myth weakens your credibility.

The so-called prophecies are taken out of their contexts in the Jewish Bible and made to imply events other than their original intent.

Human history pivots on Christ's death, referring to the time before Christ and the time after Christ. That is an amazing testimony that billions of people of all different cultures and faiths see this one man as so influential and pivotal.

No one is denying the cultural influence of Christianity on western society. Buddha had similar impact on the East.

Then of course there is the value of the witnesses. Every single witness that testified that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God should be weighed for their credibility. These ones should be compared to those like yourself. In a court of law your testimony would be rejected as hearsay whereas the gospel writers would be viewed as first hand or second hand witnesses, all of whom met and talked with Jesus mother Mary and His brother James.

From what I read you are mistaken on this point. All four of the gospels were authored anonymously and received their titles later according to tradition.

Another way to look at this is to look at the fruit. When you compare Jesus to false Christ's and Cult leaders you can compare the fruit. Compare Peter, John, Matthew, Paul, Luke, Mark, Jude, etc.

Christianity has produced good and bad fruit like most if not all historic institutions.

All you have done is provide an explanation for your hypothesis. You have not examined the evidence that could have proved your hypothesis wrong. Bias shows through and through in your analysis. You have simply swept all evidence that is inconvenient to you under the rug.

I have presented a falsifiable hypothesis which I find supported by a number of historians. The evidence to the contrary you have cited so far amounts to zip.

Additional evidence to support the illegitimate birth hypothesis of Jesus comes from the women in Matthews's genealogy:

There is one other interesting and frequently-noted feature of Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus (actually, not of Jesus, but of Joseph). That is the fact that it makes explicit reference to women among Jesus’ ancestors. That is highly unusual. Women scarcely ever appear in most ancient Israelite and Jewish genealogies;, which invariably trace a person’s lineage from
father to son (or vice versa) all the way back through the family line; see, as I pointed out earlier 1 Chronicles 1-9. Where are the women? For ancient genealogists, as a rule, they were not important enough to mention.
But Matthew not only ends his genealogy by mentioning Mary, Jesus’ mother, but he also includes reference to four other women: Tamar (v. 3), Rahab (v. 5), Ruth (v. 5), and the “wife of Uriah” that is, Bathsheba (v. 6). Stories about all four of these women are found in the Jewish Scriptures (Tamar: Genesis 38; Rahab: Joshua2, 6; Ruth; Ruth 1-4; and Bathsheba: 2 Samuel 11-12).

But why does Matthew mention them here? Among the numerous theories proposed over the years, two are particularly intriguing:
1. All four of the women appear to have been gentiles, that is, non-Israelites (Tamar and Rahab were both Canaanites; Ruth was Moabite; and Bathsheba was married to Uriah, a Hittite). Could it be that Matthew mentions them to show that God’s plan of salvation had always encompassed not only Jews but also gentiles (cf., for example, his story of the wise men, which also makes that point)? This is an attractive theory, but it has one particular shortcoming: it does not explain how these four women are connected with the final one mentioned, Mary, who was not a gentile. And so, perhaps a second explanation is to be preferred (or possibly both explanations are part of the fuller reason for including these names).
2. All four women were involved with sexual activities that were viewed as scandalous by outsiders but that furthered the purposes of God. Tamar, for example, tricked her father-inlaw into having sex with her by disguising herself as a prostitute; Rahab was a prostitute who lived in Jericho (and in the tradition later became the mother-in-law of Ruth); Ruth
seduced her kinsman Boaz (that’s what it means in Ruth 3 when it says that at night, she came up to him, while he was asleep, and “uncovered his feet.” “Feet” is a euphemism in the Hebrew Bible for “genitals”), who then proposed marriage to her (they became the grandparents of King David); and Bathsheba committed adultery with David (or was raped
by him, as some interpreters have suggested) and ended up marrying him (and fathering his child Solomon) after he arranged to have her husband killed. Why would allusions to such stories strike Matthew as appropriate for his genealogy of Jesus? Could it have to do with Mary, the last woman mentioned, the mother of Jesus, herself? Recall: she too was thought
to have engaged in illicit sexual activity when she became pregnant out of wedlock. Even Joseph was suspicious, in Matthew’s version, and decided to dissolve their relationship in secret. Matthew, however, saw the matter differently: once again God used a potential sex scandal to further his plans, having Jesus miraculously born from a woman who was still a virgin. https://ehrmanblog.org/the-women-in-...y-for-members/

According to my hypothesis Jesus was son of the God who is a "father to the fatherless" [ Psalms 68:5 ]

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Let me get this straight, the Bible says there is a Christ, hence that is defined for me in my mind, i.e. "the real Christ". Then every single fake Christ can be a false Christ because they don't measure up to the definition, in my mind, that I got from the Bible. The problem with that is that Jesus does measure up to the full definition of that Christ.

Praise the Lord! I don't have a problem with that . There are, however historical, epistemological, and, praise God!, ontological problems with it, that, hallelujah!, it would be irresponsible to ignore.

Now, so far your only explanation for this is that all of those prophecies, say 400 of them, are "myths". But how do you explain 400 myths being fulfilled by a real person?

Wow 400! That's a lot of them. I haven't been impressed with the one's I've been examining lately [including yours in previous posts]. But I haven't looked at all 400 of them. Lay them on me, brother. It'll be an education for me to go through them, perhaps only equaled by the education I got sitting at the virtual feet of Witness Lee at his trainings and all those "Life-Study" videos I sat through.

If you use your previous analysis that since 10 billion people have been born not of a virgin the chances of one being born to a virgin is less than 1 in 10 billion. Then by that reasoning the odds of 400 prophecies concerning Christ being fulfilled is something along the lines of 1 in 100 raised to the 400th power. I plugged this into my calculator and the answer came back "infinity".

Wow, you're blowing my mind bro.

[Even if you were extremely generous and said that any one of those prophecies had a 1 in 20 chance of being fulfilled, you raise 20 to the 100th power and you get 1 followed by 130 zeros. That is as far as you can go, after that it is no longer "a number".] You have one chance in infinity that a man could be the fulfillment of 400 OT prophecies concerning Him. Any reasonable, logical person looking at the numbers would realize that these prophecies alone have proved beyond any reasonable doubt a thousand fold.

That's a ginormous claim. You're going to have to break it down into actual coherent individual arguments from the evidence for me to deal with it as you would say "scientifically" or logically.

Bingo! If you want to be logical and reasonable you would realize the odds are very much in favor of my theory, rather than your hypothesis. Your reasoning merely explains why you have chosen your hypothesis, it isn't evidence. However, fulfilled prophecies are admissible evidence. 400 pieces of evidence, well that is no longer a hypothesis, that is a theory.

Well simply claiming that there are 400 arguments isn't actually stating them. Stating them is what you need to do in order to demonstrate that you're not just bull****ting.

[awareness]

I'm with OBW ....

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Z

You think your approach is logical and reasonable yet it isn't scientific. If you have a hypothesis based on logic and reasonableness, that is fine. Your hypothesis is that Jesus is not born of a virgin. Fine. But then the scientific approach would be to look at everything that could prove He is to see if it disproves your theory. That would be scientific, you have a hypothesis, now is there any evidence that would disprove my theory.

Let's say that there were thousands of witnesses to the virgin birth, going around in the form of stories, during the oral tradition, before any gospel had been written. That would be very strong evidence for the virgin birth.

The problem is, of the possible many voices and stories of the VB, we only have two witnesses. The lack, or shortage of witnesses -- and Matthew and Luke, whoever the authors are, are not eyewitnesses -- mean evidence for the VB is weak.

Moreover, of the 27 NT books we have from the 1st c., only two speak of the VB. Again, the shortage of writings about the VB, given the chance of others writing about it -- especially Paul, our earliest writer of those days, the closet to the VB -- means evidence for the VB is weak.

And then, there's evidence that the early copies of Luke didn't have chapters 1 & 2. If so, we only have one witness of the VB, and he wasn't an eyewitness, of course.

No one was an eyewitness to the angel impregnating Mary, except Mary. And even she didn't understand it, wasn't a believer in it, and didn't write about it, that we know of (We do have a gospel called The Gospel of Mary. Which Mary? And it also doesn't mention the VB).

Conclusion : Of the many voices we could have had for the VB, and possible writers, we only have two, and one is in question. Therefore evidence for the VB is double weak.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Let's say that there were thousands of witnesses to the virgin birth, going around in the form of stories, during the oral tradition, before any gospel had been written. That would be very strong evidence for the virgin birth.

The problem is, of the possible many voices and stories of the VB, we only have two witnesses. The lack, or shortage of witnesses -- and Matthew and Luke, whoever the authors are, are not eyewitnesses -- mean evidence for the VB is weak.

Moreover, of the 27 NT books we have from the 1st c., only two speak of the VB. Again, the shortage of writings about the VB, given the chance of others writing about it -- especially Paul, our earliest writer of those days, the closet to the VB -- means evidence for the VB is weak.

And then, there's evidence that the early copies of Luke didn't have chapters 1 & 2. If so, we only have one witness of the VB, and he wasn't an eyewitness, of course.

No one was an eyewitness to the angel impregnating Mary, except Mary. And even she didn't understand it, wasn't a believer in it, and didn't write about it, that we know of (We do have a gospel called The Gospel of Mary. Which Mary? And it also doesn't mention the VB).

Conclusion : Of the many voices we could have had for the VB, and possible writers, we only have two, and one is in question. Therefore evidence for the VB is double weak.

Millions and millions of Christians over 2,000 years have accepted and believed that Jesus, the eternal Only-begotten Son of God, was born of the virgin Mary, as recorded by two evangelists, Matthew and Luke.

And now awareness and zeek are on a mission in these final days to inform our little corner of mankind that all the believers were wrong, fooled, and deceived. Imagine that, only zeek and awareness are now aware of the real story of history.

So we must decide who to believe. Should we believe two millennia of Christians or awareness, whose tagline reads, "My God is real. But everyone else's God is silly made up nonsense."

Choose you this day who you will believe!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Millions and millions of Christians over 2,000 years have accepted and believed that Jesus, the eternal Only-begotten Son of God, was born of the virgin Mary, as recorded by two evangelists, Matthew and Luke.

And now awareness and zeek are on a mission in these final days to inform our little corner of mankind that all the believers were wrong, fooled, and deceived. Imagine that, only zeek and awareness are now aware of the real story of history.

So we must decide who to believe. Should we believe two millennia of Christians or awareness, whose tagline reads, "My God is real. But everyone else's God is silly made up nonsense."

Choose you this day who you will believe!

rotflmao ....

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

rotflmao ....

Yer a funny guy.

Don't you ever get tired of reading and writing that nonsense?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yer a funny guy.

Don't you ever get tired of reading and writing that nonsense?

Nah. Since the invention of writing when has man gotten tired of reading and writing nonsense?

Like The Gospel of Mary, the Apocryphon of John (The Secret book of John), and even writings in the Bible.

It's a hard job, but somebody has got to do it.

No thanks necessary.

[awareness]

Let's see if we can't tie this into this thread.

I could be a model for what it is to be a postmodern Christian. I still have "my idea of Jesus," but I question everything ... and have some obsession with it. From the outside it looks silly. Why? I ask myself. Most could care less.

But I'm not most. And most is not most either. We're postmodernist Christians. We disagree but still love each other.

And that fits "my idea of Jesus."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Millions and millions of Christians over 2,000 years have accepted and believed that Jesus, the eternal Only-begotten Son of God, was born of the virgin Mary, as recorded by two evangelists, Matthew and Luke.

This is a fallacious argument. It's been called a "bandwagon argument". It's like saying millions and millions have smoked for centuries so it must not be bad for you.

And now awareness and zeek are on a mission in these final days to inform our little corner of mankind that all the believers were wrong, fooled, and deceived. Imagine that, only zeek and awareness are now aware of the real story of history.

It's not just Awareness and I. I have cited several papers by historians that espouse the illegitimate birth hypothesis and there are many more that anyone who is curious can find.

So we must decide who to believe. Should we believe two millennia of Christians or awareness, whose tagline reads, "My God is real. But everyone else's God is silly made up nonsense." Choose you this day who you will believe!

No need for hysteria. And, no need to decide. Neither Jesus nor Paul nor Mark nor John nor Peter nor James nor Jude included virgin conception in their gospel messages. So an up or down vote on it is unnecessary from an existential point of view.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Millions and millions of Christians over 2,000 years have accepted and believed that Jesus, the eternal Only-begotten Son of God, was born of the virgin Mary, as recorded by two evangelists, Matthew and Luke.

Funny how the RCC is fine to prove the validity of believing Christian things, like the virgin birth. And they also believed Mary is the mother of God (I guess the VB and Theotokos go together). They also believed in your favorite relic, the Holy Foreskin of Jesus ... and other relics.

Millions also believed in purgatory and limbo.

Do those millions make all that so too?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Let's see if we can't tie this into this thread.

I could be a model for what it is to be a postmodern Christian. I still have "my idea of Jesus," but I question everything ... and have some obsession with it. From the outside it looks silly. Why? I ask myself. Most could care less.

But I'm not most. And most is not most either. We're postmodernist Christians. We disagree but still love each other.

And that fits "my idea of Jesus."

Unfortunately you have completely missed the point of the question.

The question I ask concerning Jesus -- who is He? Is based on the fact that in all of human history He stands out as unique and pivotal. Why? We have had great scientists, great leaders, great artists, great philosophers and none of them can stand up to this man.

The closest you can come in human history is Moses, and yet he comes in a distant 2nd to Jesus.

Why is it today that billions of people are concerned about Jesus, not just the Christians, the unbelievers too. The entire Harry Potter series is based on Biblical stories like victory over Satan through the cross of Christ. Even the Muslims and Jews cannot escape Jesus as a pivotal and significant figure.

So in your mind, your explanation for why He is so unique is that "He is just like everyone else". How is that an explanation?

Zeek argues that his hypothesis is based on the fact that God is the father of the fatherless. Well God also puts the solitary into families. There is no one in human history more solitary and unique than Jesus, why is that? Because He is just like everyone else?

That is just a pathetic non answer answer.

For someone who supposedly questions everything you seem to have blinders on to the real questions.

I watch the news about this rally in NC, you have people protesting the removal of a statue for Robert E Lee, perhaps the greatest American general in our history (and yet what a very poor comparison this "great" general would make to Jesus), and you have anti protesters protesting the rally. The news and politicians (except Trump) are in lockstep condemning the white supremacists terrorism. No one, other than the protesters are saying anything about their freedom of speech being denied (from what I understand the rally was shut down? Very hard to figure out from the news even though it is continuous). So there is this great danger of "group think" controlling the world so that the only option the minorities (by all accounts these protesters represent a very tiny fraction of a percent of Americans) have is violence. We saw this with the rise of ISIS, we saw this with the Civil War, we saw this with the US revolutionary war, this is the spirit of the world. If you insult Mohammed you die. That is the spirit of Islam. If you blaspheme you die. That is the spirit of Judaism in demanding Jesus crucifixion.

But that is not the spirit of Jesus. Why is Jesus so different and so unique from all of human history?

Perhaps the closest we have to Jesus in the modern world is Ghandi, and yet on many different levels he is a very poor comparison. Jesus teaching is farm more impactful, and Jesus disciples have transformed this world. Ghandi is clearly a disciple holding on to one verse (promise) from Jesus.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Unfortunately you have completely missed the point of the question.

The question I ask concerning Jesus -- who is He? Is based on the fact that in all of human history He stands out as unique and pivotal. Why? We have had great scientists, great leaders, great artists, great philosophers and none of them can stand up to this man.

The closest you can come in human history is Moses, and yet he comes in a distant 2nd to Jesus.

Why is it today that billions of people are concerned about Jesus, not just the Christians, the unbelievers too. The entire Harry Potter series is based on Biblical stories like victory over Satan through the cross of Christ. Even the Muslims and Jews cannot escape Jesus as a pivotal and significant figure.

So in your mind, your explanation for why He is so unique is that "He is just like everyone else". How is that an explanation?

Zeek argues that his hypothesis is based on the fact that God is the father of the fatherless. Well God also puts the solitary into families. There is no one in human history more solitary and unique than Jesus, why is that? Because He is just like everyone else?

That is just a pathetic non answer answer.

For someone who supposedly questions everything you seem to have blinders on to the real questions.

I watch the news about this rally in NC, you have people protesting the removal of a statue for Robert E Lee, perhaps the greatest American general in our history (and yet what a very poor comparison this "great" general would make to Jesus), and you have anti protesters protesting the rally. The news and politicians (except Trump) are in lockstep condemning the white supremacists terrorism. No one, other than the protesters are saying anything about their freedom of speech being denied (from what I understand the rally was shut down? Very hard to figure out from the news even though it is continuous). So there is this great danger of "group think" controlling the world so that the only option the minorities (by all accounts these protesters represent a very tiny fraction of a percent of Americans) have is violence. We saw this with the rise of ISIS, we saw this with the Civil War, we saw this with the US revolutionary war, this is the spirit of the world. If you insult Mohammed you die. That is the spirit of Islam. If you blaspheme you die. That is the spirit of Judaism in demanding Jesus crucifixion.

But that is not the spirit of Jesus. Why is Jesus so different and so unique from all of human history?

Perhaps the closest we have to Jesus in the modern world is Ghandi, and yet on many different levels he is a very poor comparison. Jesus teaching is farm more impactful, and Jesus disciples have transformed this world. Ghandi is clearly a disciple holding on to one verse (promise) from Jesus.

Oh I see you have a "my idea of Jesus" too. Cool bro. How postmodern of you.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

I understand. It would be a challenge to your faith to look at serious historical research on Jesus which you have mischaracterized above. Better to bow out.

While I am still bowing out, I find it troubling that you can refer to the following as a "serious historical research."

The canonical gospels downplay the probable fact that before John's death, Jesus was his disciple. The fact that John baptized Jesus was a source of embarrassment because it implies that Jesus recognized John's spiritual superiority at that stage of his life, and that Jesus needed to repent. Nevertheless, in John Jesus seems to have found the strong male father figure that he needed to overcome the absence of a father when he was growing up.

What made this analysis serious? Was it ignored for 2,000 years? Or was it actually around in the early days? Is it more than a conjecture based on an assumption that the leader would baptize the follower? Is there something that makes this so? My understanding is that other than John's appearance here, the Jewish idea of baptism included simply walking into the water on your own. Was John's baptism different or the same. If the same, was the person performing the baptism presumed to have authority over, or merely the assigned task of performing the baptism (or something in between)?

You've spoken as if the statements are historical or cultural facts. Is that so, or merely suggested by some writer? The book I read would have said it as if it was an established fact, but if you read the "credits" it is clear that they have nothing substantial supporting any of their statements. It is best described as a work of fiction presented as counter-point to what they think of as another work of fiction (the Bible).

If it is true that both are fiction, then it would be entertaining. But whether or not the Bible is fiction, if theirs is admittedly fiction, then it is of no value in determining the veracity of the Bible. Just a work of fiction cloaked in the trappings of a scholarly work.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

While I am still bowing out, I find it troubling that you can refer to the following as a "serious historical research."

Don't bow out, you are adding a lot to the discussion.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

While I am still bowing out, I find it troubling that you can refer to the following as a "serious historical research."

What made this analysis serious? Was it ignored for 2,000 years? Or was it actually around in the early days? Is it more than a conjecture based on an assumption that the leader would baptize the follower? Is there something that makes this so? My understanding is that other than John's appearance here, the Jewish idea of baptism included simply walking into the water on your own. Was John's baptism different or the same. If the same, was the person performing the baptism presumed to have authority over, or merely the assigned task of performing the baptism (or something in between)?

You've spoken as if the statements are historical or cultural facts. Is that so, or merely suggested by some writer? The book I read would have said it as if it was an established fact, but if you read the "credits" it is clear that they have nothing substantial supporting any of their statements. It is best described as a work of fiction presented as counter-point to what they think of as another work of fiction (the Bible).

If it is true that both are fiction, then it would be entertaining. But whether or not the Bible is fiction, if theirs is admittedly fiction, then it is of no value in determining the veracity of the Bible. Just a work of fiction cloaked in the trappings of a scholarly work.

I don't know what book you read so it would be presumptuous for me to take a position on it.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I watch the news about this rally in NC, you have people protesting the removal of a statue for Robert E Lee, perhaps the greatest American general in our history (and yet what a very poor comparison this "great" general would make to Jesus), and you have anti protesters protesting the rally.

Congratulations man! A guy who like you thinks that Confederate General Lee was a great American struck a blow for the cause by killing a young woman and injuring 19 others.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Congratulations man! A guy who like you thinks that Confederate General Lee was a great American struck a blow for the cause by killing a young woman and injuring 19 others.

I did not say "Great American" I said "great American general". There are perhaps 5 or 6 to choose from -- Washington, USS Grant, Patton, Macarthur, Eisenhower, and Robert E Lee.

Compared to Washington that is the toughest comparison because both were on the side that was at a decided disadvantage. Washington was brilliant at holding everything together as was Robert E Lee. However, Lee did much better on his battles and showed greater strategic brilliance. If you include his presidency then I think Washington wins hands down, but I said "greatest American general" so that was not part of the consideration.

USS Grant is, in my opinion, greatly underrated. That said I don't think anyone would rank him higher than Robert E. Lee.

So that leaves MacArthur who captured more territory with less loss of life than any general in history, he had magnificent victories like the the landing at Inchon. If you rank MacArthur higher than Robert E Lee I could see that. However, there were a number of negatives on Mac that we don't need to hash out here.

I consider Eisenhower a great general who showed the administrative side of the post, something that both Mac and Patton were severely lacking on. However Washington and Robert E Lee had to have this skill set as well.

Patton is a darling among some but there is no way I rank him higher than Robert E Lee.

Winfield Scott has some things going for him, but hey his big war was the war of 1812, hardly the crucible that the Civil war or Revolutionary war were.

I suppose you could give Pershing an honorable mention for his WWI performance. Perhaps you could bump him past Patton, but that is it for me.

14 Thou shalt not remove thy neighbor’s landmark, which they of old time have set, in thine inheritance which thou shalt inherit, in the land that Jehovah thy God giveth thee to possess it.

I have no problem with those who do not want to remove the statue of Robert E Lee. What was his crime, he was a slaveholder? So was Washington, Jefferson, etc. Shall we remove the Washington Monument, etc?

I find it insulting that you are comparing a deranged man who ran his car into a group of people as "a guy who is like me". I did not think you could stoop so low, but I guess I should add this to your greatest hits. Maybe it can be a double album.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I did not say "Great American" I said "great American general". There are perhaps 5 or 6 to choose from -- Washington, USS Grant, Patton, Macarthur, Eisenhower, and Robert E Lee.

Compared to Washington that is the toughest comparison because both were on the side that was at a decided disadvantage. Washington was brilliant at holding everything together as was Robert E Lee. However, Lee did much better on his battles and showed greater strategic brilliance. If you include his presidency then I think Washington wins hands down, but I said "greatest American general" so that was not part of the consideration.

USS Grant is, in my opinion, greatly underrated. That said I don't think anyone would rank him higher than Robert E. Lee.

So that leaves MacArthur who captured more territory with less loss of life than any general in history, he had magnificent victories like the the landing at Inchon. If you rank MacArthur higher than Robert E Lee I could see that. However, there were a number of negatives on Mac that we don't need to hash out here.

I consider Eisenhower a great general who showed the administrative side of the post, something that both Mac and Patton were severely lacking on. However Washington and Robert E Lee had to have this skill set as well.

Patton is a darling among some but there is no way I rank him higher than Robert E Lee.

Winfield Scott has some things going for him, but hey his big war was the war of 1812, hardly the crucible that the Civil war or Revolutionary war were.

I suppose you could give Pershing an honorable mention for his WWI performance. Perhaps you could bump him past Patton, but that is it for me.

14 Thou shalt not remove thy neighbor’s landmark, which they of old time have set, in thine inheritance which thou shalt inherit, in the land that Jehovah thy God giveth thee to possess it.

I have no problem with those who do not want to remove the statue of Robert E Lee. What was his crime, he was a slaveholder? So was Washington, Jefferson, etc. Shall we remove the Washington Monument, etc?

I find it insulting that you are comparing a deranged man who ran his car into a group of people as "a guy who is like me". I did not think you could stoop so low, but I guess I should add this to your greatest hits. Maybe it can be a double album.

Lee distinguished himself as a Confederate general fighting against the United States. He was a great American traitor.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Lee distinguished himself as a Confederate general fighting against the United States. He was a great American traitor.

With an attitude like that you would make all those who fought for the confederate side "traitors". How then do you view this as the "United" States?

Instead of winners and losers why not just view this as the very difficult process of joining two groups together?

People had a very difficult choice to make. The place they lived in was going to war, do you pack up and head north? Might get lynched as a "traitor". What about your family, what if they won't move? It seems very judgmental on your part.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

With an attitude like that you would make all those who fought for the confederate side "traitors". How then do you view this as the "United" States?

Instead of winners and losers why not just view this as the very difficult process of joining two groups together?

People had a very difficult choice to make. The place they lived in was going to war, do you pack up and head north? Might get lynched as a "traitor". What about your family, what if they won't move? It seems very judgmental on your part.

Yeah. It's my judgment based on the facts. The confederates were traitors. It's just opinion. That's all I take your comments to be---your opinions. Like your defense of slavery on this forum. Just another one of your opinion with which I disagree strongly.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

With an attitude like that you would make all those who fought for the confederate side "traitors". How then do you view this as the "United" States?

Instead of winners and losers why not just view this as the very difficult process of joining two groups together?

People had a very difficult choice to make. The place they lived in was going to war, do you pack up and head north? Might get lynched as a "traitor". What about your family, what if they won't move? It seems very judgmental on your part.

Yet, many progressives join themselves to other liberal causes and protesters, who today revere murderers like Fidel Castro and Che Guevara.

History tells us the South initially was fighting a war over states' rights. Lincoln used the issue of slavery to "sell" the war. D'Souza's recent documentary "Hillary's America" brought out the facts that it was the Democrats both in the North and in the South that worked to perpetuate slavery. It was Lincoln's newly formed Republican Party which worked to end slavery.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Z

I did not say "Great American" I said "great American general".

Then you should say he was a great Confederate general. Else you risk saying Lee was a great American.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Then you should say he was a great Confederate general. Else you risk saying Lee was a great American.

How can a "great American general" not be a great American? ZNP knows.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I did not say "Great American" I said "great American general".

I see the PC Nazis busted you big time for this comment.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I see the PC Nazis busted you big time for this comment.

Haha .... .... haha .... ....Haha ....
Good zinger bro.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

How can a "great American general" not be a great American? ZNP knows.

A great American General is a great general who is an American. Under that criteria Robert E Lee clearly qualifies.

A great American is someone who has made a major contribution to America. George Washington, Thomas Edison, Martin Luther King Jr, Jerry Rice, these could all be considered great Americans. But in this case the fact that Robert E Lee was fighting for the confederacy is a major negative. Matt 18 answers the question "who is the greatest in the kingdom", in this chapter the Lord says "7 Woe unto the world because of occasions of stumbling! for it must needs be that the occasions come; but woe to that man through whom the occasion cometh!". It was necessary for the development of America that we had a civil war, but woe to that man by whom the civil war came.

For example: Bernie Madoff is a great American con man. That does not make him a great American.

This is my judgement. But for those that feel Robert E Lee is part of their heritage, a landmark of their past, I think they have the right to not want the statue removed.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

A great American General is a great general who is an American. Under that criteria Robert E Lee clearly qualifies.

A great American is someone who has made a major contribution to America. George Washington, Thomas Edison, Martin Luther King Jr, Jerry Rice, these could all be considered great Americans. But in this case the fact that Robert E Lee was fighting for the confederacy is a major negative. Matt 18 answers the question "who is the greatest in the kingdom", in this chapter the Lord says "7 Woe unto the world because of occasions of stumbling! for it must needs be that the occasions come; but woe to that man through whom the occasion cometh!". It was necessary for the development of America that we had a civil war, but woe to that man by whom the civil war came.

For example: Bernie Madoff is a great American con man. That does not make him a great American.

This is my judgement. But for those that feel Robert E Lee is part of their heritage, a landmark of their past, I think they have the right to not want the statue removed.

Thank you for clarifying your position, ZNP. It's like the Time Magazine man of the year. Moral judgement denied. On your last point, I agree. But, no less are those that feel that a monument {not just a statue} to Robert E. Lee is an offence to their civil rights, prohibited from expressing their opinion on the issue. Therein lies the conflict that was played out on the streets of Charlottesville.

Now, President Trump in yesterday's press conference has clarified where he stands. When he condemned white supremacy he was merely bowing to political correctness. He really believes that the white supremacists, Neo-Nazis and KKK included, have a valid point. He is more concerned about limiting the efforts of what he has now labelled the "alt left" in their mission of devaluing the racial bigotry of America's past. "You know, you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?" This is the most encouragement that the white supremacists have received from an American president in my 67 years. I expect them to try to seize this moment of political opportunity with more violent demonstrations. Don't you?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

"You know, you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?" This is the most encouragement that the white supremacists have received from an American president in my 67 years. I expect them to try to seize this moment of political opportunity with more violent demonstrations. Don't you?

I can't answer this question until I understand where this all began. I did a quick google search, the estimate of KKK members in the US today is 0.003% of the US population. This is a completely insignificant group politically. So then why did they get front page news for a week? If you watch the news it is very clear that although the vast majority of people are condemning this group, there are a percentage of people who are blaming the antifa group in part. Even if only 3% of the US population sympathizes with this group being "unfairly treated" that is a huge, huge increase to their group.

In my opinion the best strategy is to ignore them. Allow them to march if they have a permit. If they violate laws, prosecute them. But no press, no anti rallies, treat them as being completely insignificant.

But is that what is happening? No, the rallies double in size because of these anti protesters. Because their fights, bats, and mentally unstable people with a car it gets major news play all the way up to the President of the US. To make things worse their permit was cancelled, and numerous companies have pulled their websites. This strategy is turning them into martyrs, whose right to "free speech" is being denied. This is going to be every bit as effective for their recruiting effort as we saw with ISIS.

This strategy will force them to commit acts of terrorism to "get their message across". I see the purpose of the right to free speech as making this path unnecessary.

IMO two weeks ago I did not view KKK and white supremacists as a major issue in the US. Now, about a week later the question is "where is this going to go?" as though this is now as big a concern as ISIS and N. Korea. I blame the press for turning this insignificant group into a major concern and worry. The press no longer acts responsibly, their only concern is how many viewers can I get, and nothing causes people to watch like the threat of imminent destruction.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I can't answer this question until I understand where this all began. I did a quick google search, the estimate of KKK members in the US today is 0.003% of the US population. This is a completely insignificant group politically. So then why did they get front page news for a week? If you watch the news it is very clear that although the vast majority of people are condemning this group, there are a percentage of people who are blaming the antifa group in part. Even if only 3% of the US population sympathizes with this group being "unfairly treated" that is a huge, huge increase to their group.

In my opinion the best strategy is to ignore them. Allow them to march if they have a permit. If they violate laws, prosecute them. But no press, no anti rallies, treat them as being completely insignificant.

But is that what is happening? No, the rallies double in size because of these anti protesters. Because their fights, bats, and mentally unstable people with a car it gets major news play all the way up to the President of the US. To make things worse their permit was cancelled, and numerous companies have pulled their websites. This strategy is turning them into martyrs, whose right to "free speech" is being denied. This is going to be every bit as effective for their recruiting effort as we saw with ISIS.

This strategy will force them to commit acts of terrorism to "get their message across". I see the purpose of the right to free speech as making this path unnecessary.

IMO two weeks ago I did not view KKK and white supremacists as a major issue in the US. Now, about a week later the question is "where is this going to go?" as though this is now as big a concern as ISIS and N. Korea. I blame the press for turning this insignificant group into a major concern and worry. The press no longer acts responsibly, their only concern is how many viewers can I get, and nothing causes people to watch like the threat of imminent destruction.

Like Heather Heyer said in her last post on Facebook "If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention." Your response is the standard "shoot the messenger" variety. White supremacists have gained ground because Trump encouraged them during his campaign. He has brought them with him into the mainstream. In his news conference yesterday he gave them another boost by equating them with those who oppose them. I expect to many more of their violent demonstrations around the country in the coming weeks.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Like Heather Heyer said in her last post on Facebook "If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention." Your response is the standard "shoot the messenger" variety. White supremacists have gained ground because Trump encouraged them during his campaign. He has brought them with him into the mainstream. In his news conference yesterday he gave them another boost by equating them with those who oppose them. I expect to many more of their violent demonstrations around the country in the coming weeks.

The wrath of man does not work the righteousness of God.

Malcolm X is a good example of someone who learned this lesson.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

Thank you for clarifying your position, ZNP. It's like the Time Magazine man of the year. Moral judgement denied. On your last point, I agree. But, no less are those that feel that a monument {not just a statue} to Robert E. Lee is an offence to their civil rights, prohibited from expressing their opinion on the issue. Therein lies the conflict that was played out on the streets of Charlottesville.

Now, President Trump in yesterday's press conference has clarified where he stands. When he condemned white supremacy he was merely bowing to political correctness. He really believes that the white supremacists, Neo-Nazis and KKK included, have a valid point. He is more concerned about limiting the efforts of what he has now labelled the "alt left" in their mission of devaluing the racial bigotry of America's past. "You know, you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?" This is the most encouragement that the white supremacists have received from an American president in my 67 years. I expect them to try to seize this moment of political opportunity with more violent demonstrations. Don't you?

I think Trump should do a swap with Syria. Accept Christian Syrian refugees, and send the supremacists to Syria to help the Coptic Christians.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

A great American General is a great general who is an American. Under that criteria Robert E Lee clearly qualifies.

I don't agree with this and it is not according to historical facts. Lee was not an American general at all but stood for forming a separate country to the United States of America.

America, as I see it, is the United States of America. The only way Lee was "American" is in the sense of being part of the American continent.

The USA was the Union during the Civil war period, they won, and today all of the states are part of the USA.

Remember that the "Confederate States of America" were seeking to form a separate country from the United States of America. Had they succeeded, then the continent of America today might be two different countries - the USA in the North and the "Confederate States of America" (CSA) in the South.

For these reasons I believe any Confederate General was not an American (i.e. USA), not then, and not now. Nor do I believe that the Confederate flag is an American (i.e. USA) flag.

Therefore it is only right that the American people treat this foreign flag (which only came into resurgence in modern times), and General Lee as a general of a foreign country.

If Trump is so concerned about foreigners in the country he should also take care of the foreigners which feel themselves to be part of the foreign Confederate States of America.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think Trump should do a swap with Syria. Accept Christian Syrian refugees, and send the supremacists to Syria to help the Coptic Christians.

So you think the President of the US has the right to deport any US citizen he wishes?

He received a lot of flack for pushing to deport illegal aliens, but this is far more expansive. Are you the one Awareness was referring to as "the voice of reason"?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't agree with this and it is not according to historical facts. Lee was not an American general at all but stood for forming a separate country to the United States of America.

America, as I see it, is the United States of America. The only way Lee was "American" is in the sense of being part of the American continent.

The USA was the Union during the Civil war period, they won, and today all of the states are part of the USA.

Remember that the "Confederate States of America" were seeking to form a separate country from the United States of America. Had they succeeded, then the continent of America today might be two different countries - the USA in the North and the "Confederate States of America" (CSA) in the South.

For these reasons I believe any Confederate General was not an American (i.e. USA), not then, and not now. Nor do I believe that the Confederate flag is an American (i.e. USA) flag.

Therefore it is only right that the American people treat this foreign flag (which only came into resurgence in modern times), and General Lee as a general of a foreign country.

If Trump is so concerned about foreigners in the country he should also take care of the foreigners which feel themselves to be part of the foreign Confederate States of America.

Robert E Lee was a natural born US citizen. He went to West Point. He was a general prior to the Civil war and was recruited by the North as well as the South to head their army. If you wish to argue that he later renounced his citizenship that may or may not be true, still it doesn't change the fact that he was an American. Virtually all historians rank Robert E Lee in the top 10 of American generals, and in virtually all rankings they usually put him as #2 behind Washington. However, they are usually including Washington's role as president in that calculation.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Robert E Lee was a natural born US citizen. He went to West Point. He was a general prior to the Civil war and was recruited by the North as well as the South to head their army. If you wish to argue that he later renounced his citizenship that may or may not be true, still it doesn't change the fact that he was an American. Virtually all historians rank Robert E Lee in the top 10 of American generals, and in virtually all rankings they usually put him as #2 behind Washington. However, they are usually including Washington's role as president in that calculation.

If one leaves and fights against their country of birth are they still a citizen of that country? I would say not, as that is effectively renouncing citizenship and could lead to denaturalization. It's just common sense really. In some countries of the world one only needs to live outside their country for a long period of time and they cancel the citizenship. It doesn't matter if they were born there or not.

This is where the constitution is flawed - because it allows people to join a foreign military service and fight against USA and keep their citizenship.

America needs to learn from the UK and other countries where Section 4 of the British Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002[78] gave power to the Home Secretary to ‘deprive a person of a citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person has done anything seriously prejudicial to the vital interests’ of the United Kingdom

[zeek]

Any possibility we can limit the discussion of politics to the political thread? Or has politics swallowed Christianity in the postmodern era?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Any possibility we can limit the discussion of politics to the political thread? Or has politics swallowed Christianity in the postmodern era?

Yes. They can't win spiritually so they're now trying politics. That's why they voted for Trump ... another failure. Christianity is changing shape in the PM era ... and it doesn't look very Jesus like.

But I agree, politics should stay on the Politics thread. For this reason you are a bad boy.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes. They can't win spiritually so they're now trying politics. That's why they voted for Trump ... another failure. Christianity is changing shape in the PM era ... and it doesn't look very Jesus like.

But I agree, politics should stay on the Politics thread. For this reason you are a bad boy.

"They"? Looks like you are excluding yourself. ZNP introduced the discussion of events in Charlottesville not me. Anyway the division of Christianity along political lines was already in place before the postmodern turn. It appears to me that greater fragmentation of communities identifying with Christ may be inevitable as fragmentation seems to be what's happening to society in general.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

"They"? Looks like you are excluding yourself. ZNP introduced the discussion of events in Charlottesville not me. Anyway the division of Christianity along political lines was already in place before the postmodern turn. It appears to me that greater fragmentation of communities identifying with Christ may be inevitable as fragmentation seems to be what's happening to society in general.

Whoa! I didn't vote for Trump. Also, I was under the impression the world was getting smaller with modern telecommunications, the internet, and other modes of transportation and multinational corporations.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes. They can't win spiritually so they're now trying politics. That's why they voted for Trump ... another failure. Christianity is changing shape in the PM era ... and it doesn't look very Jesus like.

But I agree, politics should stay on the Politics thread. For this reason you are a bad boy.

People thought they were voting for a leader. All they got was a guy who likes to "wing it".

"I prefer to come to work each day and just see what develops." ~ Art of the Deal

"Winging it" with a little help from Twitter or Facebook is a very postmodern thing to do.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Whoa! I didn't vote for Trump. Also, I was under the impression the world was getting smaller with modern telecommunications, the internet, and other modes of transportation and multinational corporations.

Where did that come from? I didn't mention Trump. A shrinking world doesn't necessarily eliminate fragmentation. It increases contact between disparate elements. The resulting conflict may intensify social fragmentation, exclusion and polarization. Witness reactions to the 24 hour news cycle.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Where did that come from? I didn't mention Trump. A shrinking world doesn't necessarily eliminate fragmentation. It increases contact between disparate elements. The resulting conflict may intensify social fragmentation, exclusion and polarization. Witness reactions to the 24 hour news cycle.

Evidence?

If human civilization is 6,000 years then the last 300 years represents 5%. In 1817 there was no "public school" as we know it today, instead there were one room school houses akin to private schools. Maybe 20+ kids of all ages. We would consider that incredibly fragmented by today's standards.

I took a road trip from NY to Arizona last summer, that would have been a rarer event 300 years ago.

No phones, no CNN, no internet. Today we can see and visualize many more countries and continents than they could 300 years ago, we can visit them quickly and cheaply by comparison.

I think our level of interconnection is growing, not decreasing. The entire 6 degrees of separation was a powerful demonstration of how interconnected we all are.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

14 Thou shalt not remove thy neighbor’s landmark, which they of old time have set, in thine inheritance which thou shalt inherit, in the land that Jehovah thy God giveth thee to possess it.

I will mostly stay out of this latest variation of the topic.

Except to say that you constantly find novel ways to misuse the words of scripture. That verse is talking about boundary markers, not statues and such. Like tearing down a fence between the property of two individuals by one with the intent of obscuring the line of demarcation and slowly taking over the other's land.

It has absolutely nothing to do with "landmarks" in the sense of notable features, statues, memorials, etc.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I will mostly stay out of this latest variation of the topic.

Except to say that you constantly find novel ways to misuse the words of scripture. That verse is talking about boundary markers, not statues and such. Like tearing down a fence between the property of two individuals by one with the intent of obscuring the line of demarcation and slowly taking over the other's land.

It has absolutely nothing to do with "landmarks" in the sense of notable features, statues, memorials, etc.

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(14) Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour’s landmark.—Another law manifestly appropriate here, where it appears for the first time, like the “field” in the tenth commandment (Deuteronomy 5:21). But the immediate connection is not obvious. Perhaps the idea is to caution the people to avoid a most certain incentive to hatred and murder. Ancient landmarks are also important and almost sacred witnesses.

Matthew Poole's Commentary
Landmark, whereby the lands of several possessors were distinguished and divided. Do not enrich thyself with the injury of other men; do not invade the rights of others.

Gill’s Commentary
Some apply this, in a political sense, to laws of long standing, and customs of long prescription; and others interpret it, in a theological sense, of doctrines and practices settled by the fathers of the church; which, if understood of Christ and his apostles only, will be allowed; but if of the ancient fathers of the church that followed them, it should not be received; since they were but fallible men, and guilty of many errors and mistakes, both in doctrine and practice.

It is a felony to rip down one of these statues. They cost tens of thousands of dollars. There is a legal procedure that can be done to remove a statue and that political process was what was taking place in NC.

How is this hard for you to understand? People spent tens of thousands of dollars to put up a statue, it is wrong for a mob to tear it down. It is hateful and an invasion of the rights of others. If it is offensive to 51% of the population then vote and remove it legally.

Second, if you remove these things by mobs tearing them down you make things worse, not better. You think doing that will cause the 0.003% of the US population involved in these groups to say "oh, guess we were wrong"? This will only cause them to become angrier and more belligerent. MLK said that the civil rights movement was not a battle between black and white but a battle between justice and injustice. You cannot fight this battle by being unjust.

Third, what is very clear is that these are "your neighbor's statues", not yours. You do not have the right to tear down your neighbors statue. That is the point. It is not simply an OT law, it is also a law that is currently on the books in the US. Statues are being ripped down by mobs and vandalized by mobs, and then others are being removed by the city to protect them from the mobs.

Finally, why is it that we went years and years with very little regard for these fringe groups, during Obama's 8 years all those statues didn't offend anyone? But now all of a sudden some stupid rally in NC over a stupid city referendum about removing one statue has to completely dominate the news for weeks? Why? Because Antifa fought with this group in the street and got their rally cancelled instead of just voting to remove the statue! Is it really crazy to think this is manipulative BS?

So to try and tie this into this thread -- doesn't this event disprove the idea that society is more fragmented today? If this had been 300 years ago would it have been possible for the entire country and even the rest of the world to be watching, commenting, and criticizing what went on in NC?

[awareness]

Goodness bro ZNP, be like Trump and double down.

What about not making idols?

H-a
----------------------------------

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(14) Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour’s landmark.—Another law manifestly appropriate here, where it appears for the first time, like the “field” in the tenth commandment (Deuteronomy 5:21). But the immediate connection is not obvious. Perhaps the idea is to caution the people to avoid a most certain incentive to hatred and murder. Ancient landmarks are also important and almost sacred witnesses.

Matthew Poole's Commentary
Landmark, whereby the lands of several possessors were distinguished and divided. Do not enrich thyself with the injury of other men; do not invade the rights of others.

Gill’s Commentary
Some apply this, in a political sense, to laws of long standing, and customs of long prescription; and others interpret it, in a theological sense, of doctrines and practices settled by the fathers of the church; which, if understood of Christ and his apostles only, will be allowed; but if of the ancient fathers of the church that followed them, it should not be received; since they were but fallible men, and guilty of many errors and mistakes, both in doctrine and practice.

It is a felony to rip down one of these statues. They cost tens of thousands of dollars. There is a legal procedure that can be done to remove a statue and that political process was what was taking place in NC.

How is this hard for you to understand? People spent tens of thousands of dollars to put up a statue, it is wrong for a mob to tear it down. It is hateful and an invasion of the rights of others. If it is offensive to 51% of the population then vote and remove it legally.

Second, if you remove these things by mobs tearing them down you make things worse, not better. You think doing that will cause the 0.003% of the US population involved in these groups to say "oh, guess we were wrong"? This will only cause them to become angrier and more belligerent. MLK said that the civil rights movement was not a battle between black and white but a battle between justice and injustice. You cannot fight this battle by being unjust.

Third, what is very clear is that these are "your neighbor's statues", not yours. You do not have the right to tear down your neighbors statue. That is the point. It is not simply an OT law, it is also a law that is currently on the books in the US. Statues are being ripped down by mobs and vandalized by mobs, and then others are being removed by the city to protect them from the mobs.

Finally, why is it that we went years and years with very little regard for these fringe groups, during Obama's 8 years all those statues didn't offend anyone? But now all of a sudden some stupid rally in NC over a stupid city referendum about removing one statue has to completely dominate the news for weeks? Why? Because Antifa fought with this group in the street and got their rally cancelled instead of just voting to remove the statue! Is it really crazy to think this is manipulative BS?

So to try and tie this into this thread -- doesn't this event disprove the idea that society is more fragmented today? If this had been 300 years ago would it have been possible for the entire country and even the rest of the world to be watching, commenting, and criticizing what went on in NC?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Goodness bro ZNP, be like Trump and double down.

What about not making idols?

H-a
----------------------------------

Didn't you hear the Supreme court -- Some of the ten commandments are OK, some aren't.

The US has no laws concerning statues being illegal. The discussion on other threads was about the mobs tearing down and vandalizing statues.

"It isn't the things we don't know that get us in trouble, it's the things we know for sure that just aren't so that get us in trouble"

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Didn't you hear the Supreme court -- Some of the ten commandments are OK, some aren't.

The US has no laws concerning statues being illegal. The discussion on other threads was about the mobs tearing down and vandalizing statues.

"It isn't the things we don't know that get us in trouble, it's the things we know for sure that just aren't so that get us in trouble"

Ha ha. I see you are relentless. You were making a Biblical point about landmarks, when the Bible in the 10 comments speaks outright against making idols of any kind.

Okay, according to your point, we're witnessing another contradiction in the Bible. Right? Time to triple down.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Ha ha. I see you are relentless. You were making a Biblical point about landmarks, when the Bible in the 10 comments speaks outright against making idols of any kind.

Okay, according to your point, we're witnessing another contradiction in the Bible. Right? Time to triple down.

The commandment about Landmarks, as OBW pointed out, were property markers.

However, as one of the commentators pointed out that is interpreted allegorically for the NT.

In addition, these property markers are made by ancestors and neighbors, not necessarily Jews. In this sense you are literally "overstepping your bounds" when you move or remove your neighbors landmark.

As one commentator pointed out this is a prohibition against hatred, the confederates were defeated, but that isn't enough for some, they want to take away the landmarks for the key battles, key leaders of these people.

These landmarks are considered a "witness" to what happened.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The commandment about Landmarks, as OBW pointed out, were property markers.

However, as one of the commentators pointed out that is interpreted allegorically for the NT.

In addition, these property markers are made by ancestors and neighbors, not necessarily Jews. In this sense you are literally "overstepping your bounds" when you move or remove your neighbors landmark.

As one commentator pointed out this is a prohibition against hatred, the confederates were defeated, but that isn't enough for some, they want to take away the landmarks for the key battles, key leaders of these people.

These landmarks are considered a "witness" to what happened.

That's was a good one. I move for a quadrupedal down. Can I get a second?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Evidence?

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/I...187705/ch6.pdf

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If human civilization is 6,000 years then the last 300 years represents 5%. In 1817 there was no "public school" as we know it today, instead there were one room school houses akin to private schools. Maybe 20+ kids of all ages. We would consider that incredibly fragmented by today's standards.

I took a road trip from NY to Arizona last summer, that would have been a rarer event 300 years ago.

No phones, no CNN, no internet. Today we can see and visualize many more countries and continents than they could 300 years ago, we can visit them quickly and cheaply by comparison.

I think our level of interconnection is growing, not decreasing. The entire 6 degrees of separation was a powerful demonstration of how interconnected we all are.

Interconnection and fragmentation have a complex relationship. https://books.google.com/books?id=Nh...ion%3F&f=false



Fragmentation hinders elected officials from getting anything constructive done in our nation.

Regrettably, fragmented thinking in metropolitan Washington, reinforced by fragmented government, is a major obstacle to comprehending and dealing with infrastructure, so much of which is failing, obsolete, inequitably distributed and potentially dangerous. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/reale...=.87ebf921b078

It even effects the Internet http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_FII...rview_2016.pdf

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The commandment about Landmarks, as OBW pointed out, were property markers.

However, as one of the commentators pointed out that is interpreted allegorically for the NT.

In addition, these property markers are made by ancestors and neighbors, not necessarily Jews. In this sense you are literally "overstepping your bounds" when you move or remove your neighbors landmark.

As one commentator pointed out this is a prohibition against hatred, the confederates were defeated, but that isn't enough for some, they want to take away the landmarks for the key battles, key leaders of these people.

These landmarks are considered a "witness" to what happened.

I don't think you want to follow the Hebrew Bible's prescription for dealing with a vanquished enemy's idols.

Numbers 33:52 then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their idols, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places.

Isaiah 2:18 and the idols He shall utterly abolish.

Ezekiel 30:13 “‘Thus saith the Lord God: I will also destroy the idols, and I will cause their images to cease out of Noph;

What about the Confederacy's answer to Mount Rushmore at Stone Mountain, GA? https://www.cbsnews.com/videos/will-...n-be-removed/#

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't think you want to follow the Hebrew Bible's prescription for dealing with a vanquished enemy's idols.





Ezekiel 30:13 “‘Thus saith the Lord God: I will also destroy the idols, and I will cause their images to cease out of Noph;

What about the Confederacy's answer to Mount Rushmore at Stone Mountain, GA? https://www.cbsnews.com/videos/will-...n-be-removed/#

Hitler was an idol -- crush him.

Lenin was an idol -- crush him.

Caesar was an idol -- crush him.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Hitler was an idol -- crush him.

Lenin was an idol -- crush him.

Caesar was an idol -- crush him.

But don't crush Cherubim idols. God loves Cherubim idols, and commands them on the Ark of the Covenant, and in the inner most of Solomon's temple. I Kings 6:23 ; Exo 25:18

God just hates other peoples' idols.

Duh, monotheism started that way when a king in Egypt first thought of it. He had all the idols and temples of all the other gods destroyed. That's the way monotheism operates. It has to, to validate the ultimate divinity.

And it says God made us in his image. We're walking idols made by God.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Hitler was an idol -- crush him.

Lenin was an idol -- crush him.

Caesar was an idol -- crush him.

The idols in question are not men but the monuments erected and placed in their honor. You're trying to change the subject.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

But don't crush Cherubim idols. God loves Cherubim idols, and commands them on the Ark of the Covenant, and in the inner most of Solomon's temple. I Kings 6:23 ; Exo 25:18

God just hates other peoples' idols.

Duh, monotheism started that way when a king in Egypt first thought of it. He had all the idols and temples of all the other gods destroyed. That's the way monotheism operates. It has to, to validate the ultimate divinity.

And it says God made us in his image. We're walking idols made by God.

We were discussing Confederate monuments. You took ZNP's diversionary bait and ran off with it into your own anti-religion obsessions.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

The idols in question are not men but the monuments erected and placed in their honor. You're trying to change the subject.

Obviously you have not followed the discussion. I answered this simply -- the US is not a theocracy, they don't follow the Bible. I have not advocated building any statue. What I have advocated from the first post is to act in a way that is righteous. As you can see any monument that is an idol is causing trouble. Look at these protests, riots, etc. In NYC they are talking about removing the troublesome monuments like the statue of Columbus in the center of Columbus square.

But you can be sure this will work both ways.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

We were discussing Confederate monuments. You took ZNP's diversionary bait and ran off with it into your own anti-religion obsessions.

Yes I did. I ran with ZNP's goofy reply. I took goofy to its logical, or illogical, conclusion.

You are right. Why bring God and His likes and dislikes of idols into this discussion of confederate abominations? Why bring in Hitler, Lenin, and Caesar into this discussion? Sure there were statues to them. But were they confederates?

I guess a point could be made that their statues were taken down and history wasn't erased.

Was that what you were getting at bro ZNP?

And finally. Talk about goofy. Why isn't this confederate statue thing on the political thread?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Obviously you have not followed the discussion. I answered this simply -- the US is not a theocracy, they don't follow the Bible.

"They"? Why not "we"? Have you seceded from the US?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes I did. I ran with ZNP's goofy reply. I took goofy to its logical, or illogical, conclusion.

You are right. Why bring God and His likes and dislikes of idols into this discussion of confederate abominations? Why bring in Hitler, Lenin, and Caesar into this discussion? Sure there were statues to them. But were they confederates?

I guess a point could be made that their statues were taken down and history wasn't erased.

Was that what you were getting at bro ZNP?

And finally. Talk about goofy. Why isn't this confederate statue thing on the political thread?

In the wake of Trump's mishandling of White Supremacist violence in Charlottesville, politics momentarily eclipsed rational discourse like the moon eclipsed the sun yesterday. I tried to contextualize discussion of current events in terms of the concept of social fragmentation, which is a significant postmodern problem, but my comments were ignored.

[zeek]

In the 21st century we live in a complex, fast changing world. The experience of each new generation differs radically from that of previous ones. Changes which took centuries to evolve now occur in the space of a few years. Constant change makes people feel insecure. Traditions which spanned many lifetimes become obsolete. Growing numbers of people have become disoriented and alienated from modern life. Stability has disappeared. Like other traditional institutions, Christianity has been rocked by this postmodern situation. As this forum has amply demonstrated, it has become fragmented to its core, divided against itself and eclipsed by politics. Can Christianity survive and if so, how?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

"They"? Why not "we"? Have you seceded from the US?

The US is a republic, it is majority rule. I follow the Bible, but the law I adhere to is not the law that the US adheres to. Many things that are OK in the US are not OK in the Bible.

What we are seeing in Charleston and around the country is the fruit of doing things that are not OK.

But when we look at a statue of a man and say this man is not worthy to have a statue, where will that end? What man is worthy?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

In the 21st century we live in a complex, fast changing world. The experience of each new generation differs radically from that of previous ones. Changes which took centuries to evolve now occur in the space of a few years. Constant change makes people feel insecure. Traditions which spanned many lifetimes become obsolete. Growing numbers of people have become disoriented and alienated from modern life. Stability has disappeared. Like other traditional institutions, Christianity has been rocked by this postmodern situation. As this forum has amply demonstrated, it has become fragmented to its core, divided against itself and eclipsed by politics. Can Christianity survive and if so, how?

What has changed? Jesus is still Lord. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. Sin is still sin. The wages of sin are still death.

Religion may have been rocked, but faith, hope and love have not been moved.

Who cares if Christianity (the religion) survives.

If Christ is "eclipsed" by politics, then it indicates that Jesus (like the Sun) is the source of life and that some small satellite orbiting your life has temporarily blocked the light of life.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What has changed? Jesus is still Lord. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. Sin is still sin. The wages of sin are still death.

Religion may have been rocked, but faith, hope and love have not been moved.

Who cares if Christianity (the religion) survives.

If Christ is "eclipsed" by politics, then it indicates that Jesus (like the Sun) is the source of life and that some small satellite orbiting your life has temporarily blocked the light of life.

"Who cares?" you ask. So as long as you can believe Christ is in his heavenly kingdom, you're indifferent to what happens on earth. How different your faith is from that of Jesus who taught us to pray "Thy kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

"Who cares?" you ask. So as long as you can believe Christ is in his heavenly kingdom, you're indifferent to what happens on earth. How different your faith is from that of Jesus who taught us to pray "Thy kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven."

You are mixing apples and oranges. I am not indifferent to what is happening. I am not indifferent to Climate change, or fraud, or corruption, or greed, or selfishness or idolatry.

3 But know this, that in the last days grievous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, railers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 without natural affection, implacable, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, no lovers of good, 4 traitors, headstrong, puffed up, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God; 5 holding a form of godliness, but having denied the power thereof: from these also turn away.

Back when everyone was screaming to go to war in Iraq I was saying that we would be better off spending the money on becoming self sufficient in energy so that we don't need their oil (it was a possibility once you realize we were going to spend $6 trillion on this war and the only possible benefit we have gotten from it is a continued flow of oil and gas from the region). Had we done that there would be no ISIS today, we still would have killed Osama, we would be self sufficient in energy and it would be much cleaner than our current energy, our population would be healthier (making the health care crisis not as severe), and since it would be a domestic industry we would have dramatically decreased our trade deficit and therefore our national debt would not be nearly as severe (even though in each scenario the US spends $6 trillion, in my scenario the money spent pays a yearly dividend in energy, it creates a domestic industry and jobs all of which pay taxes, and it creates a technologically advanced industry that could increase our exports).

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You are mixing apples and oranges. I am not indifferent to what is happening. I am not indifferent to Climate change, or fraud, or corruption, or greed, or selfishness or idolatry.

3 But know this, that in the last days grievous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, railers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 without natural affection, implacable, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, no lovers of good, 4 traitors, headstrong, puffed up, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God; 5 holding a form of godliness, but having denied the power thereof: from these also turn away.

Back when everyone was screaming to go to war in Iraq I was saying that we would be better off spending the money on becoming self sufficient in energy so that we don't need their oil (it was a possibility once you realize we were going to spend $6 trillion on this war and the only possible benefit we have gotten from it is a continued flow of oil and gas from the region). Had we done that there would be no ISIS today, we still would have killed Osama, we would be self sufficient in energy and it would be much cleaner than our current energy, our population would be healthier (making the health care crisis not as severe), and since it would be a domestic industry we would have dramatically decreased our trade deficit and therefore our national debt would not be nearly as severe (even though in each scenario the US spends $6 trillion, in my scenario the money spent pays a yearly dividend in energy, it creates a domestic industry and jobs all of which pay taxes, and it creates a technologically advanced industry that could increase our exports).

Another tangent. This is not the political thread. We're discussing a different topic here. But, to go back to your starting point: it's always the last days for someone. Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

In the 21st century we live in a complex, fast changing world. The experience of each new generation differs radically from that of previous ones. Changes which took centuries to evolve now occur in the space of a few years. Constant change makes people feel insecure. Traditions which spanned many lifetimes become obsolete. Growing numbers of people have become disoriented and alienated from modern life. Stability has disappeared. Like other traditional institutions, Christianity has been rocked by this postmodern situation. As this forum has amply demonstrated, it has become fragmented to its core, divided against itself and eclipsed by politics. Can Christianity survive and if so, how?

We ring the bell. You don't need to ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What has changed? Jesus is still Lord. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. Sin is still sin. The wages of sin are still death.

Religion may have been rocked, but faith, hope and love have not been moved.

Who cares if Christianity (the religion) survives.

If Christ is "eclipsed" by politics, then it indicates that Jesus (like the Sun) is the source of life and that some small satellite orbiting your life has temporarily blocked the light of life.

To bring this back to postmodernism.

Guys, it's pretty clear that the way to defeat both postmodernism and even modernism, is to hold to the Bible. The Bible never changes.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

To bring this back to postmodernism.

Guys, it's pretty clear that the way to defeat both postmodernism and even modernism, is to hold to the Bible. The Bible never changes.

The Bible never changes, but it speaks into culture as it is. It does not need to defeat Postmodernism or Modernism, but change the lives of the people living in either, or what was before all of that, or what will come after.

As the age turned Modern, we tried to make the Bible scientific and provable in those terms. But we failed. We parsed through verses to remove what is still mystery from our belief. We tried to make it absolute in everything according to a modernistic view.

Then as the average person began to see the futility of thinking science was certain — that what we learn through observation is solid and unchangeable. Rather than understand science as a process for learning, it had been too often stated as a means to unchangeable truth. But it failed at that, so many began to reject it altogether.

Now we are in the early stages of a change in mindset. One where "truth" is not so certain. We may have no problem accepting that what the radar gun claims was your speed is true, but if you try to splice truths together into some grand summation of truth, it will be rejected because it needs to be accepted item by item, not as a group.

But the way we tell our story of truth in the Bible is of layer upon layer of factoids gleaned from the nuances of words. The Bible is not a lengthy revelation of God, but a talisman of infinite wisdom to be consulted for detailed answers to Modern or Postmodern questions. Surely there are such answers. But they are not detailed by verse. By jot and tittle. They are in a much simpler narrative:

God
Creator
Son of God (also God)
Born and lived among men
Showed the ways of God

I recognize that I did not include the narratives of the fall and redemption. That was not because of lack of belief in them, but because as important as they are, they are not telling of God, but of man and how God brings man back to where he started.

zeek rightly said that Postmoderns do not adhere to grand narratives. But that refers to a vast collection of "truth" that is wrapped up in a single story. And in the worst of our modernistic views of the Bible, we have wrapped every nuanced rule and rubric into its story and made the reason for the many "books" in the Bible be because there are so many details to describe. But the "grand narrative" of the Bible is not about all those "truths," but instead about a much simpler truth concerning God and man. The story isn't about women as "helpers" or churches by city. It isn't conservatism, or capitalism, or socialism. It is righteousness. It is equal love for fellow man — including those we wouldn't like. Such as Samaritans and Moslems.

The grand narrative of the Bible doesn't have a verse to beat down every opponent, but a story of a God that loves mankind despite the intent of those people to not love in return. It does not have a tailor-made answer for every question, but a single answer for the upheaval that any question brings.

There is more that could be said. But this has been brewing in my mind for some time.

Christianity does not need to fear Postmodernism. Unless it is stuck trying to force its modernistic view of the minute details of its beliefs onto everyone and everything. Always thinking that the right love for "sinners" is "tough love." Be brutally honest about their shortcomings at all times. Never let any of God's love show to the world. Presume that God needs us to judge the wrongdoers. Immediately upon realizing their sin. God may be merciful. But not us.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

To bring this back to postmodernism.

Guys, it's pretty clear that the way to defeat both postmodernism and even modernism, is to hold to the Bible. The Bible never changes.

Holding to the bible is a lot easier than holding to something always changing with the wind.

[awareness]

Goodness brother, that's a lot to chew on. But it tasted good. Some thoughts :

Originally Posted by OBW

The Bible never changes, but it speaks into culture as it is. It does not need to defeat Postmodernism or Modernism, but change the lives of the people living in either, or what was before all of that, or what will come after.

The Bible is a two edged sword. Yes it can change lives, but not always for good. The local church being a prime example.

When I said the Bible doesn't change I mean that it's locked to 2000 yrs ago or older. So like the local church, believers seek to replicate what they see in the Bible. Thus, The Recovery. The Recovery of what? Well the Acts church, that's what. And that's long before modernity, and postmodernity. The Bible is not a modern or PM published work.

In this example the Bible defeats modernity and PM by changing lives to seek to live like they did 2000 yrs ago. Which is impossible. So the Bible in this case changes lives into a delusion ... like Lee's Recovery movement : harking back to the pure church, or the New Testament times. Again, an impossibility.

That the Bible changes lives for the good can sometimes be a judgement call. I have a friend going back to Jr. High. He and a bunch of ne'er-do-well friends of mine, came from Detroit Michigan, and showed up in Santa Cruz, to get me, when I was headed out the door to fly to the church in Detroit. I left them there.

My friend Ronnie met the Lord there, in the church in Santa Cruz. But he didn't stay in the LC for very long. He didn't like that they were claiming to be the one and only true church.

Long story short, Ronnie became a Pentecostal minister. And now when I talk to him he won't shut up about it. He goes on and on about the end times prophecies. I told him he was Bible crazy. He said, thanks. So he's a goner on Jesus, et al.

But before he met the Lord Ronnie was a gallon a day hard liquor alcoholic. So he traded one harmful addiction for a much more harmless addiction. I consider that a good changed life. It probably saved his life.

I loved him before and love him now. He was annoying when he was a drunk, and he's annoying now. That didn't change.

We could say that he was living in the postmodern age, had a conversion experience, and changed to trying to live the Bible that came from the bronze and iron age.

That's the kind of change the Bible often makes. It doesn't change. It changes people into yearning for the New Testament age & earlier.

And that's how it defeats modernity and PM.

[JJ]

Good stuff, brothers.

I just watched a PBS special on the Hubble Space Telescope. It was filled with absolutely amazing pictures, facts, and figures on the universe. Why bring that up here?

At the end of the special it was reported that astrophysicists who have studied and done calculations with Hubble data concluded that when "dark matter" (matter unseen by our telescopes but out there) and "dark energy" (energy unseen by our telescopes but out there) are considered:

The universe ends neither expanding forever or contracting back upon itself in a cosmic "do over". No, it ends in a gigantic fireball, they call "the big rip".

They could have found that answer in 2 Peter 3:10 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...3&version=NASB

[zeek]

Life always implies change. A bible that doesn't change is a dead bible. The dead bible is deadly. "...for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life." Jesus said "Let the dead bury their dead."

[zeek]

Three different ways of approaching doctrine: the classical-propositional, the experiential-expressive and the cultural-linguistic each have significantly different consequences for Christian belief and practice. https://www.amazon.com/Nature-Doctri...eorge+lindbeck Creedal orthodoxy and fundamentalism are primarily classical-propositional; liberal Christianity-- experiential-expressive; and Po Mo or post-liberal Christianity--cultural-linguistic.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by JJ

Good stuff, brothers.

I just watched a PBS special on the Hubble Space Telescope. It was filled with absolutely amazing pictures, facts, and figures on the universe. Why bring that up here?

At the end of the special it was reported that astrophysicists who have studied and done calculations with Hubble data concluded that when "dark matter" (matter unseen by our telescopes but out there) and "dark energy" (energy unseen by our telescopes but out there) are considered:

The universe ends neither expanding forever or contracting back upon itself in a cosmic "do over". No, it ends in a gigantic fireball, they call "the big rip".

They could have found that answer in 2 Peter 3:10 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...3&version=NASB

Welcome to the basement of LCD JJ.

Perhaps the scientist are wasting time and money on researching the physical universe ... when they could save all that by studying the Bible.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by awareness

Welcome to the basement of LCD JJ.

Perhaps the scientist are wasting time and money on researching the physical universe ... when they could save all that by studying the Bible.

Basement? Is this where the party is?

Waste of time and money? Billions of dollars for these cool pictures http://hubblesite.org/images/gallery and fodder for solving long time astrophysical questions about the nature of the universe. Hmmmm.

Ouch as a taxpayer, but geeky fun. Some of us like the Bible and weird stuff like this.

[JJ]

Sorry I crashed your discussions and party here in "the basement", guys.

Hubble pictures reminded me of Psalm 19 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...&version=NASBy

[awareness]

Originally Posted by JJ

Sorry I crashed your discussions and party here in "the basement", guys.

It's a pleasure. You can crash our party any time.

And btw JJ. Do you think that the Bible, if properly seen and interpreted, would have resulted in the discovery of electricity, refrigeration, air-conditioning, the microwave, and all that we have today, only 1500 yrs ago or so?

[zeek]

Having contrasted modernity and postmodernity and commented that some postmodern movements strike him as dead ends Borg goes on to highlight three characteristics of primary importance for reading the Bible.

First, postmodernity is marked by the realization that modernity itself is a culturally conditioned, relative historical construction. The modern worldview is not the final word about reality any more than previous worldviews have been. Postmodernity knows that someday the Newtonian worldview will seem as quaint and archaic as the Ptolemaic worldview, a development that has already occurred among theoretical physicists.

Second, postmodernity is marked by a turn to experience. In a time when traditional religious teachings have become suspect, we tend to trust that which can be known in our own experience. This turn to experience is seen in the remarkable resurgence of interest in spirituality within mainline churches and beyond. Spirituality is the experiential dimension of religion.

Third, postmodernity is marked by a movement beyond fact fundamentalism to the realization that stories can be true without being literally and factually true. This development is reflected in much of contemporary theology’s emphasis on metaphorical theology. An obvious point that has often been forgotten during the period of modernity: metaphors and metaphorical narratives can be profoundly true even if they are not literally or factually true.

Borg, Marcus J.. Reading the Bible Again For the First Time (Kindle Locations 286-295). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

[Ohio]

Third, postmodernity is marked by a movement beyond fact fundamentalism to the realization that stories can be true without being literally and factually true. This development is reflected in much of contemporary theology’s emphasis on metaphorical theology. An obvious point that has often been forgotten during the period of modernity: metaphors and metaphorical narratives can be profoundly true even if they are not literally or factually true.

Borg, Marcus J.. Reading the Bible Again For the First Time (Kindle Locations 286-295). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

Hence, according to Borg's nonsense, the story of Jesus Christ dying on the cross and rising from the dead can be metaphorically and profoundly true, even though it is literally or factually false.

And you believe these postmodern lies? That's like believing Harvey Weinstein when he tells us that "Hollywood is America's conscience," and "Hollywood has the best moral compass."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hence, according to Borg's nonsense, the story of Jesus Christ dying on the cross and rising from the dead can be metaphorically and profoundly true, even though it is literally or factually false.

And you believe these postmodern lies? That's like believing Harvey Weinstein when he tells us that "Hollywood is America's conscience," and "Hollywood has the best moral compass."

I don't get this line of reasoning. Let's take Noah for example, probably something that he would be looking at as a metaphor. How exactly is it "true" if it is factually false?

Also, when Jesus said that the end of the age would be like the "days of Noah" that also, according to this logic, would be metaphorically true even though it is factually false. How exactly is that? How could the end of the age be "like the days of Noah" if there is no such thing as "the days of Noah"?

I read that as the day Noah heard that the flood would wipe out all the creatures on earth (similar to the day I saw the special on 2 degrees, talking about the cataclysmic changes that will take place on Earth when the average temperature increases by 2 degrees Celsius). The day he began to build the boat (not that different from the day others began to build modern day versions of "arks"), the day the flood came and they entered the ark (maybe we should ask Houstonians, or those in Puerto Rico, or California, or even Las Vegas about that), etc.

This is why I feel this is a lame explanation for how things like the story of Noah's ark could be true even though they don't think it is true. As you can see this is quite a big of a hedge from previous arrogant claims that it was obviously not true. The reason for the big change is that we have accumulated so much evidence that this story must be rooted in fact even though most have not done a great job of explaining how that could be, though the recent discovery of the meteorite craters in the Pacific Ocean and the Chevrons in Madagascar do create a very interesting and plausible explanation for what would otherwise be a totally unbelievable story.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don't get this line of reasoning. Let's take Noah for example, probably something that he would be looking at as a metaphor. How exactly is it "true" if it is factually false?

Those who have lost their faith can still be quite intelligent, yet may not have an ounce of common sense wisdom. They stand for nothing, and will fall for anything.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hence, according to Borg's nonsense, the story of Jesus Christ dying on the cross and rising from the dead can be metaphorically and profoundly true, even though it is literally or factually false.

What's nonsensical about what Borg says? I think Borg would say that the Jesus crucifixion was a literal fact [death is an everyday matter], but the resurrection, being a spiritual reality must be represented metaphorically or not at all. [note: those are my words not his]

And you believe these postmodern lies? That's like believing Harvey Weinstein when he tells us that "Hollywood is America's conscience," and "Hollywood has the best moral compass."

Postmodernism doesn't require an up or down vote. It is a characterization of our epistemological situation which is agnostic as far as metaphysics. So, to be accurate, if you can accept or reject that God exists, you can do so on the basis of faith but not knowledge.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don't get this line of reasoning. Let's take Noah for example, probably something that he would be looking at as a metaphor. How exactly is it "true" if it is factually false?

You're analyzing Ohio's reasoning from Borg's proposition. I don't get Ohio's logic either.

Also, when Jesus said that the end of the age would be like the "days of Noah" that also, according to this logic, would be metaphorically true even though it is factually false. How exactly is that? How could the end of the age be "like the days of Noah" if there is no such thing as "the days of Noah"?

Same problem as above. You should have gone back to Borg's proposition, not to the supposition of a person unfamiliar with Borg's thought.

I read that as the day Noah heard that the flood would wipe out all the creatures on earth (similar to the day I saw the special on 2 degrees, talking about the cataclysmic changes that will take place on Earth when the average temperature increases by 2 degrees Celsius). The day he began to build the boat (not that different from the day others began to build modern day versions of "arks"), the day the flood came and they entered the ark (maybe we should ask Houstonians, or those in Puerto Rico, or California, or even Las Vegas about that), etc.

This is why I feel this is a lame explanation for how things like the story of Noah's ark could be true even though they don't think it is true. As you can see this is quite a big of a hedge from previous arrogant claims that it was obviously not true. The reason for the big change is that we have accumulated so much evidence that this story must be rooted in fact even though most have not done a great job of explaining how that could be, though the recent discovery of the meteorite craters in the Pacific Ocean and the Chevrons in Madagascar do create a very interesting and plausible explanation for what would otherwise be a totally unbelievable story.

Now you're off on a wild tangent. Have a nice trip.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

What's nonsensical about what Borg says? I think Borg would say that the Jesus crucifixion was a literal fact [death is an everyday matter], but the resurrection, being a spiritual reality must be represented metaphorically or not at all. [note: those are my words not his]

You quoted his words so they become your own. Man up.

Romans 10.9 (and numerous other verses) makes it clear that our salvation is contingent upon the belief that the man Jesus Christ was physically and literally raised from the dead. It was neither metaphorical nor physical for Thomas to put his finger in the nail hole wounds of the Savior.

Originally Posted by zeek

Postmodernism doesn't require an up or down vote. It is a characterization of our epistemological situation which is agnostic as far as metaphysics. So, to be accurate, if you can accept or reject that God exists, you can do so on the basis of faith but not knowledge.

Faith is the knowledge of the heart, which is far more real and sure than the mere knowledge of the mind.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You quoted his words so they become your own. Man up.

I stated that the words were mine not Borg's. What more do you want?

Romans 10.9 (and numerous other verses) makes it clear that our salvation is contingent upon the belief that the man Jesus Christ was physically and literally raised from the dead. It was neither metaphorical nor physical for Thomas to put his finger in the nail hole wounds of the Savior.

"Neither metaphorical nor physical"? I'm confused. I thought you were making the case that the resurrection was physical.

Faith is the knowledge of the heart, which is far more real and sure than the mere knowledge of the mind.

Again you confuse me. You said, "salvation is contingent upon the belief that the man Jesus Christ was physically and literally raised from the dead." Then you contrast faith with mere knowledge of the mind. Isn't belief a state of mind?

Anyway, I was contrasting faith with knowledge. At least, you seem to agree with me that they are not the same.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

You're analyzing Ohio's reasoning from Borg's proposition. I don't get Ohio's logic either.

I was referring to the quote you provided:

"Third, postmodernity is marked by a movement beyond fact fundamentalism to the realization that stories can be true without being literally and factually true. This development is reflected in much of contemporary theology’s emphasis on metaphorical theology. An obvious point that has often been forgotten during the period of modernity: metaphors and metaphorical narratives can be profoundly true even if they are not literally or factually true."

This is purely hypothetical, hence Ohio chose to discuss the resurrection and I chose to discuss the flood.

Are you saying that this quote of Borg's does not apply to the resurrection and the flood? If so what does it apply to?

On the other hand if it does apply to the resurrection and the flood then at what point did I go off on a tangent?

I think it is clear from this quote that he is saying there are metaphorical narratives in the NT that are not factually true even though "fact fundamentalism" views these stories as true. Once again, "Fact fundamentalism" views both the resurrection of Jesus and the flood as true. Are these examples of what he is talking about, if not give us examples otherwise how are we to avoid "going off on tangents".

As Ohio pointed out "putting the finger into the nail wound" is fact based. If you say that this account is "metaphorically true even though it is factually false" you are saying the account is a lie. For example, there were trials concerning fire retardants in furniture and clothes because these chemicals are toxic to people. During these trials one doctor would testify about infants burned to death in fires that would have lived had the mattresses had fire retardants. Journalists investigated this testimony and discovered it was factually false. This doctor did not have any of the experiences he testified to. So they questioned him, he claimed that they were metaphorically true. What does that mean they asked? He responded "fire retardants work". Besides, he added "I wasn't under oath".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You quoted his words so they become your own. Man up.

Romans 10.9 (and numerous other verses) makes it clear that our salvation is contingent upon the belief that the man Jesus Christ was physically and literally raised from the dead. It was neither metaphorical nor physical for Thomas to put his finger in the nail hole wounds of the Savior.

Faith is the knowledge of the heart, which is far more real and sure than the mere knowledge of the mind.

Thanks for catching my mistake, zeek.

The above should read:

Romans 10.9 (and numerous other verses) makes it clear that our salvation is contingent upon the belief that the man Jesus Christ was physically and literally raised from the dead. It was never metaphorical for Thomas to put his finger in the nail hole wounds of the Savior.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Thanks for catching my mistake, zeek.

The above should read:

Romans 10.9 (and numerous other verses) makes it clear that our salvation is contingent upon the belief that the man Jesus Christ was physically and literally raised from the dead. It was never metaphorical for Thomas to put his finger in the nail hole wounds of the Savior.

Well, putting the finger in the nail holes could be seen metaphorically as any action that is scientifically testing the validity of the resurrection. I think we could say the scientists studying the Shroud of Turin are "metaphorically" putting their fingers into the nail print.

Likewise Jesus use of the term "the days of Noah" can also be seen metaphorically as an analogy to the current situation we are in today.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I was referring to the quote you provided:

"Third, postmodernity is marked by a movement beyond fact fundamentalism to the realization that stories can be true without being literally and factually true. This development is reflected in much of contemporary theology’s emphasis on metaphorical theology. An obvious point that has often been forgotten during the period of modernity: metaphors and metaphorical narratives can be profoundly true even if they are not literally or factually true."

This is purely hypothetical, hence Ohio chose to discuss the resurrection and I chose to discuss the flood.

Are you saying that this quote of Borg's does not apply to the resurrection and the flood? If so what does it apply to?

On the other hand if it does apply to the resurrection and the flood then at what point did I go off on a tangent?

I think it is clear from this quote that he is saying there are metaphorical narratives in the NT that are not factually true even though "fact fundamentalism" views these stories as true. Once again, "Fact fundamentalism" views both the resurrection of Jesus and the flood as true. Are these examples of what he is talking about, if not give us examples otherwise how are we to avoid "going off on tangents".

As Ohio pointed out "putting the finger into the nail wound" is fact based. If you say that this account is "metaphorically true even though it is factually false" you are saying the account is a lie. For example, there were trials concerning fire retardants in furniture and clothes because these chemicals are toxic to people. During these trials one doctor would testify about infants burned to death in fires that would have lived had the mattresses had fire retardants. Journalists investigated this testimony and discovered it was factually false. This doctor did not have any of the experiences he testified to. So they questioned him, he claimed that they were metaphorically true. What does that mean they asked? He responded "fire retardants work". Besides, he added "I wasn't under oath".

I don't have anything from Borg on The Flood. I do have material from him on The Resurrection if you want to get into that. I don't know if you are familiar with N.T. Wright but Borg and Wright wrote a book together comparing and contrasting their views on The Resurrection.

I think when Borg talks about "fact fundamentalism" he is referring to the modernist view regardless whether it is pro or anti- Christianity. Your proposition that if it isn't a fact it's a lie is a good example of that. By that criterion, all of Jesus' parables were lies unless they referred to historical facts. Jesus must have witnessed an actual log in somebody's eye and a camel trying to get through the eye of a needle. Otherwise, he was lying.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Thanks for catching my mistake, zeek.

The above should read:

Romans 10.9 (and numerous other verses) makes it clear that our salvation is contingent upon the belief that the man Jesus Christ was physically and literally raised from the dead. It was never metaphorical for Thomas to put his finger in the nail hole wounds of the Savior.

And yet Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:50 "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God." So, if Paul was right, it seems that Jesus was something other than flesh and blood at that point. Or do you suppose he hadn't inherited the Kingdom yet?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Well, putting the finger in the nail holes could be seen metaphorically as any action that is scientifically testing the validity of the resurrection. I think we could say the scientists studying the Shroud of Turin are "metaphorically" putting their fingers into the nail print.

Likewise Jesus use of the term "the days of Noah" can also be seen metaphorically as an analogy to the current situation we are in today.

Or, Thomas could be viewed as a cautionary tale about the progenitor of a school of thought that competed with the Johannine school:

Mark, Matthew, and Luke mention Thomas only as one of "the twelve." John singles him out as "the doubter" -- the one who failed to understand who Jesus is, or what he is saying, and rejected the testimony of the other disciples. John then tells how the risen Jesus personally appeared to Thomas in order to rebuke him, and brought him to his knees. From this we might conclude, as most Christians have for nearly two millennia, that Thomas was a particularly obtuse and faithless disciple -- though many of John’s Christian contemporaries revered Thomas as an ordinary apostle, entrusted with Jesus' "secret words." The scholar Gregory Riley suggests that John portrays Thomas this way for the practical -- and polemical -- purpose of deprecating Thomas Christians and their teaching. http://mt_space.blogspot.com/Beyond%...20excerpts.pdf

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

And yet Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:50 "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God." So, if Paul was right, it seems that Jesus was something other than flesh and blood at that point. Or do you suppose he hadn't inherited the Kingdom yet?

Jesus literally and physically rose from the dead with a spiritual body, which could be touched, still has the wounds from the cross, can eat food, can become visible or invisible, can ascend to heaven.

Before you start quoting me verses, please read carefully I Corinthians chapter 15.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jesus literally and physically rose from the dead with a spiritual body, which could be touched, still has the wounds from the cross, can eat food, can become visible or invisible, can ascend to heave.

Before you start quoting me verses, please read carefully I Corinthians chapter 15.

I notice Paul contrasts the resurrected spiritual body with a physical body. A spiritual body that is not flesh or blood and can walk through walls and appear and disappear etc. is unlike any physical body I've ever seen.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't have anything from Borg on The Flood. I do have material from him on The Resurrection if you want to get into that. I don't know if you are familiar with N.T. Wright but Borg and Wright wrote a book together comparing and contrasting their views on The Resurrection.

I think when Borg talks about "fact fundamentalism" he is referring to the modernist view regardless whether it is pro or anti- Christianity. Your proposition that if it isn't a fact it's a lie is a good example of that. By that criterion, all of Jesus' parables were lies unless they referred to historical facts. Jesus must have witnessed an actual log in somebody's eye and a camel trying to get through the eye of a needle. Otherwise, he was lying.

I did not say that any figure of speech is lie if it is not the retelling of fact. The example I gave was of a doctor giving a testimony in a public hearing, presenting this testimony as though he were sharing an incident that took place in his hospital, and presenting it in such a way that everyone understood the story to be a factual recounting.

Jesus did not do that when He told parables. It is readily apparent that certain verses, references, and words in the Bible are allegorical. When you say "the kingdom of God is like..." it is very clear to everyone that this is not a factual account but an allegorical one.

Several years ago OBW and others railed on me that I was too much like WL and his love for allegories. Now you claim that i have said anything other than a factual recounting is a lie. Both views are bogus. If we are talking about allegories that is fine with me, but everyone should be clear that this is an allegory and not a fact. Paul made it crystal clear that the resurrection is a fact, not an allegory.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Or, Thomas could be viewed as a cautionary tale about the progenitor of a school of thought that competed with the Johannine school:

Jesus rebuked very one of the disciples. He rebuked Peter. He rebuked the disciples that went to the mountain top with him and saw Moses and Elijah. He rebuked the disciples that didn't go and were unable to heal the epileptic boy, and He rebuked Peter again when he said that Jesus paid the tribute.

He particularly rebuked the faith of the disciples that couldn't heal the epileptic saying "if they had faith as...". So I find this interpretation of "doubting Thomas" to be flawed and unsupported by the NT.

On the contrary if you you are not able to take a rebuke from the Lord you are unable to enter the kingdom. That is how I understand Matt 18.

After being rebuked repeatedly the disciples asked "Who then is the greatest in the kingdom" -- it is very clear that this question is based on the context of having been rebuked by Jesus. He tells them they must humble themselves as a little child if they are going to even enter the kingdom, once again the context is being able to receive the Lord's correction.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I notice Paul contrasts the resurrected spiritual body with a physical body. A spiritual body that is not flesh or blood and can walk through walls and appear and disappear etc. is unlike any physical body I've ever seen.

Paul contrasts the resurrected, heavenly, incorruptible, glorious, and spiritual body with the earthly, corruptible, dishonorable, and soulish body.

But this spiritual body can still be touched, still has wounds from the cross, etc. and is definitely not metaphorical, yet the metaphor of a seed and a full-grown plant are used to describe it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Paul contrasts the resurrected, heavenly, incorruptible, glorious, and spiritual body with the earthly, corruptible, dishonorable, and soulish body.

But this spiritual body can still be touched, still has wounds from the cross, etc. and is definitely not metaphorical, yet the metaphor of a seed and a full-grown plant are used to describe it.

This is serendipitous timing. I'm reading "The Birth of Christianity" by John Dominic Crossan, and in it he speaks of a 2nd c. book entitled "The Acts of John." :

In the first part, Acts of John 88b– 96, the earthly life of Jesus is summarized, but with an emphasis on the unreality of his body.

This unreality is shown by four points, each of which is mentioned twice (NTA 2.180– 181).

First, Jesus’ body is polymorphous and ever-changing. The sons of Zebedee see Jesus on the shore, but at first James sees a “child” and John sees a “man … handsome, fair, and cheerful-looking.”

Later, as they beach their boat, John sees Jesus as “rather bald-( headed) but with a thick flowing beard,” while James now sees “a young man whose beard was just beginning.”

Second, John “never saw Jesus’ eyes closing, but always open.” One night, in fact, while John was faking sleep, he saw “another like him coming down” to Jesus.

Third, Jesus’ body was both small and huge. “He sometimes appeared to me as a small man with no good looks, and then again as looking up to heaven.” Thus, for example, on the Mount of Transfiguration, Jesus’ “head stretched up to heaven,” but when he turned about he “appeared as a small man.”

Fourth and finally, Jesus’ body “had another strange (property); when I reclined at table he would take me to his own breast, and I held him (fast); and sometimes his breast felt to me smooth and soft, but sometimes hard like rock.” And again, a second time, “I will tell you another glory, brethren; sometimes when I meant to touch him I encountered a material, solid body; but at other times again when I felt him, his substance was immaterial and incorporeal, and as if it did not exist at all.”
~~Crossan, John Dominic. The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened In the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus (p. 34). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

[awareness]

Even tho The Acts of John are clearly pseudepigraphal, it gives us a window into how they thought and conceived back then.

Our world today, and their world back then are too different to ever nail down. That's just one reason we can't "Recover" the early church. Things were too different back then. Believe it or not, but they didn't even have the internet. Haha.

I admit that I like the polymorphous body of Jesus depicted in The Acts of John. Jesus was a shapeshifter. Bro ZNP could prolly relate that, to something ... prolly somehow, from the Bible.

The canonized stories of Jesus say the same thing as The Acts of John, with the AoJ providing more fun details.

And if Paul was right -- and who knows, he could have been -- we can count on having a polymorphous body just like Jesus one day.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I did not say that any figure of speech is lie if it is not the retelling of fact. The example I gave was of a doctor giving a testimony in a public hearing, presenting this testimony as though he were sharing an incident that took place in his hospital, and presenting it in such a way that everyone understood the story to be a factual recounting.

Jesus did not do that when He told parables. It is readily apparent that certain verses, references, and words in the Bible are allegorical. When you say "the kingdom of God is like..." it is very clear to everyone that this is not a factual account but an allegorical one.

Several years ago OBW and others railed on me that I was too much like WL and his love for allegories. Now you claim that i have said anything other than a factual recounting is a lie. Both views are bogus. If we are talking about allegories that is fine with me, but everyone should be clear that this is an allegory and not a fact. Paul made it crystal clear that the resurrection is a fact, not an allegory.

Okay well I thought the point of your doctor story was that metaphors are lies if they aren't factual. So now you admit that Jesus' parable are true even if not factual. If that is so, why couldn't any biblical text be true and yet not factual?

By the way, I take metaphor to be a broad category that includes but is not limited to allegory. With an allegory there is a one to one correspondence between a representation and what is represented i.e. the signifier [A'] and the signified [A]. With Jesus parables, one often can't identify what is signified precisely. Thus, the stories have an open ended quality that allows them to speak to the heart. A similar point can be made regarding appearances the resurrected Jesus if one takes the experience to be unique and thus only describable in terms of inexact mundane analogs.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Paul contrasts the resurrected, heavenly, incorruptible, glorious, and spiritual body with the earthly, corruptible, dishonorable, and soulish body.

But this spiritual body can still be touched, still has wounds from the cross, etc. and is definitely not metaphorical, yet the metaphor of a seed and a full-grown plant are used to describe it.

Borg addresses exactly that point:

The third feature of 1 Corinthians 15 is found in the last half of the chapter. There Paul addresses the question of what the resurrection body is like: “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?”

It is, of course, our question: how physically are we to think of the resurrection? As Paul responds to that question, he uses an analogy that points to both continuity and discontinuity. The physical body is to the resurrection body as a seed is to a full-grown plant. Continuity: the seed becomes the plant. Discontinuity: a full-grown plant looks radically different from the seed. Then Paul distinguishes between two kinds of bodies.

As Tom correctly points out, scholars disagree about how to translate the Greek phrases for these two kinds of bodies. Tom also correctly points out that the translation “physical body” and “spiritual body” goes beyond what the Greek says; the Greek phrase behind “physical body” means literally “a body animated by soul,” and the second phrase means “a body animated by spirit.” Yet the context suggests to me that the contrast “physical body” and “spiritual body” does express what Paul means.

According to other things Paul says in the immediate context, the “body animated by soul” is “flesh and blood,” “perishable,” “of the earth,” “of dust.” This is what we typically mean by a physical body. The “body animated by spirit,” on the other hand, is none of these things.

Thus Paul affirms a bodily resurrection, even as he radically distinguishes the resurrection body from a flesh-and-blood (that is, physical) body. The two bodies are as different as a plant is from a seed.

Whether Paul’s language points to a new mode of physicality (as Tom suggests) is indeterminate, it seems to me. Perhaps we need to take seriously that Paul thought there are spiritual bodies that are not physical.

Before I leave 1 Corinthians 15, I want to note an irony. Verse 14 is often quoted by our conservative and fundamentalist Christian brothers and sisters in support of the absolute centrality of a physical resurrection: “If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching has been in vain and your faith has been in vain.” But the verse is found in a chapter that strongly suggests that the resurrection body is not a physical body."

In a footnote Borg adds:

It is important to note that one can speak of a bodily resurrection without meaning physical body. Thus, for example, affirming the line in the creed, “I believe in the resurrection of the body” need not mean physical body.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Even tho The Acts of John are clearly pseudepigraphal, it gives us a window into how they thought and conceived back then.

Our world today, and their world back then are too different to ever nail down. That's just one reason we can't "Recover" the early church. Things were too different back then. Believe it or not, but they didn't even have the internet. Haha.

I admit that I like the polymorphous body of Jesus depicted in The Acts of John. Jesus was a shapeshifter. Bro ZNP could prolly relate that, to something ... prolly somehow, from the Bible.

The canonized stories of Jesus say the same thing as The Acts of John, with the AoJ providing more fun details.

And if Paul was right -- and who knows, he could have been -- we can count on having a polymorphous body just like Jesus one day.

E.P. Sanders widely regarded as America's leading Jesus scholar, says this about what people thought during jesus' time:

In the first century people knew about two phenomena that are similar to resurrection: ghosts and resuscitated corpses. A ghost then was what a ghost is now, or what a ghost was to Shakespeare:4 a phantasm, especially one that appears late at night.5 Sophisticated ancients, like their modern counterparts, dismissed ghosts as creatures of dreams, figments of the imagination. The less sophisticated, naturally, were credulous.

Both Paul and Luke opposed the idea that the risen Lord was a ghost, Luke explicitly (‘a ghost has not flesh and bones as you see that I have’, 24.40), Paul by implication: what is raised is a spiritual body. Yet they equally opposed the idea that Jesus was a resuscitated corpse. These were better known then than now, because embalming is so widespread.

It is, however, possible for a person to be dead to all appearances, and later to ‘regain’ life. There are several such stories in ancient literature, some in the Bible and some elsewhere. [6. I Kgs 17.8–14; II Kgs 4.18–36; Mark 5.21 (//Matthew 9.18–26; Luke 8.40–56); Luke 7.11–17; Acts 9.36–43; John 11.5–44; Philostratus, Life of Apollonius of Tyana 4.45; Pliny, Natural History 26.13; Apuleius, Florida 19.]


Paul and Luke, however, denied that the risen Lord was simply resuscitated. In Paul’s view he had been transformed, changed from a ‘physical’ or ‘natural’ body to a ‘spiritual body’. Luke thought that he had flesh and could eat, but also that he had been changed. He was not obviously recognizable to people who saw him, and he could appear and disappear. Both authors were trying to describe – Paul at first hand, Luke at second or third hand – an experience that does not fit a known category. What they deny is much clearer than what they affirm.

Sanders, E.. The Historical Figure of Jesus (Kindle Locations 5111-5124). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Okay well I thought the point of your doctor story was that metaphors are lies if they aren't factual. So now you admit that Jesus' parable are true even if not factual. If that is so, why couldn't any biblical text be true and yet not factual?

When the Bible speaks in parables it tells you it is a parable. When it is giving a factual account it tells you that as well. The lie is when you pretend that a parable is a factual account. That is why the doctor also said "Besides, I wasn't under oath". When you mislead people into thinking it is a factual account, that is a form of lying.

Originally Posted by zeek

By the way, I take metaphor to be a broad category that includes but is not limited to allegory. With an allegory there is a one to one correspondence between a representation and what is represented i.e. the signifier [A'] and the signified [A]. With Jesus parables, one often can't identify what is signified precisely. thus, the stories have an open ended quality that allows them to speak to the heart. WL , perhaps because of his need to explain everything for followers he looked down on as simpletons, allegorized them. The problem then was, that there was no way to verify his allegorical interpretation. I can provide examples if you're interested.

That is fine with me. If Borg's reference is to Jesus parables I don't see how anyone would take issue with that, but apparently he views the resurrection as a parable even though Paul said very clearly if that is the case then the apostles are liars.

[ZNPaaneah]

Yes, we don't know what the resurrected Body will be like, only that it is connected to our physical body in this life just as a seed is connected to the plant that grows from that seed.

However, there are many things that we do know about the next age. Christians, in the next age, will have a "spiritual body" yet will continue to interact with people in the world that have a soulish body (they walk by the light of the city). We continue to live and have our being on Earth. We will know people who died in the next the life. Jesus was the first fruit of the resurrection. He had a physical body that you could touch, He could eat, He could talk, walk. He still had scars from the first life. However, His appearance was different, and He appeared to be omnipresent and not limited by time or space.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

When the Bible speaks in parables it tells you it is a parable. When it is giving a factual account it tells you that as well.

Can you show where in the Bible explicitly states that it is giving a factual account?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Can you show where in the Bible explicitly states that it is giving a factual account?

Both Peter and Luke talk about eye-witness accounts. These were factual accounts.

It was only when Jesus was teaching do we sometimes have parables.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Both Peter and Luke talk about eye-witness accounts. These were factual accounts.

And the stories in The Acts of John are factual too.

None of it can be proven or disproved, given it happened 2000 yrs ago.

I'm with Thomas (Didymus, "the twin") on this one ... if Thomas lived today. I need the nail holes.

But does it matter? For all we know, some of the Gnostics were right ; Jesus had a twin.

It really boils down to, will I have a spiritual body in reality one day? That will be undeniable.

All the rest is speculation.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Both Peter and Luke talk about eye-witness accounts. These were factual accounts.

It was only when Jesus was teaching do we sometimes have parables.

If the standard dating of Luke is correct, it was written about 50 years or more after Jesus’ death. The stories of the eyewitnesses were passed along orally and eventually written down and collected . Luke relies heavily on the Gospel of Mark to which he adds passages from the Sayings Gospel Q and a few other stories.

Not sure what reference from the so-called Epistles of Peter you're referring to.

Borg, who was both a secular New Testament scholar and a Christian Theologian called his approach to the Bible a "historical-metaphorical" method.

By “historical approach,” I mean all the methods that are relevant to discerning the ancient historical meanings of biblical texts. The chief concern of the historical approach is the past-tense question, “What did this text mean in the ancient historical setting in which it was written?” By “metaphorical approach,” I mean most broadly a nonliteral way of reading biblical texts. A metaphorical reading does not confine itself to the literal, factual, and historical meanings of a text. It moves beyond to the question, “What does this story mean as a story, independent of its historical factuality?”

Borg, Marcus J.. Reading the Bible Again For the First Time (Kindle Locations 527-531). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

[Ohio]

Ohio: Both Peter and Luke talk about eye-witness accounts. These were factual accounts.

Originally Posted by zeek

Not sure what reference from the so-called Epistles of Peter you're referring to.

I Peter 5.10 "... a fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ ..."

II Peter 1.16 "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."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Can you show where in the Bible explicitly states that it is giving a factual account?

Acts 1:1The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
2Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
3To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

Acts 2:32This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

Peter confirms several points of Jesus crucifixion as related in the gospels here, and they don't deny it.

Acts 3:14But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;
15And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.

This is testimony at a trial in which Peter accused this tribunal of crucifying Jesus Christ. If this had not been true they would have said so.

Acts 4:6And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem.
7And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?
8Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,
9If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole;
10Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
11This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.

High Priest council admits that Jesus was crucified and complains that Peter’s preaching intends to hold them responsible for this death. This is testimony in a trial.

Acts 5:28Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.

Stephen accuses the religious leaders of having been involved in the betrayal and murder of Jesus.

Acts 7:52Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I Peter 5.10 "... a fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ ..."

II Peter 1.16 "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."

Yes, I Peter (I think you meant 5:1 not 5:10), Peter was an eyewitness. But he didn't write a gospel. Or if he did he didn't sign it.

II Peter however, wasn't written by Peter. It was written in the 2nd c.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Acts 1:1The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
2Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
3To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

Acts 2:32This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

Peter confirms several points of Jesus crucifixion as related in the gospels here, and they don't deny it.

Acts 3:14But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;
15And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.

This is testimony at a trial in which Peter accused this tribunal of crucifying Jesus Christ. If this had not been true they would have said so.

Acts 4:6And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem.
7And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?
8Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,
9If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole;
10Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
11This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.

High Priest council admits that Jesus was crucified and complains that Peter’s preaching intends to hold them responsible for this death. This is testimony in a trial.

Acts 5:28Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.

Stephen accuses the religious leaders of having been involved in the betrayal and murder of Jesus.

Acts 7:52Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:

The 12 didn't write any of this.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

The 12 didn't write any of this.

Doesn't change the fact that "The Bible is explicitly stating that it is giving a factual account".

Peter did write two epistles, if he felt he had been misquoted he could have said so. Instead he confirmed that he was an eyewitness of the sufferings of Christ.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes, I Peter (I think you meant 5:1 not 5:10), Peter was an eyewitness. But he didn't write a gospel. Or if he did he didn't sign it.

II Peter however, wasn't written by Peter. It was written in the 2nd c.

What is the point you are trying to make? Historians are not the eyewitnesses, they like the author of Acts gather together eyewitness accounts and put them together into a history.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Acts 1:1The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
2Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
3To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

Acts 2:32This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

Peter confirms several points of Jesus crucifixion as related in the gospels here, and they don't deny it.

Acts 3:14But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;
15And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.

This is testimony at a trial in which Peter accused this tribunal of crucifying Jesus Christ. If this had not been true they would have said so.

Acts 4:6And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem.
7And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?
8Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,
9If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole;
10Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
11This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.

High Priest council admits that Jesus was crucified and complains that Peter’s preaching intends to hold them responsible for this death. This is testimony in a trial.

Acts 5:28Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.

Stephen accuses the religious leaders of having been involved in the betrayal and murder of Jesus.

Acts 7:52Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:

I agree that the author does seem to be making a factual claim for The Resurrection in Acts 1:3. But, the author's information is all derived from other people rather than then his own first-hand knowledge.

And there are numerous problems when we compare the various accounts of the Resurrection in the New Testament. First, the locations: According to Matthew and Mark, the disciples went to Galilee and saw Jesus there. According to Luke, they did not leave Jerusalem.

Then there are the divergences between the stories of Jesus’ appearances. In Matthew he appears only twice, once to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, once to the remaining disciples after Judas committed suicide. In Luke he does not appear to the women, but first of all to two disciples, one unnamed (a sister?), while the other, Cleopas, is otherwise unknown, then to all the disciples, before whom he eats fish. According to Acts, he was with the disciples for forty days, appearing off and on.

However, according to Paul in I Cor. 15:

For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve [not the eleven]. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

So while Paul and the Evangelists unanimously declare that Jesus appeared alive after he died, they don't agree about when, where or to whom he appeared.

Finally, the story of Jesus’ ascension into heaven is different in Luke 24.50–53 and Acts 1.6–11, even though both accounts were written by the same author. As I recall, Witness Lee had an imaginative explanation for multiple ascensions which was that Jesus is always coming and going. That solves the discrepancy in a metaphorical-experiential kind of way. But it doesn't seem to square with the expectation that we are still awaiting his second coming though, does it?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes, I Peter (I think you meant 5:1 not 5:10), Peter was an eyewitness. But he didn't write a gospel. Or if he did he didn't sign it.

II Peter however, wasn't written by Peter. It was written in the 2nd c.

And you were there?

Your awareness includes time travel, something which has always fascinated me.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I agree that the author does seem to be making a factual claim for The Resurrection in Acts 1:3. But, the author's information is all derived from other people rather than then his own first-hand knowledge.

And there are numerous problems when we compare the various accounts of the Resurrection in the New Testament. First, the locations: According to Matthew and Mark, the disciples went to Galilee and saw Jesus there. According to Luke, they did not leave Jerusalem.

Then there are the divergences between the stories of Jesus’ appearances. In Matthew he appears only twice, once to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, once to the remaining disciples after Judas committed suicide. In Luke he does not appear to the women, but first of all to two disciples, one unnamed (a sister?), while the other, Cleopas, is otherwise unknown, then to all the disciples, before whom he eats fish. According to Acts, he was with the disciples for forty days, appearing off and on.

However, according to Paul in I Cor. 15:



So while Paul and the Evangelists unanimously declare that Jesus appeared alive after he died, they don't agree about when, where or to whom he appeared.

Finally, the story of Jesus’ ascension into heaven is different in Luke 24.50–53 and Acts 1.6–11, even though both accounts were written by the same author. As I recall, Witness Lee had an imaginative explanation for multiple ascensions which was that Jesus is always coming and going. That solves the discrepancy in a metaphorical-experiential kind of way. But it doesn't seem to square with the expectation that we are still awaiting his second coming though, does it?

These accounts differ, but that never means that they are not all true.

Eg, Luke's Gospel ends with, "They spent all their time in the temple, praisong God."

Does that mean they never stopped to sleep or eat? In your little world, this one statement conclusively proves the Bible cannot be inerrant.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

So while Paul and the Evangelists unanimously declare that Jesus appeared alive after he died, they don't agree about when, where or to whom he appeared.

Could you be more specific as to where they disagree?

1. The "when" is easy enough -- your saying the first one that he appeared to was Mary, not Peter, is that right?

2. The disagreement with the "where" is that they saw Jesus in Galilee and/or Jerusalem?

3. What is the disagreement with the "to whom"? Is this a repeat of the issue with Mary?

Thanks

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

So while Paul and the Evangelists unanimously declare that Jesus appeared alive after he died, they don't agree about when, where or to whom he appeared.

Matt 28:6He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
7And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
8And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.

17Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

In John Jesus appears to Mary prior to his ascension. That is in Jerusalem. But in Galilee Jesus appears to the disciples, this is after His ascension. I think it is clear that this is the "first appearance" that Paul is referring to.

You seem to think that differing accounts indicate a problem. On the contrary all investigators know that identical accounts indicate a rehearsed lie, whereas differing accounts are the signs of the truth. Try reading some of the key texts on discerning lies like "Spy the Lie".

How can you say that Jesus first official sighting after the resurrection was by Mary since He Himself said "not to touch me". The official visits that included infallible proofs like touching the nail prints and seeing Him eat took place after the ascension.

You take issue with Paul referring to Jesus appearing to the twelve instead of the eleven. I don't understand that. Why would he refer to the twelve as the "eleven"? Mathias was with the disciples all the time that Jesus went in and without, hence He would have appeared to Mathias as well, and Mathias was numbered with the twelve. So how is Jesus appearing to the "twelve" an issue?

The town of Bethany is on the side of the Mount of Olives. These are two descriptions. I have climbed quite a few mountains in my day, most recently Mount Washington a couple of weeks ago. These mountains have trails that take them to the top, and the distance from one trail to another can be 15 miles. Looking at these two accounts I would say that Jesus took the disciples to a trail where the head of the trail was in Bethany.

Luke 24:50And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.
51And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.
52And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:
53And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.

2Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.

For people who actually climb up mountains you wouldn't just say that you climbed Mount Washington, you would say which trail you took. It is called the "trail head".

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Doesn't change the fact that "The Bible is explicitly stating that it is giving a factual account"

But Luke/Acts was written anonymously by an author that claims to be gathering materials and sources we don't have access to, and so is not an eyewitness account, and may or may not be factual. We don't know, and you don't know, except to want to believe it, and go thru any loops and hoops to prove it so. You are not objective in the least.

Originally Posted by Z

Peter did write two epistles, if he felt he had been misquoted he could have said so. Instead he confirmed that he was an eyewitness of the sufferings of Christ.

I Peter yes. But 2nd Peter was written by someone else other than Peter.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

But Luke/Acts was written anonymously by an author that claims to be gathering materials and sources we don't have access to, and so is not an eyewitness account, and may or may not be factual. We don't know, and you don't know, except to want to believe it, and go thru any loops and hoops to prove it so. You are not objective in the least.


I Peter yes. But 2nd Peter was written by someone else other than Peter.

Once again, none of this changes the fact that the Bible claims it is a factual account. By all means examine it for blemishes, but the question was where in the Bible does it say it is a factual account.

As to Peter, you have already made this claim and are sounding like a broken record. My point was that Peter was well able to correct the record if he felt the account of his actions in Acts was in error.

In addition to that point I would add that Peter certainly shared his experiences of the Lord Jesus, including his death and resurrection with many people. Any of those could have also corrected the record if they thought there was an error.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Once again, none of this changes the fact that the Bible claims it is a factual account. By all means examine it for blemishes, but the question was where in the Bible does it say it is a factual account.

As to Peter, you have already made this claim and are sounding like a broken record. My point was that Peter was well able to correct the record if he felt the account of his actions in Acts was in error.

You act like all the writers were colluding together.

Once again, Peter didn't write Acts, Luke, or any of the gospels. Or if he did he didn't think enough of them to sign his name to any of them.

So, with the exception of I Peter (and scholars today even believe that it's pseudonymous ... but that aside), what we are getting is hearsay, not eyewitness accounts.

Plus, Acts says Peter was illiterate. So he couldn't have written in Greek.

Originally Posted by Z

In addition to that point I would add that Peter certainly shared his experiences of the Lord Jesus, including his death and resurrection with many people. Any of those could have also corrected the record if they thought there was an error.

Any of whom? Just who are you talking about? Paul couldn't have. He was writing before any of the rest was written.

And if the Bible claims that it's factual, that's a little self serving don't you think?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

You act like all the writers were colluding together.

No, I am acting like the resurrection of Jesus was the main event in Peter's life and ministry.

Originally Posted by awareness

Once again, Peter didn't write Acts, Luke, or any of the gospels. Or if he did he didn't think enough of them to sign his name to any of them.

This is the third time you have made this assertion. Who are you debating with? No one cares or is discussing the authorship of the epistle's ascribed to Peter. He was a historical figure, an eyewitness of Jesus resurrection, a key figure in the early church. My claim is that this man spoke to hundreds, maybe thousands of believers in the early church. In my own experience with Christian meetings I would expect his personal testimony of his experience of Jesus to be a centerpiece of his ministry which would have been repeated time and time again.

Originally Posted by awareness

So, with the exception of I Peter (and scholars today even believe that it's pseudonymous ... but that aside), what we are getting is hearsay, not eyewitness accounts.

Plus, Acts says Peter was illiterate. So he couldn't have written in Greek.

Any of whom? Just who are you talking about? Paul couldn't have. He was writing before any of the rest was written.

Any of those who heard Peter. Just like this forum discusses Witness Lee and his testimony. Are you saying that your testimony, my testimony, and every other testimony is "hearsay" and "pseudonymous"? If so does that mean your testimony is not to be believed? I am willing to believe their testimony because I feel my testimony is to be believed.

Hearsay refers to evidence that is not within the personal knowledge of a witness, such as testimony regarding statements made by someone other than the witness, and that therefore may be inadmissible to establish the truth of a particular contention because the accuracy of the evidence cannot be verified through cross-examination.

That is not a fair description of the Biblical account. The Bible writers recount eyewitness testimony in a trial. It would be more accurate to describe this writing as a journalist or historian recounting the events in various trials. We would not describe a historical account of the Nuremberg trial as "hearsay". Nor would we describe the book of Acts as "evidence in a trial".

Originally Posted by awareness

And if the Bible claims that it's factual, that's a little self serving don't you think?

Do you understand what the discussion is about? The claim is that the NT uses figures of speech and metaphor. To that I respond that if you present your talk as a factual account when it in fact is not factual but metaphorical, then that is what a liar does, to which I gave an example of a liar doing just that during public hearings on fire retardants. To this I was asked "where does the Bible say that it is a factual account". This has nothing to do with "self serving". According to the Bible the account of the resurrection is a factual account. Now if you want to dispute the truth of that fact, go to it. But the point is that if the Bible actually meant that the resurrection was metaphorically true but not factually true, then that would make them liars. That is how some in this thread were interpreting the NT.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Plus, Acts says Peter was illiterate. So he couldn't have written in Greek.

This is how you lose credibility.

We have discussed these words in Acts 4.13 at length.

The Sanhedrin marveled that Peter and John were

1. Unlearned, Greek "agrammatos," meaning unlettered, unversed, and
2. Laymen, Greek "idiotes," meaning nonprofessional, unskilled, uneducated

But you, in usual form, take this and assume that Peter and John never could read or write their entire lives, hence their writings are frauds, and the Bible is full of errors.

Am I right or not?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

These accounts differ, but that never means that they are not all true.

Eg, Luke's Gospel ends with, "They spent all their time in the temple, praisong God."

Does that mean they never stopped to sleep or eat? In your little world, this one statement conclusively proves the Bible cannot be inerrant.

That's funny. But we're talking about an issue that you consider serious. We might say it's "existential". As you have said salvation hangs on belief in the Resurrection.

So Paul says

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received: how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 and that He was buried, and that He arose again the third day according to the Scriptures,
5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve,
6 and that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some have fallen asleep.
7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles.
8 And last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

So, Paul equates the appearance of Jesus to him with the resurrected Jesus' other appearances.

Now when we look at the account of Jesus' appearance to Paul in Acts 9 what does it say?

3 And as he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly there shone round about him a light from heaven.
4 And he fell to the earth and heard a voice saying unto him, “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me?”
5 And he said, “Who art Thou, Lord?” And the Lord said, “I am Jesus whom thou persecutest; it is hard for thee to kick against the goads.”
6 And he, trembling and astonished, said, “Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do?” And the Lord said unto him, “Arise and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.”
7 And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no man.
8 And Saul arose from the earth, and when his eyes were opened, he could see no man; but they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus.

Wait...what? Paul counts himself among the witnesses to the the resurrected Jesus, but here it is described as seeing a light hearing a voice. And the others who were there didn't see a man.

How is it that Paul could equate his "seeing" of Jesus to Jesus' other Resurrection appearances? Those who were with Paul didn't see Jesus like he did. If other than the faithful had been present at the resurrection appearances recounted in the gospels, would they have seen Jesus? Or was Jesus only visible to the eyes of faith?

In Acts 9 it says that the others with Paul heard a voice but saw "no man". In Acts 22:9 Paul says, "And those who were with me saw indeed the light and were afraid, but they heard not the voice of Him that spoke to me."

Did those accompanying Paul on the road to Damascus hear Jesus' voice or not? I don't know. Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 contradict each other. But, in either case, it seems that those present didn't experience the resurrected Jesus like Paul did. That suggests that the experience depended on Paul's subjectivity. What do you think?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

That's funny. But we're talking about an issue that you consider serious. We might say it's "existential". As you have said salvation hangs on belief in the Resurrection.

So Paul says

So, Paul equates the appearance of Jesus to him with the resurrected Jesus' other appearances.

Now when we look at the account of Jesus' appearance to Paul in Acts 9 what does it say?



Wait...what? Paul counts himself among the witnesses to the the resurrected Jesus, but here it is described as seeing a light hearing a voice. And the others who were there didn't see a man.

How is it that Paul could equate his "seeing" of Jesus to Jesus' other Resurrection appearances? Those who were with Paul didn't see Jesus like he did. If other than the faithful had been present at the resurrection appearances recounted in the gospels, would they have seen Jesus? Or was Jesus only visible to the eyes of faith?

In Acts 9 it says that the others with Paul heard a voice but saw "no man". In Acts 22:9 Paul says, "And those who were with me saw indeed the light and were afraid, but they heard not the voice of Him that spoke to me."

Did those accompanying Paul on the road to Damascus hear Jesus' voice or not? I don't know. Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 contradict each other. But, in either case, it seems that those present didn't experience the resurrected Jesus like Paul did. That suggests that the experience depended on Paul's subjectivity. What do you think?

Is there a point here?

Paul could see what others could not?

That happened regularly in the Gospels.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Now when we look at the account of Jesus' appearance to Paul in Acts 9 what does it say? ...



Wait...what? Paul counts himself among the witnesses to the the resurrected Jesus, but here it is described as seeing a light hearing a voice. And the others who were there didn't see a man.

How is it that Paul could equate his "seeing" of Jesus to Jesus' other Resurrection appearances? Those who were with Paul didn't see Jesus like he did. If other than the faithful had been present at the resurrection appearances recounted in the gospels, would they have seen Jesus? Or was Jesus only visible to the eyes of faith?

In Acts 9 it says that the others with Paul heard a voice but saw "no man". In Acts 22:9 Paul says, "And those who were with me saw indeed the light and were afraid, but they heard not the voice of Him that spoke to me."

Did those accompanying Paul on the road to Damascus hear Jesus' voice or not? I don't know. Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 contradict each other. But, in either case, it seems that those present didn't experience the resurrected Jesus like Paul did. That suggests that the experience depended on Paul's subjectivity. What do you think?

Acts 9 "hearing a voice"

Acts 22 -- "they heard not the voice of Him that spoke to me"

That is the question?

I always understood this that they heard "a voice" but were unable to understand what was being said. I have had this experience myself quite often where I can discern a voice that is talking in the other room, but don't know what they are saying.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Acts 9 "hearing a voice"

Acts 22 -- "they heard not the voice of Him that spoke to me"

That is the question?

I always understood this that they heard "a voice" but were unable to understand what was being said. I have had this experience myself quite often where I can discern a voice that is talking in the other room, but don't know what they are saying.

In zeek's little world, if we cannot explain all the intricate details of Paul's vision of Christ, then it must not be true, and thus proves the Bible is not inerrant.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is how you lose credibility.

We have discussed these words in Acts 4.13 at length.

The Sanhedrin marveled that Peter and John were

1. Unlearned, Greek "agrammatos," meaning unlettered, unversed, and
2. Laymen, Greek "idiotes," meaning nonprofessional, unskilled, uneducated

But you, in usual form, take this and assume that Peter and John never could read or write their entire lives, hence their writings are frauds, and the Bible is full of errors.

Am I right or not?

There's debates as to how I Peter was written. One answer is that Peter dictated it to someone that could write in Greek (remember Peter spoke Aramaic) maybe his secretary, Silvanus (5:12). Then that theory gets discounted claiming Silvanus was the delivery man.

And as far as John and Peter learning to read and write Greek, there's no scripture evidence for them doing so, what school they attended, or who taught them. That strikes me as just a rationale, to get around the verse Acts.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In zeek's little world, if we cannot explain all the intricate details of Paul's vision of Christ, then it must not be true, and thus proves the Bible is not inerrant.

This is how people actually recount true events. If they always give you a word for word account it suggests a rehearsed lie.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

There's debates as to how I Peter was written. One answer is that Peter dictated it to someone that could write in Greek (remember Peter spoke Aramaic) maybe his secretary, Silvanus (5:12). Then that theory gets discounted claiming Silvanus was the delivery man.

And as far as John and Peter learning to read and write Greek, there's no scripture evidence for them doing so, what school they attended, or who taught them. That strikes me as just a rationale, to get around the verse Acts.

I have not seen any scriptural evidence that you can read or write either.

Neither do I have eye-witness evidence that you are not an A.I. cyber bot.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

There's debates as to how I Peter was written. One answer is that Peter dictated it to someone that could write in Greek (remember Peter spoke Aramaic) maybe his secretary, Silvanus (5:12). Then that theory gets discounted claiming Silvanus was the delivery man.

And as far as John and Peter learning to read and write Greek, there's no scripture evidence for them doing so, what school they attended, or who taught them. That strikes me as just a rationale, to get around the verse Acts.

So what. Witness Lee has written a whole bookcase of books without writing anything. Why wouldn't someone take notes during messages and then work together with Peter to write those up? How is that any different from what WL did?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Is there a point here?

Paul could see what others could not?

That happened regularly in the Gospels.

Paul's experience of the resurrected Jesus was a private subjective one, not one that could be publicly observed or video-recorded. The other resurrection appearances may have been similarly limited to the followers of Jesus and not observable to those who weren't.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is how people actually recount true events. If they always give you a word for word account it suggests a rehearsed lie.

By that criteria alone much of the material in the synoptic Gospels must be rehearsed lies since they ape each other in structure almost word for word. For example...

Matthew 8.2 and behold, a leper came to him and knelt before him, saying, "Lord, if you will, you can make me clean." 8.3 And he stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, "I will; be clean." And immediately his leprosy was cleansed. 8.4 And Jesus said to him, "See that you say nothing to any one; but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a proof to the people."

Mark 1.40And a leper came to him beseeching him, and kneeling said to him, "If you will, you can make me clean." 1.41 Moved with pity, he stretched out his hand and touched him, and said to him, "I will; be clean." 1.42And immediately the leprosy left him, and he was made clean. 1.43And he sternly charged him, and sent him away at once, 1.44and said to him, "See that you say nothing to any one; but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, for a proof to the people."

Luke 5.12 While he was in one of the cities, there came a man full of leprosy; and when he saw Jesus, he fell on his face and besought him, "Lord, if you will, you can make me clean." 5.13 And he stretched out his hand, and touched him, saying, "I will; be clean." And immediately the leprosy left him. 5.14 And he charged him to tell no one; but "go and show yourself to the priest, and make an offering for your cleansing, as Moses commanded, for a proof to the people."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have not seen any scriptural evidence that you can read or write either.

Neither do I have eye-witness evidence that you are not an A.I. cyber bot.

True on both accounts. But it doesn't take faith for you to know better. Cuz you can investigate and even be an eyewitness to prove it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So what. Witness Lee has written a whole bookcase of books without writing anything. Why wouldn't someone take notes during messages and then work together with Peter to write those up? How is that any different from what WL did?

It differs cuz of Gutenberg, and the digital age.

And I don't think journalist were following them around taking quotes and notes. Only 10% at most were literate.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

It differs cuz of Gutenberg, and the digital age.

And I don't think journalist were following them around taking quotes and notes. Only 10% at most were literate.

I can't speak for Gutenberg's time, but I can speak from my own experience. When I first began to meet with the church in Houston there was a brother Raul Tapp, he couldn't read (he was middle aged) and he was learning to read by learning to read the Bible.

I see no reason why anyone would assume Peter couldn't read since he was quoting scripture and once he began to shepherd the new church it would have been imperative for him to read and study the Bible. The stress they were under in trying to read and study the word is expressed in Acts which is why St. Stephen and the others were chosen to take on other administrative duties.

Also, as a teacher I know that the best way to learn to read is not in a classroom or at school but one on one at home. Parent's need to teach their children to read before coming to school and when they complain that the school "didn't teach their kid to read" it is largely the fact that they didn't do didly squat to teach their kid to read before they went to school. As a result their kid was lip synching throughout elementary school during reading exercises.

The fact that Peter was "unlearned" is not, imo, an indication that he was illiterate but rather a source of marvel that he taught himself to read and study the Bible even though he hadn't gone to school like the rest of the religious leaders.

Second, in my experience I was involved in putting Witness Lee's messages to paper. There were quite a few people involved. We had people transcribe messages from tape recordings (though in Peter's time I expect they would use their notes). We had english teachers go through the grammar. Others would check spelling. Then these messages would go to closer coworkers who would do some rough editing, knowing what was not to be put into print, and then Witness Lee would see these rough drafts, make his comments and the final polishing would take place. Everyone involved felt they were involved in a calling. I would imagine the same would take place with Peter. Just because you have a member of the congregation who had been educated in school doesn't mean they "wrote" the letter, only that they participated in the writing, editing and polishing of the letter.

Then in my experience we had members who wrote songs that we would sing in the meetings. Every now and then someone in the region (Texas) would gather all these songs from different cities and put them into a separate hymnal. Over time some of these favorites would make it to the official hymnal that was printed. One of the brothers in Houston wrote one of the hymns in the official hymnal that was a favorite (at least in Houston). Therefore it seems reasonable to me that these letters of Peter could have been a local publishing that years later got an official wider publishing.

Also in my experience Witness Lee, the source of the messages in English, was not raised with English as his first language. Even though he spoke in English it was used as a justification to edit the messages and assist. How would that be any different from Peter learning a second language? It may very well be that John Ingalls or Ben McPherson actually inserted a sentence into the written ministry that Witness Lee didn't speak, but so what. The message was clearly Witness Lee's and that sentence was approved of by Witness Lee before it went to print.

I don't think the NT ever tries to hide the fact that these writings were a product of the Body. When they say the letter is from Peter or Paul they are being honest, that is where it is from.

[awareness]

ZNP post left below. I don't know if you do it on purpose, or if by Mr. Magoo type obliviousness, but seems you bowl out so many claims in one post that it would take a days' worth of homework to refute it, perchance resulting in just throwing arms up, giving up, and walking away.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I can't speak for Gutenberg's time, but I can speak from my own experience. When I first began to meet with the church in Houston there was a brother Raul Tapp, he couldn't read (he was middle aged) and he was learning to read by learning to read the Bible.

Dick and Jane would have been a smarter way to go, but given he was among Bible fanatics, maybe not.

Originally Posted by Z

I see no reason why anyone would assume Peter couldn't read since he was quoting scripture and once he began to shepherd the new church it would have been imperative for him to read and study the Bible.

All kinds of claims can be made. Like, Peter learned to read Greek because they were pray-reading Paul's books, and those of the gospel writers. And even his own book.

And ... maybe Peter wasn't bringing in droves of converts, like Paul, cuz he was too busy learning Hebrew and Greek using the Septuagint and Masoretic text.

My question is, why just one book? Peter, unlike Paul, WAS an eyewitness. So why only one book? If he was fluent in Greek, Peter could have produced an account that would put the gospels, not by eyewitnesses, to shame. Why didn't Peter write more books than Paul? Shouldn't Peter, and not Paul, dominate the NT?

Paul wrote Greek (and Hebrew) and that's why he dominates the NT, and Peter -- a better witness -- don't.

Originally Posted by Z

The fact that Peter was "unlearned" is not, imo, an indication that he was illiterate but rather a source of marvel that he taught himself to read and study the Bible even though he hadn't gone to school like the rest of the religious leaders.

There was a small percentage of the population back then that were the educated elite. Peter was a fisherman. He wasn't among them.

Originally Posted by Z

Second, in my experience I was involved in putting Witness Lee's messages to paper. There were quite a few people involved. We had people transcribe messages from tape recordings (though in Peter's time I expect they would use their notes). We had english teachers go through the grammar. Others would check spelling. Then these messages would go to closer coworkers who would do some rough editing, knowing what was not to be put into print, and then Witness Lee would see these rough drafts, make his comments and the final polishing would take place. Everyone involved felt they were involved in a calling. I would imagine the same would take place with Peter. Just because you have a member of the congregation who had been educated in school doesn't mean they "wrote" the letter, only that they participated in the writing, editing and polishing of the letter.

I doubt is was that elaborate back then, with the exception of books of Acts, which is why there are two different versions of Acts, one longer and one shorter, one colorful, and one drab.

But yes, since we have over 5500 manuscripts, some minuscule, and none of them agree, the NT books have gone thru editing.

Originally Posted by Z

I don't think the NT ever tries to hide the fact that these writings were a product of the Body. When they say the letter is from Peter or Paul they are being honest, that is where it is from.

Honesty wasn't their best virtue back then. That's why we have so many pseudepigraphal books from back then, like II Peter, and half of Paul's books.

--------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I can't speak for Gutenberg's time, but I can speak from my own experience. When I first began to meet with the church in Houston there was a brother Raul Tapp, he couldn't read (he was middle aged) and he was learning to read by learning to read the Bible.

I see no reason why anyone would assume Peter couldn't read since he was quoting scripture and once he began to shepherd the new church it would have been imperative for him to read and study the Bible. The stress they were under in trying to read and study the word is expressed in Acts which is why St. Stephen and the others were chosen to take on other administrative duties.

Also, as a teacher I know that the best way to learn to read is not in a classroom or at school but one on one at home. Parent's need to teach their children to read before coming to school and when they complain that the school "didn't teach their kid to read" it is largely the fact that they didn't do didly squat to teach their kid to read before they went to school. As a result their kid was lip synching throughout elementary school during reading exercises.

The fact that Peter was "unlearned" is not, imo, an indication that he was illiterate but rather a source of marvel that he taught himself to read and study the Bible even though he hadn't gone to school like the rest of the religious leaders.

Second, in my experience I was involved in putting Witness Lee's messages to paper. There were quite a few people involved. We had people transcribe messages from tape recordings (though in Peter's time I expect they would use their notes). We had english teachers go through the grammar. Others would check spelling. Then these messages would go to closer coworkers who would do some rough editing, knowing what was not to be put into print, and then Witness Lee would see these rough drafts, make his comments and the final polishing would take place. Everyone involved felt they were involved in a calling. I would imagine the same would take place with Peter. Just because you have a member of the congregation who had been educated in school doesn't mean they "wrote" the letter, only that they participated in the writing, editing and polishing of the letter.

Then in my experience we had members who wrote songs that we would sing in the meetings. Every now and then someone in the region (Texas) would gather all these songs from different cities and put them into a separate hymnal. Over time some of these favorites would make it to the official hymnal that was printed. One of the brothers in Houston wrote one of the hymns in the official hymnal that was a favorite (at least in Houston). Therefore it seems reasonable to me that these letters of Peter could have been a local publishing that years later got an official wider publishing.

Also in my experience Witness Lee, the source of the messages in English, was not raised with English as his first language. Even though he spoke in English it was used as a justification to edit the messages and assist. How would that be any different from Peter learning a second language? It may very well be that John Ingalls or Ben McPherson actually inserted a sentence into the written ministry that Witness Lee didn't speak, but so what. The message was clearly Witness Lee's and that sentence was approved of by Witness Lee before it went to print.

I don't think the NT ever tries to hide the fact that these writings were a product of the Body. When they say the letter is from Peter or Paul they are being honest, that is where it is from.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

My question is, why just one book? Peter, unlike Paul, WAS an eyewitness. So why only one book? If he was fluent in Greek, Peter could have produced an account that would put the gospels, not by eyewitnesses, to shame. Why didn't Peter write more books than Paul? Shouldn't Peter, and not Paul, dominate the NT?

The writers had an agenda. Peter's agenda, mission, calling was clearly to open the door to the kingdom for both Jews and Gentiles (the keys of the kingdom).

One of the very clear functions of Peter's epistles is to testify and confirm Paul's epistles. A second very clear function is to make up for the deficiencies in Paul's ministry, for example Peter was both a Pastor and a husband with a family. Paul was neither.

However, Jesus explained why they needed to have a scribe converted to the gospel (Paul). No one is saying, including Peter, that he had the schooling or training that Paul had. We see Peter being completely intimidated by both James and Paul in the book of Acts. However, the resuscitation of the sister who made clothes inspired and comforted him to his value in the ministry. Hence his word "like precious gift". He knew he didn't have the same quantity as Paul, but that what he did have was equally precious.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

All kinds of claims can be made. Like, Peter learned to read Greek because they were pray-reading Paul's books, and those of the gospel writers. And even his own book.

Honesty wasn't their best virtue back then. That's why we have so many pseudepigraphal books from back then, like II Peter, and half of Paul's books.

Has honesty become the hallmark of the 21st century? I think not.

Have I not provided sufficient information concerning Peter's ability to read and write?

You claim he was a fisherman and illiterate, yet only the former has been confirmed.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

However, Jesus explained why they needed to have a scribe converted to the gospel (Paul). No one is saying, including Peter, that he had the schooling or training that Paul had. We see Peter being completely intimidated by both James and Paul in the book of Acts.

Likewise they needed a learned doctor, Luke, whose command of the Greek language far exceeded any of the Apostles, including Paul.

Likewise they needed a young man, John, who could learn and observe, both the good and the bad, so that when he was old he could write his own gospel, his epistles, and his own Revelation of Jesus Christ.

[zeek]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
This is how people actually recount true events. If they always give you a word for word account it suggests a rehearsed lie.

Originally Posted by zeek

By that criteria alone much of the material in the synoptic Gospels must be rehearsed lies since they ape each other in structure almost word for word. For example...

You provided no counter argument to my previous post. In any other context you would conclude that word for word matching accounts suggest a "rehearsed lie." But, not when the word of word match is between Gospels because you have uncritically accepted that the Bible is inerrant despite evidence to the contrary.

"The term synoptic... comes via Latin from the Greek σύνοψις, synopsis, i.e. "(a) seeing all together, synopsis";[n 1] the sense of the word in English, the one specifically applied to these three gospels, of "giving an account of the events from the same point of view or under the same general aspect" is a modern one." [Wiki] The simplest explanation is that they copied from each other or from some other text which we don't have. At first it was thought that Mark and Luke copied from Matthew. But now most scholars think that Matthew and Luke copied from and added to Mark. So, even though the Synoptic Gospels meet your definition of a rehearsed lie, that's probably is not the case. But, where the other two copied from the first, they cannot be viewed as having the authority of independent witnesses either.

Here's another example where there are minor variations, but the point of view, sequence of events, sentence structure coincide to closely to be from the independent eyewitnesses.

Matt. 9.2 And behold, they brought to him a paralytic, lying on his bed; and when Jesus saw their faith he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven." 9.3 And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, "This man is blaspheming." 9.4 But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, "Why do you think evil in your hearts? 9.5 For which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise and walk'? 9.6 But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" --he then said to the paralytic--"Rise, take up your bed and go home." 9.7 And he rose and went home. 9.8 When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.

Mark 2.3And they came, bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men. 2.4And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him; and when they had made an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic lay. 2.5And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "My son, your sins are forgiven." 2.6Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, 2.7 "Why does this man speak thus? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" 2.8And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, "Why do you question thus in your hearts? 2.9Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise, take up your pallet and walk'? 2.10But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" --he said to the paralytic-- 2.11 "I say to you, rise, take up your pallet and go home." 2.12And he rose, and immediately took up the pallet and went out before them all; so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, "We never saw anything like this!"

Luke 5.18 And behold, men were bringing on a bed a man who was paralyzed, and they sought to bring him in and lay him before Jesus; 5.19 but finding no way to bring him in, because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and let him down with his bed through the tiles into the midst before Jesus. 5.20 And when he saw their faith he said, "Man, your sins are forgiven you." 5.21 And the scribes and the Pharisees began to question, saying, "Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God only?" 5.22 When Jesus perceived their questionings, he answered them, "Why do you question in your hearts? 5.23 Which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven you,' or to say, 'Rise and walk'? 5.24 But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" --he said to the man who was paralyzed--"I say to you, rise, take up your bed and go home." 5.25 And immediately he rose before them, and took up that on which he lay, and went home, glorifying God. 5.26 And amazement seized them all, and they glorified God and were filled with awe, saying, "We have seen strange things today."

Like you said first person eyewitness accounts from multiple witnesses don't look like that.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

You provided no counter argument to my previous post. In any other context you would conclude that word for word matching accounts suggest a "rehearsed lie." But, not when the word of word match is between Gospels because you have uncritically accepted that the Bible is inerrant despite evidence to the contrary.

"The term synoptic... comes via Latin from the Greek σύνοψις, synopsis, i.e. "(a) seeing all together, synopsis";[n 1] the sense of the word in English, the one specifically applied to these three gospels, of "giving an account of the events from the same point of view or under the same general aspect" is a modern one." [Wiki] The simplest explanation is that they copied from each other or from some other text which we don't have. At first it was thought that Mark and Luke copied from Matthew. But now most scholars think that Matthew and Luke copied from and added to Mark. So, even though the Synoptic Gospels meet your definition of a rehearsed lie, that's probably is not the case. But, where the other two copied from the first, they cannot be viewed as having the authority of independent witnesses either.

Here's another example where there are minor variations, but the point of view, sequence of events, sentence structure coincide to closely to be from the independent eyewitnesses.

Like you said first person eyewitness accounts from multiple witnesses don't look like that.

But Luke and Mark are not presented as "first person accounts" but rather historical accounts. Historians will very often use the same source material and quote it in different historical accounts.

If Mark and Luke were purporting themselves to be eyewitnesses of the account they are quoting and their "eyewitness" account was verbatim with several other eyewitnesses we would feel they had rehearsed it.

Even if you have an eyewitness like Paul recounting the same event you will see subtle differences in the story based on the context. This is what we see.

There are many accounts in the Gospels that are very obviously not "eyewitness" accounts from the author. For example, the stories of Jesus early days would almost certainly have come from Mary or some other person.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But Luke and Mark are not presented as "first person accounts" but rather historical accounts. Historians will very often use the same source material and quote it in different historical accounts.

If Mark and Luke were purporting themselves to be eyewitnesses of the account they are quoting and their "eyewitness" account was verbatim with several other eyewitnesses we would feel they had rehearsed it.

Even if you have an eyewitness like Paul recounting the same event you will see subtle differences in the story based on the context. This is what we see.

There are many accounts in the Gospels that are very obviously not "eyewitness" accounts from the author. For example, the stories of Jesus early days would almost certainly have come from Mary or some other person.

That's right. Matthew, Mark and Luke are not independent witnesses. They largely use the same source material. Most scholars think Matthew and Luke copied from Mark plus another text referred to as the Sayings Gospel Q.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

That's right. Matthew, Mark and Luke are not independent witnesses. They largely use the same source material. Most scholars think Matthew and Luke copied from Mark plus another text referred to as the Sayings Gospel Q.

So that is different from what I was saying. If I question a murder suspect I will record the conversation. If we call them back on two different occasions, again asking various questions and we notice that certain responses are verbatim, that is a major red flag.

On the other hand, if I asked you to recount last nights dinner, and I did that on three separate occasions I would expect the stories to be very similar, though not word for word identical.

Therefore, if you have an account of something in the Gospels and it is virtually word for word you could reasonable conclude these accounts are based off of an identical source. If instead they agree but are slightly different it could indicate the two sources got this independently from the same witness.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So that is different from what I was saying. If I question a murder suspect I will record the conversation. If we call them back on two different occasions, again asking various questions and we notice that certain responses are verbatim, that is a major red flag.

On the other hand, if I asked you to recount last nights dinner, and I did that on three separate occasions I would expect the stories to be very similar, though not word for word identical.

Therefore, if you have an account of something in the Gospels and it is virtually word for word you could reasonable conclude these accounts are based off of an identical source. If instead they agree but are slightly different it could indicate the two sources got this independently from the same witness.

"If eyewitness testimony is a prosecution’s only evidence, there is always and intrinsically a reasonable doubt against it. In studies of eyewitness the most favorable estimates of the correlation between confidence and accuracy are about .40." Bohannon III, John Neil, and Victoria Louise Symons. 1992. “Flashbulb Memories: Confidence, Consistency, and Quantity.” In Winograd and Neisser (eds.), pp. 65– 91.

According to New Testament scholar E.P. Sanders:

(1)The earliest Christians did not write a narrative of Jesus’ life, but rather made use of, and thus preserved, individual units – short passages about his words and deeds. These units were later moved and arranged by editors and authors. This means that we can never be sure of the immediate context of Jesus’ sayings and actions.
(2) Some material has been revised and some created by early Christians.
(3) The gospels were written anonymously.
(4) The Gospel of John is quite different from the other three gospels, and it is primarily in the latter that we must seek information about Jesus.
(5) The gospels lack many characteristics of biography, and we should especially distinguish them from modern biographies.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

"If eyewitness testimony is a prosecution’s only evidence, there is always and intrinsically a reasonable doubt against it. In studies of eyewitness the most favorable estimates of the correlation between confidence and accuracy are about .40." Bohannon III, John Neil, and Victoria Louise Symons. 1992. “Flashbulb Memories: Confidence, Consistency, and Quantity.” In Winograd and Neisser (eds.), pp. 65– 91.

According to New Testament scholar E.P. Sanders:

Eyewitness account is not the only evidence. If you want a list of other evidence to the veracity of the Bible then start a thread, that will involve quite a bit of posts.

I already pointed this out in an earlier post. If the odds of an eyewitness account being accurate are 0.40 this explains why you need the testimony of at least 2 or 3 before you will accept charges against an elder. It also explains why the OT requires 2-3 witnesses. As you have pointed out once you have 2-3 witnesses the odds are better than 50/50. Since the NT records hundreds of witnesses then the odds are much, much better than 50%. That alone demands an investigation.

However, we all know that in a trial physical evidence is more reliable than eyewitness. Hence the physical evidence of the resurrection and other claims made by the NT are even more significant.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Eyewitness account is not the only evidence. If you want a list of other evidence to the veracity of the Bible then start a thread, that will involve quite a bit of posts.

So far what you call evidence has been a ton of baloney. The Shroud of Turin is the stuff of P.T. Barnum. Unless you can do better than that, please spare me.

I already pointed this out in an earlier post. If the odds of an eyewitness account being accurate are 0.40 this explains why you need the testimony of at least 2 or 3 before you will accept charges against an elder. It also explains why the OT requires 2-3 witnesses. As you have pointed out once you have 2-3 witnesses the odds are better than 50/50. Since the NT records hundreds of witnesses then the odds are much, much better than 50%. That alone demands an investigation.

Yes, but most of the material comes from one source, the author of Mark, who was copied by Matthew and Luke. So you don't have two or three witnesses on that info. You have one.

However, we all know that in a trial physical evidence is more reliable than eyewitness. Hence the physical evidence of the resurrection and other claims made by the NT are even more significant.

I am aware of no physical evidence that is more likely dispositive of the Resurrection than not [>.5] . The connection of the shrouds and other relics to the Resurrection is spurious. Jesus supposedly put the evil principalities and powers under his feet. Where's the evidence of that?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Likewise they needed a learned doctor, Luke, whose command of the Greek language far exceeded any of the Apostles, including Paul.

Likewise they needed a young man, John, who could learn and observe, both the good and the bad, so that when he was old he could write his own gospel, his epistles, and his own Revelation of Jesus Christ.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. There's no decisive proof that John wrote any of them.

The gospel of John is anonymous. And there's no proof that John of Patmos was the apostle John.

Maybe you are still embracing the Roman Catholic Church on this info.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

So far what you call evidence has been a ton of baloney. The Shroud of Turin is the stuff of P.T. Barnum. Unless you can do better than that, please spare me.



Yes, but most of the material comes from one witness, the author of Mark, who was copied by Matthew and Luke. So you don't have two or three witnesses on that info. You have one.



I am aware of no physical evidence that is more likely dispositive of the Resurrection than not [>.5] . The connection of the shrouds and other relics to the Resurrection is spurious. Jesus supposedly put the evil principalities and powers under his feet. Where's the evidence of that?

The gospels document the fact that their are witnesses. To be a witness you are not required to write a gospel. So yes, there are many more than 2 witnesses to Jesus resurrection.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The gospels document the fact that their are witnesses. To be a witness you are not required to write a gospel. So yes, there are many more than 2 witnesses to Jesus resurrection.

It doesn't matter that the gospels tell of eyewitnesses. What matters is what the storytellers are saying about them. And that's second hand and hearsay.

And what's a witness of the resurrection? There were no witness of it when it happened, except Jesus ... and he didn't write about it. Thomas didn't witness it, and neither did John, Peter, or the women that discovered the empty tomb. No one saw Jesus resurrect. So what is your definition of a witness of the resurrection?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

It doesn't matter that the gospels tell of eyewitnesses. What matters is what the storytellers are saying about them. And that's second hand and hearsay.

And what's a witness of the resurrection? There were no witness of it when it happened, except Jesus ... and he didn't write about it. Thomas didn't witness it, and neither did John, Peter, or the women that discovered the empty tomb. No one saw Jesus resurrect. So what is your definition of a witness of the resurrection?

Second time you have brought up the term "hearsay". This is a legal term. The NT documents trials where the witnesses were not repeating "hearsay" but giving their first hand eyewitness account. It is not "hearsay" to report and document this in the Bible, anymore than it is for journalists and historians to document trials like the OJ trial or the Nuremberg trial. During these trials the witnesses ascribed guilt in Jesus crucifixion to the religious leaders and they in turn complained of this and told them to stop, but never did they accuse them of "hearsay". This argument has no merit.

If you ascribe a 0.40 probability of an eyewitness account of being reliable, a number Zeek provided and which is a result of various scientific studies, then 2 witnesses are the point at which the odds of this being true is greater than 50/50. Three witnesses is the point at which the odds become strongly in favor, etc.

This is why during a trial a lawyer will attempt to discredit a witness. For example, if they are paid for their testimony. By contrast many of the witnesses had a financial motive or other type of motive to deny the resurrection (didn't want to go to prison, don't want to get beat, don't want to be boiled in oil, don't want to be crucified, etc).

Therefore these witnesses should be considered the gold standard of witnesses since they gave this testimony at great personal cost and risk.

Anyone who looks at probabilities (Zeek's claim) would have to admit that the witness testimony alone is extremely compelling. As a result those who wish to discredit this testimony are forced to use the ridiculously lame claim of "fake news". They aren't discrediting the witnesses (who wants to put Mary on the stands, or James, or Peter, or John, etc). No, they have to discredit the journalist or historian who documented these witness accounts. Well you can see that you reap what you sow. So sad.

For comparison there are 21 witnesses accusing Nassar of sexual abuse (Women's gymnastics physician). There are easily 10-20 times that many witnesses of the resurrection referred to in the NT.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Second time you have brought up the term "hearsay". This is a legal term. The NT documents trials where the witnesses were not repeating "hearsay" but giving their first hand eyewitness account. It is not "hearsay" to report and document this in the Bible, anymore than it is for journalists and historians to document trials like the OJ trial or the Nuremberg trial. During these trials the witnesses ascribed guilt in Jesus crucifixion to the religious leaders and they in turn complained of this and told them to stop, but never did they accuse them of "hearsay". This argument has no merit.

If you ascribe a 0.40 probability of an eyewitness account of being reliable, a number Zeek provided and which is a result of various scientific studies, then 2 witnesses are the point at which the odds of this being true is greater than 50/50. Three witnesses is the point at which the odds become strongly in favor, etc.

This is why during a trial a lawyer will attempt to discredit a witness. For example, if they are paid for their testimony. By contrast many of the witnesses had a financial motive or other type of motive to deny the resurrection (didn't want to go to prison, don't want to get beat, don't want to be boiled in oil, don't want to be crucified, etc).

Therefore these witnesses should be considered the gold standard of witnesses since they gave this testimony at great personal cost and risk.

Anyone who looks at probabilities (Zeek's claim) would have to admit that the witness testimony alone is extremely compelling. As a result those who wish to discredit this testimony are forced to use the ridiculously lame claim of "fake news". They aren't discrediting the witnesses (who wants to put Mary on the stands, or James, or Peter, or John, etc). No, they have to discredit the journalist or historian who documented these witness accounts. Well you can see that you reap what you sow. So sad.

Interesting response bro Z.

Question : In the garden of Gethsemane, when Jesus left the disciples to pray, who was the witness of what he prayed?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The gospels document the fact that their are witnesses. To be a witness you are not required to write a gospel. So yes, there are many more than 2 witnesses to Jesus resurrection.

The most widely accepted scholarly understanding is that the canonical gospels were based on stories passed along orally for decades after the death of Jesus. Mark is the earliest gospel, written around A.D. 70. Matthew and Luke were written approximately 10 to 20 years later, and both used Mark as well as the document known as “Q,” a collection of sayings of Jesus totaling about 200 verses, possibly collected together as early as A.D. 50. John may be independent of the other 3 gospels and is typically dated @ A.D. 90 to 100.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Interesting response bro Z.

Question : In the garden of Gethsemane, when Jesus left the disciples to pray, who was the witness of what he prayed?

Sounds like something that Jesus might have discussed as he walked with the disciples after the resurrection.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

The most widely accepted scholarly understanding is that the canonical gospels were based on stories passed along orally for decades after the death of Jesus. Mark is the earliest gospel, written around A.D. 70. Matthew and Luke were written approximately 10 to 20 years later, and both used Mark as well as the document known as “Q,” a collection of sayings of Jesus totaling about 200 verses, possibly collected together as early as A.D. 50. John may be independent of the other 3 gospels and is typically dated @ A.D. 90 to 100.

So let me guess, the earliest gospel was written based on a manuscript we have. Since we don't have an earlier manuscript these "scholars" assume no one meeting with the Christians wrote anything down. Is this assumption based on the idea that writing had not yet been invented? No. Perhaps they assume that the epistles (letters) were not actually written but given to trusted aides to memorize and then deliver orally? Or did they assume that only Paul, Peter, James, John, and Jude had figured out how to write and therefore they wrote the epistles whereas people capable of writing down the gospels didn't evolve for another 200 years.

In my experience and reading the NT where it talks about Paul speaking in a gathering into the night, etc I do imagine that the meetings were oral. People shared testimonies, stories, messages, and did Bible exposition. I also imagine that Peter, James, John, Paul and other apostles did quite a bit of speaking.

That being said, I find it ridiculous to think that no one in the Christian community took notes. No doubt paper and pen were far less common than they are today. But I just cannot fathom coming along ten or twenty years after Jesus resurrection and going to a conference where the Apostle Peter or John or Paul is going to speak and not taking notes. Therefore, if you had anyone capable of writing (and from Paul's letters we know that they did) surely they were taking notes.

Instead I doubt these notes were formally collected, edited and published into book form until after the apostles died. In my understanding, if I was there, I was 60 years old, had been to conferences with all the great apostles but now they are all dead, I would realize with the passing of John that we need to preserve all this stuff we heard.

So yes, whoever wrote the Book of Acts most likely was involved in interviewing many of the saints who had been around to hear first hand, and this work probably gathered together any and all notes and letters they may have had.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Sounds like something that Jesus might have discussed as he walked with the disciples after the resurrection.

So what, he gathered the 500 together and told them what he did, that he prayed that God would take the cup of salvation, to the whole world, forever and ever, away?

I guess that's as good of a flight-of-fancy that you're so prone to cook up ; Jesus sitting around and telling and filling in on the pre-crucifixion stories and details. Haha bro. Good one.

Of course it's not as sensible as : the writer told that story, and that's how Jesus' prayer got in there. Not that. That would mean that it might not be historical, that you are so hung up on it being.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

So what, he gathered the 500 together and told them what he did, that he prayed that God would take the cup of salvation, to the whole world, forever and ever, away?

I guess that's as good of a flight-of-fancy that you're so prone to cook up ; Jesus sitting around and telling and filling in on the pre-crucifixion stories and details. Haha bro. Good one.

Of course it's not as sensible as : the writer told that story, and that's how Jesus' prayer got in there. Not that. That would mean that it might not be historical, that you are so hung up on it being.

25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:

26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.


And

44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

48 And ye are witnesses of these things.

The only basis to say it is a "flight of fancy" to suggest that during these conversations where Jesus expounded to the disciples about Himself, how He had to suffer and be crucified, etc. Is if you don't believe this account in Luke.

The issue here is not "fanciful interpretation" but rather your willful disregard concerning what is said.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So let me guess, the earliest gospel was written based on a manuscript we have. Since we don't have an earlier manuscript these "scholars" assume no one meeting with the Christians wrote anything down. Is this assumption based on the idea that writing had not yet been invented? No. Perhaps they assume that the epistles (letters) were not actually written but given to trusted aides to memorize and then deliver orally? Or did they assume that only Paul, Peter, James, John, and Jude had figured out how to write and therefore they wrote the epistles whereas people capable of writing down the gospels didn't evolve for another 200 years.

If there were earlier gospels than Mark, I'm not aware of them. They apparently didn't survive. Some could read and write so they probably collected stories which may have been read at meetings.

Paul quotes hymns and creedal statements in his epistles which he wrote before any of the extant gospels. But it's striking how little there is about the biography of Jesus in his epistles. Mostly his gospel is limited to Jesus' death and resurrection. He notes that Jesus is a descendant of David. No virgin birth. He mentions the "last supper." Nothing about Jesus doing miracles, casting out demons or healing the sick and few of his sayings.

Paul didn't even want to know about the historical Jesus. He said "Therefore, henceforth know we no man according to the flesh; yea, though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now henceforth we know Him so no more." II Cor 5:16 Kind of like Witness Lee's "Drop the past the Lord is moving much too fast." That's not the kind of mind set that promotes preserving biographies about Jesus for future generations. The earliest generations of Jesus followers thought the Lord was coming back any day now so they weren't focused on preserving his biography for 20 centuries.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah In my experience and reading the NT where it talks about Paul speaking in a gathering into the night, etc I do imagine that the meetings were oral. People shared testimonies, stories, messages, and did Bible exposition. I also imagine that Peter, James, John, Paul and other apostles did quite a bit of speaking.

Paul wasn't interested. The apostles who actually knew the Pre-Easter Jesus may have talked about what he was like. But, imagining is all you can do if there's no record.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah That being said, I find it ridiculous to think that no one in the Christian community took notes. No doubt paper and pen were far less common than they are today. But I just cannot fathom coming along ten or twenty years after Jesus resurrection and going to a conference where the Apostle Peter or John or Paul is going to speak and not taking notes. Therefore, if you had anyone capable of writing (and from Paul's letters we know that they did) surely they were taking notes. Instead I doubt these notes were formally collected, edited and published into book form until after the apostles died. In my understanding, if I was there, I was 60 years old, had been to conferences with all the great apostles but now they are all dead, I would realize with the passing of John that we need to preserve all this stuff we heard. So yes, whoever wrote the Book of Acts most likely was involved in interviewing many of the saints who had been around to hear first hand, and this work probably gathered together any and all notes and letters they may have had.

Sanders puts it this way:

The years became decades. Some of the original disciples had been martyred, and others may have gone on lengthy missions to distant countries. Some Christians decided that they might after all need connected accounts of Jesus.

We do not know how many stages lay between the units used in sermons and our present gospels, but let us say there were two. We shall now also use the best technical name for these small units, many of which survive in our present gospels: pericopes. The word literally means ‘cut around’. Each pericope has an obvious beginning and end, and each can be cut out of its present place in one of the gospels and moved to another. It appears that groups of pericopes dealing with similar topics, such as healings or debates with opponents, were written on sheets of papyrus, copied, and circulated among various Christian communities.

Next, these groupings were put together to form what we now call proto-gospels – works that told a connected story, but not the whole story. A proto-gospel, for example, might consist of a series of pericopes dealing with conflict between Jesus and other Jews, and conclude with his arrest, trial and execution. Or a proto-gospel might be a large assemblage of sayings relevant to the ongoing life of Christian communities (ethics, questions of rank, sayings about missionary work and the like). Finally, the first gospel as we have it was written. Most scholars think that this was Mark.

Sanders, E.. The Historical Figure of Jesus (Kindle Locations 1162-1171). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

So what, he gathered the 500 together and told them what he did, that he prayed that God would take the cup of salvation, to the whole world, forever and ever, away?

I guess that's as good of a flight-of-fancy that you're so prone to cook up ; Jesus sitting around and telling and filling in on the pre-crucifixion stories and details. Haha bro. Good one.

Of course it's not as sensible as : the writer told that story, and that's how Jesus' prayer got in there. Not that. That would mean that it might not be historical, that you are so hung up on it being.

I believe I have the answer. It is more plausible than ZNP's and probabily easier for someone like you to accept. Although ZNP's explanation is not as silly as it sounds, it is quite possible during Jesus's 40 days with the disciples and if I was them I would be asking Jesus what he prayed about in the Garden.

Firstly, Jesus prayer time was 1 hour long:

Matthew 26:40 And he comes to the disciples, and finds them asleep, and said to Peter, What, could you not watch with me one hour?

Isn't it strange that for a 1 hour prayer, the bible only records this?:

"and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as you will."

The reason I believe is, that this is the only part of Jesus's prayer that Peter, James and John heard before they fell asleep.

The disciples, though sleepy, heard Jesus pray this, given Jesus was only 50 feet away. Jesus prayed earnestly, and probably audibly and loud enough to be heard. In the stillness of the night, the prayer would have been audible at that distance.

Another possible explanation is that one of the other disciples heard Jesus pray. Peter, James and John were the sleepy ones, not the others. Again, I believe it is only a small portion of what Jesus prayed, but another disciple could have been present at that moment to heard what Jesus prayed, while going for a wander, or to relieve himself.

Another possible explanation is that the Spirit inspired the writer with the substance of the prayer. In this case, it is only the substance of what Jesus prayed, and not a transcript of the actual prayer.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I believe I have the answer. It is more plausible than ZNP's and probabily easier for someone like you to accept. Although ZNP's explanation is not as silly as it sounds, it is quite possible during Jesus's 40 days with the disciples and if I was them I would be asking Jesus what he prayed about in the Garden.

Firstly, Jesus prayer time was 1 hour long:

Matthew 26:40 And he comes to the disciples, and finds them asleep, and said to Peter, What, could you not watch with me one hour?

Isn't it strange that for a 1 hour prayer, the bible only records this?:

"and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as you will."

The reason I believe is, that this is the only part of Jesus's prayer that Peter, James and John heard before they fell asleep.

The disciples, though sleepy, heard Jesus pray this, given Jesus was only 50 feet away. Jesus prayed earnestly, and probably audibly and loud enough to be heard. In the stillness of the night, the prayer would have been audible at that distance.

Another possible explanation is that one of the other disciples heard Jesus pray. Peter, James and John were the sleepy ones, not the others. Again, I believe it is only a small portion of what Jesus prayed, but another disciple could have been present at that moment to heard what Jesus prayed, while going for a wander, or to relieve himself.

Another possible explanation is that the Spirit inspired the writer with the substance of the prayer. In this case, it is only the substance of what Jesus prayed, and not a transcript of the actual prayer.

Why didn't He give us better evidence?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:

26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.


And

44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

48 And ye are witnesses of these things.

The only basis to say it is a "flight of fancy" to suggest that during these conversations where Jesus expounded to the disciples about Himself, how He had to suffer and be crucified, etc. Is if you don't believe this account in Luke.

The issue here is not "fanciful interpretation" but rather your willful disregard concerning what is said.

So you've proven Jesus expounded the scriptures ... and then made a leap to claiming he expounded details before the crucifixion ... that isn't spoken about in scripture. That's just an irony, but IS a flight of fancy.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I believe I have the answer. It is more plausible than ZNP's and probabily easier for someone like you to accept. Although ZNP's explanation is not as silly as it sounds, it is quite possible during Jesus's 40 days with the disciples and if I was them I would be asking Jesus what he prayed about in the Garden.

Firstly, Jesus prayer time was 1 hour long:

Matthew 26:40 And he comes to the disciples, and finds them asleep, and said to Peter, What, could you not watch with me one hour?

Isn't it strange that for a 1 hour prayer, the bible only records this?:

"and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as you will."

The reason I believe is, that this is the only part of Jesus's prayer that Peter, James and John heard before they fell asleep.

The disciples, though sleepy, heard Jesus pray this, given Jesus was only 50 feet away. Jesus prayed earnestly, and probably audibly and loud enough to be heard. In the stillness of the night, the prayer would have been audible at that distance.

Another possible explanation is that one of the other disciples heard Jesus pray. Peter, James and John were the sleepy ones, not the others. Again, I believe it is only a small portion of what Jesus prayed, but another disciple could have been present at that moment to heard what Jesus prayed, while going for a wander, or to relieve himself.

Another possible explanation is that the Spirit inspired the writer with the substance of the prayer. In this case, it is only the substance of what Jesus prayed, and not a transcript of the actual prayer.

Good response EvanG. Of course I know the "it was inspired argument." Cuz then God is telling the story and He knows all the details.

But if we accept John as the author of the gospel named after him, then John must have been the sleepy one.

"Take this cup away" is recorded in all of the synoptics. But all John has to offer is :

Joh 18:11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

Thanks for your well thought out answers. In truth, tho, we don't know the answer, but if we're Bible believers in the inerrancy and inspiration we have to come up with some answer, some of them fanciful, and some down to earth ... but none for certain.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

So you've proven Jesus expounded the scriptures ... and then made a leap to claiming he expounded details before the crucifixion ... that isn't spoken about in scripture. That's just an irony, but IS a flight of fancy.

What are you saying? Jesus was with the disciples for 40 days after the crucifixion. The apostles who had been with Jesus for the last 3 years, who were eyewitnesses to the crucifixion and the resurrection, spent 40 days with Jesus. He taught them. He commissioned them. Peter knew he was to shepherd the sheep and would ultimately be crucified (read John).

Now I have no idea what flights of fantasy you would have in such a situation, but if I was Peter the word "unless you take up your cross and follow Me" would take on a whole new meaning. I would be quite concerned with getting as much fellowship as I can concerning the crucifixion. After watching what Jesus went through and after seeing my previous failure I would want as much fellowship as I could get.

Likewise, if I were Jesus teaching the disciples for 40 days and preparing them to shepherd believers teaching them about the cross and teaching them to pray "if it is possible remove this cup, but if not thy will be done" would be at the top of my list of things to cover.

You think you are logical, but you are incapable of reading the Bible as true. What you think is "silly" indicates you don't believe the Bible is true and are incapable of even considering that reality.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You think you are logical,

Bahahahahaha .. C'mon, surely you've been reading my posts. At least some of them. Perchance you confuse me with bro Zeek. He's got that logic stuff down. Me? I'm just a dumb country hick bumpkin ... gettin' jiggy withda WWW.com, talking about lots of religious stuff .. that I grew up with, and became a fanatic, of the Bible sort. Your sort bro ZNP, as you confess.

But I'm still trying to work things out. Obviously. I let go of my cradle religion, for a much more committed Christian group, a life arranging group. Then found out it was a cult.

How many times, I eventually asked myself, am I going to allow myself to be tricked, bamboozled, hoodwinked?

aha! Let's try gathering all the evidence, and witnesses, at my fingertips, and then thinking for myself about it all. Let's give that a try. Let's let the Spirit have its way.

Bible? Who needs the Bible when you're connected with the source of it ... if that be the case, that is.

Originally Posted by Zzzzz

but you are incapable of reading the Bible as true.

As they say, "Been there. Done that. Got the T-shirt. Sold it at a yard sale."

Believe me I've been there, in spades. I just no longer see it as a magical book. It's a book written by some 30 odd male Jewish authors. As a result it's a very Jewish book. It's got Jewishism thru and thru. Guess what, I'm not a Jew. I'm a gentile ... (and don't give me the 'we're grafted in' baloony (sic)). You know what I mean. I mean I'm not a Jew like all the authors of the books of the Bible were.

Originally Posted by Z

What you think is "silly" indicates you don't believe the Bible is true and are incapable of even considering that reality.

Oh I've been considering for a long time. I've been out of the local church longer, some twice or more times, then most y'all were in it.

And it's been one hell of a process. My heart really goes out to those that are just getting out. They don't have a clue of what they are in for. It's scary out here. Anything is possible. With lots of learning to be had.

I can see exLCer's out here, going thru stages of coming out of the local church. I see a lot of them latching onto the Evangelical train ... that I eventually let go of (one of the stages). I think, to myself, "Maybe they're going thru the same stages I went thru, I've just been at it longer."

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bahahahahaha .. C'mon, surely you've been reading my posts. At least some of them. Perchance you confuse me with bro Zeek. He's got that logic stuff down. Me? I'm just a dumb country hick bumpkin ... gettin' jiggy withda WWW.com, talking about lots of religious stuff .. that I grew up with, and became a fanatic, of the Bible sort. Your sort bro ZNP, as you confess.

I would agree with ZNP that you are not sober-minded, as evidence by this post here.

The definition of sober-minded is someone who is serious and sensible. A person who is studious and logical is an example of someone who would be described as sober-minded.


Whenever you post it resembles that of someone under the influence of an intoxicant.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

How many times, I eventually asked myself, am I going to allow myself to be tricked, bamboozled, hoodwinked?

You are allowing yourself to be bamboozled again.

The claim that Jesus rose from the dead and then lived and walked with the disciples for 40 days teaching them prior to them seeing Him ascend into heaven is the most extraordinary claim made by anyone, bar none. No decent criminal investigator would dismiss it out of hand, instead they would put themselves into the shoes of those who apparently had this experience and then examine that. Surely this extraordinary claim would be the easiest to disprove if in fact it weren't true.

But you dismiss it out of hand and are therefore easily hoodwinked.

Your question about how the writers of the gospel knew what Jesus was praying in the garden when the record says the disciples were sleeping is a good one. But your conclusion is very poor.

Let's suppose for a second that your conclusion is accurate, the disciples did not know what Jesus was praying for over an hour, but they did catch a little snippet, and that was what was put into the gospel. Don't you see that as a glaring omission?

If I was interrogating Peter I would ask him how he thinks he can shepherd the new ones to "take up the cross and follow Jesus" if they don't even know this critical piece of the puzzle. There is such a thing as the "sin of omission". I would ask Peter how he, of all people, thinks he can help others follow the Lord to the cross when he himself had failed so badly.

18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdest thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.

19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.

This is very clearly the discussion that was going on between Peter and Jesus during this time.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I would agree with ZNP that you are not sober-minded, as evidence by this post here.

The definition of sober-minded is someone who is serious and sensible. A person who is studious and logical is an example of someone who would be described as sober-minded.


Whenever you post it resembles that of someone under the influence of an intoxicant.

Thanks EvanG for the correction. I've never much liked intoxicants. My dad was an alcoholic. I just need more help than you bro E.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You are allowing yourself to be bamboozled again.

The claim that Jesus rose from the dead and then lived and walked with the disciples for 40 days teaching them prior to them seeing Him ascend into heaven is the most extraordinary claim made by anyone, bar none. No decent criminal investigator would dismiss it out of hand, instead they would put themselves into the shoes of those who apparently had this experience and then examine that.

But you dismiss it out of hand and are therefore easily hoodwinked.

Your question about how the writers of the gospel knew what Jesus was praying in the garden when the record says the disciples were sleeping is a good one. But your conclusion is very poor.

Let's suppose for a second that your conclusion is accurate, the disciples did not know what Jesus was praying for over an hour, but they did catch a little snippet, and that was what was put into the gospel. Don't you see that as a glaring omission?

If I was interrogating Peter I would ask him how he thinks he can shepherd the new ones to "take up the cross and follow Jesus" if they don't even know this critical piece of the puzzle. There is such a thing as the "sin of omission".

I get why the resurrection is so important and central to the Christian faith. Paul says, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain."

Cuz even back then, maybe a couple of decades after Jesus resurrected, just a couple of verses before he made that statement he says : "Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?"

If those so close to Jesus' resurrection, that lived in the days where superstition was as common as air, questioned the resurrection, how can you question anyone 2000 yrs later, in the modern era, that doubts something so far fetched as resurrecting from the dead?

These days all we hear about such things happening is NDEs. And they are discovering that when we die, our brain goes on, and we can awaken. Now if that happened to Jesus that would be believable.

That wouldn't explain him having a shape-shifting body. But that can just be hagiography.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I get why the resurrection is so important and central to the Christian faith. Paul says, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain."

Cuz even back then, maybe a couple of decades after Jesus resurrected, just a couple of verses before he made that statement he says : "Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?"

If those so close to Jesus' resurrection, that lived in the days where superstition was as common as air, questioned the resurrection, how can you question anyone 2000 yrs later, in the modern era, that doubts something so far fetched as resurrecting from the dead?

These days all we hear about such things happening is NDEs. And they are discovering that when we die, our brain goes on, and we can awaken. Now if that happened to Jesus that would be believable.

That wouldn't explain him having a shape-shifting body. But that can just be hagiography.

You didn't understand what I wrote. I have no issue with you questioning the validity of the resurrection. What I am saying is that your method is shoddy and prone to self delusion.

By "shape shifting body" I understand this to refer to the fact that Mary thought he was the gardener and also that he appeared in a locked room without coming through the door. Is that what you need an explanation for?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You didn't understand what I wrote. I have no issue with you questioning the validity of the resurrection. What I am saying is that your method is shoddy and prone to self delusion.

By "shape shifting body" I understand this to refer to the fact that Mary thought he was the gardener and also that he appeared in a locked room without coming through the door. Is that what you need an explanation for?

Shape-shifting body may be the wrong term for it. I guess the right term would be ghost body.

Docetists claimed that Jesus was always a ghost body. So John says:

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God

But what kind of flesh walks thru walls, and walks on water?

How do we, can we, really know these things? We can only accept them by faith.

The other answer is the one we find in The Acts of John. They are fantastical stories of legends, or mythos. There's lots of such stories from back then. Sticking to just the Bible will not reveal that to you.

And buying into them will create conflict in the modern age, and cognitive dissonance with a education in science. Science is the enemy of fantastical mythos.

I've heard my Southern Baptist cousins complain when their kids come home questioning the faith, and Bible, because of science classes. The cognitive dissonance is too much for them. Some break down and cry, because their born again child is losing their faith.

They don't like science, and find every fault and flaw in it they can find, to disparage it to their children.

But that's not working, even in the cults ... the last holders-on.

Religion has a long history of holding back science and progress. Science keeps on winning. Facts are stubborn.

Taking the Bible as your source of facts will always be in conflict with science. In spite of all your attempts to make it so bro ZNP, the Bible is not a science book.

And ghost bodies, and resurrection from the dead, don't make scientific sense.

I'm still with Thomas, but 2000 yrs removed, with no nail holes to stick my fingers into. Same for you.

And that too is a far fetched story. Who would stick their fingers into such a fresh injury?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Shape-shifting body may be the wrong term for it. I guess the right term would be ghost body.

Docetists claimed that Jesus was always a ghost body. So John says:

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God

But what kind of flesh walks thru walls, and walks on water?

How do we, can we, really know these things? We can only accept them by faith.

The other answer is the one we find in The Acts of John. They are fantastical stories of legends, or mythos. There's lots of such stories from back then. Sticking to just the Bible will not reveal that to you.

And buying into them will create conflict in the modern age, and cognitive dissonance with a education in science. Science is the enemy of fantastical mythos.

I've heard my Southern Baptist cousins complain when their kids come home questioning the faith, and Bible, because of science classes. The cognitive dissonance is too much for them. Some break down and cry, because their born again child is losing their faith.

They don't like science, and find every fault and flaw in it they can find, to disparage it to their children.

But that's not working, even in the cults ... the last holders-on.

Religion has a long history of holding back science and progress. Science keeps on winning. Facts are stubborn.

Taking the Bible as your source of facts will always be in conflict with science. In spite of all your attempts to make it so bro ZNP, the Bible is not a science book.

And ghost bodies, and resurrection from the dead, don't make scientific sense.

I'm still with Thomas, but 2000 yrs removed, with no nail holes to stick my fingers into. Same for you.

And that too is a far fetched story. Who would stick their fingers into such a fresh injury?

A body made of tea and water Seriously though, as I logically explained in another thread why a physical chair cannot exist in heaven, it's the same reason a physical body cannot exist in heaven. The physical laws are different so require a different form of body.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A body made of tea and water Seriously though, as I logically explained in another thread why a physical chair cannot exist in heaven, it's the same reason a physical body cannot exist in heaven. The physical laws are different so require a different form of body.

I wish I could know such things.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Shape-shifting body may be the wrong term for it. I guess the right term would be ghost body.

Docetists claimed that Jesus was always a ghost body. So John says:

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God

But what kind of flesh walks thru walls, and walks on water?

How do we, can we, really know these things? We can only accept them by faith.

The other answer is the one we find in The Acts of John. They are fantastical stories of legends, or mythos. There's lots of such stories from back then. Sticking to just the Bible will not reveal that to you.

And buying into them will create conflict in the modern age, and cognitive dissonance with a education in science. Science is the enemy of fantastical mythos.

I've heard my Southern Baptist cousins complain when their kids come home questioning the faith, and Bible, because of science classes. The cognitive dissonance is too much for them. Some break down and cry, because their born again child is losing their faith.

They don't like science, and find every fault and flaw in it they can find, to disparage it to their children.

But that's not working, even in the cults ... the last holders-on.

Religion has a long history of holding back science and progress. Science keeps on winning. Facts are stubborn.

Taking the Bible as your source of facts will always be in conflict with science. In spite of all your attempts to make it so bro ZNP, the Bible is not a science book.

And ghost bodies, and resurrection from the dead, don't make scientific sense.

I'm still with Thomas, but 2000 yrs removed, with no nail holes to stick my fingers into. Same for you.

And that too is a far fetched story. Who would stick their fingers into such a fresh injury?

Well perhaps you haven't been keeping up. Nothing in Quantum Mechanics makes sense. Electrons are both particles and waves. Light is both a wave and a particle. In addition you can now have two separate and distinct particles that are some how spookily joined so that whatever happens to one happens to the other even though they might be separated by distances that would make the changes take place faster than the speed of light.

There is no way to come up with a unified field theory without invoking a large number of dimensions we haven't figured out yet. We are keenly aware of 4 dimensions, but is the universe really 10 or 11 dimensions? Where are these hidden dimension?

What is gravity? What is time? Why does time stand still in a powerful gravitational field?

According to science there are multiple universes and we are only living in one such universe out of an unknown number.

Also, there is evidence that the universe is a hologram. In peer reviewed scientific journals there is speculation that the universe could be a computer simulation.

Etc., etc., etc.

What doesn't make sense is your statement that ghost bodies and resurrection don't make scientific sense. Science describes a process by which we can generate theories to explain observable phenomenon and then using the process of science we can test these theories. Certainly if you observe a "ghost body" then you can generate theories to explain this and then test them. The description in the NT of the disciples encountering Jesus resurrected Body makes perfect scientific sense. They touch him, look at scars and wounds that would be unique identifiers, they watch him eat, etc. These are all observations, theories can be generated, and they can be tested.

For example, suppose the universe is a computer simulation. The purpose of the simulation is to enter the kingdom, like a screening process. That would be similar to the story in Genesis of man being kicked out of the garden and the garden being guarded. It would also solve the problem of evil. Creating a simulation where acts of evil can be simulated is not the same as creating evil, but it does reveal the content of your character. It would also explain how we could be judged for every word we say, just as every key stroke in a computer simulation could be stored and retrieved. Then death of your character in the simulation is not your death, once again very similar to the description in the Bible. In this theory resurrection is no longer impossible and "ghost bodies" are revealing that the physical matter is the real illusion.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Well perhaps you haven't been keeping up. Nothing in Quantum Mechanics makes sense. Electrons are both particles and waves. Light is both a wave and a particle. In addition you can now have two separate and distinct particles that are some how spookily joined so that whatever happens to one happens to the other even though they might be separated by distances that would make the changes take place faster than the speed of light.

There is no way to come up with a unified field theory without invoking a large number of dimensions we haven't figured out yet. We are keenly aware of 4 dimensions, but is the universe really 10 or 11 dimensions? Where are these hidden dimension?

What is gravity?

According to science there are multiple universes and we are only living in one such universe out of an unknown number.

Also, there is evidence that the universe is a hologram. In peer reviewed scientific journals there is speculation that the universe could be a computer simulation.

Etc., etc., etc.

That's right, this article is one:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...er-simulation/

Somewhere out there could be a being whose intelligence is that much greater than our own. “We would be drooling, blithering idiots in their presence,” he said. “If that’s the case, it is easy for me to imagine that everything in our lives is just a creation of some other entity for their entertainment.”

I highlighted the last part in bold because this is something that has been known in the Recovery for decades and now it seems science is starting to catch up.


"The one who is known by God becomes God's possession, joy, entertainment, and pleasure". "He will even find in us His entertainment". ~ Life-Study of First Corinthians, W. Lee

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's right, this article is one:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...er-simulation/

Somewhere out there could be a being whose intelligence is that much greater than our own. “We would be drooling, blithering idiots in their presence,” he said. “If that’s the case, it is easy for me to imagine that everything in our lives is just a creation of some other entity for their entertainment.”

I highlighted the last part in bold because this is something that has been known in the Recovery for decades and now it seems science is starting to catch up.


"The one who is known by God becomes God's possession, joy, entertainment, and pleasure". "He will even find in us His entertainment". ~ Life-Study of First Corinthians, W. Lee

We have come full circle with the evangelicals asserting the possibility of The Faith on the basis of quantum uncertainty! Bravo lads! That's as POSTMODERN as it gets. Of course you realize that every New Age Cult asserts the TRUTH of their metaphysical schema on the basis of quantum uncertainty as well. Since metaphysical system are not empirically verifiable or falsifiable , the distance from quantum uncertainty to metaphysical certainty might be infinite. On the other hand, what IS inferable from what I observe in the religious including myself is the will to believe.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

We have come full circle with the evangelicals asserting the possibility of The Faith on the basis of quantum uncertainty! Bravo lads! That's as POSTMODERN as it gets. Of course you realize that every New Age Cult asserts the TRUTH of their metaphysical schema on the basis of quantum uncertainty as well. Since metaphysical system are not empirically verifiable or falsifiable , the distance from quantum uncertainty to metaphysical certainty might be infinite. On the other hand, what IS inferable from what I observe in the religious including myself is the will to believe.

You are incorrect, I did not assert any aspect of the faith on the basis of quantum uncertainty.

I have asserted that modern science may have discovered yet another aspect of the objective and foundational truth of the Bible that we have always believed and known to be true. In this case, it is a Creator gaining pleasure/ entertainment from and creating entertainment for His creatures. As Lee might say, science is discovering all of the various aspects created for our enjoyment and "everything is Christ" who is our enjoyment. If there is any master teenage programmer of the universe then it must be Christ.

There are some religions which base their doctrine/faith on the metaphysics (e.g. Scientology, New Age, some Eastern religions etc) but not in this case. In this case we have two independent communities - religion and science merging closer together about a fundamental truth of the Universe that cannot easily be disputed.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Well perhaps you haven't been keeping up. Nothing in Quantum Mechanics makes sense. Electrons are both particles and waves. Light is both a wave and a particle. In addition you can now have two separate and distinct particles that are some how spookily joined so that whatever happens to one happens to the other even though they might be separated by distances that would make the changes take place faster than the speed of light.

There is no way to come up with a unified field theory without invoking a large number of dimensions we haven't figured out yet. We are keenly aware of 4 dimensions, but is the universe really 10 or 11 dimensions? Where are these hidden dimension?

What is gravity? What is time? Why does time stand still in a powerful gravitational field?

According to science there are multiple universes and we are only living in one such universe out of an unknown number.

Also, there is evidence that the universe is a hologram. In peer reviewed scientific journals there is speculation that the universe could be a computer simulation.

Etc., etc., etc.

What doesn't make sense is your statement that ghost bodies and resurrection don't make scientific sense. Science describes a process by which we can generate theories to explain observable phenomenon and then using the process of science we can test these theories. Certainly if you observe a "ghost body" then you can generate theories to explain this and then test them. The description in the NT of the disciples encountering Jesus resurrected Body makes perfect scientific sense. They touch him, look at scars and wounds that would be unique identifiers, they watch him eat, etc. These are all observations, theories can be generated, and they can be tested.

For example, suppose the universe is a computer simulation. The purpose of the simulation is to enter the kingdom, like a screening process. That would be similar to the story in Genesis of man being kicked out of the garden and the garden being guarded. It would also solve the problem of evil. Creating a simulation where acts of evil can be simulated is not the same as creating evil, but it does reveal the content of your character. It would also explain how we could be judged for every word we say, just as every key stroke in a computer simulation could be stored and retrieved. Then death of your character in the simulation is not your death, once again very similar to the description in the Bible. In this theory resurrection is no longer impossible and "ghost bodies" are revealing that the physical matter is the real illusion.

And Evangelical says I'm intoxicated.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You are incorrect, I did not assert any aspect of the faith on the basis of quantum uncertainty.

I have asserted that modern science may have discovered yet another aspect of the objective and foundational truth of the Bible that we have always believed and known to be true. In this case, it is a Creator gaining pleasure/ entertainment from and creating entertainment for His creatures. As Lee might say, science is discovering all of the various aspects created for our enjoyment and "everything is Christ" who is our enjoyment. If there is any master teenage programmer of the universe then it must be Christ.

There are some religions which base their doctrine/faith on the metaphysics (e.g. Scientology, New Age, some Eastern religions etc) but not in this case. In this case we have two independent communities - religion and science merging closer together about a fundamental truth of the Universe that cannot easily be disputed.

Right we're just pawns in God's giant computer game. Sounds diabolical. Missing is the notion of grace as the mutual enjoyment of Christ by God and man. Your proposition is an unsatifactory interpretation of Lee's.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

Right we're just pawns in God's giant computer game. Sounds diabolical. Missing is the notion of grace as the mutual enjoyment of Christ by God and man. Your proposition is an unsatifactory interpretation of Lee's.

Consider this - God became simulated in the person of Christ so that he could experience His simulation. Christ is the perfect reality-simulation man, and while his body on Earth was simulated, now I guess it is more real than before. Don't video gamers wish they could enter into the game they are playing in a more immersive environment? Isn't that why they created virtual reality?

Well I would say that science's job is incomplete - they have only addressed the aspect of God enjoying man. They have not yet explained man enjoying God but in a few years someone may write an article about that. Games and virtual or AI environments that interact back with the player for the AI's "enjoyment" - it's coming.

In fact I could write a scientific paper on this but it probably wouldn't be accepted because things have to be explained in a certain way, even though it would be correct.

Anyway it's no surprise to me that computers/science and religion are so compatible, since I think that humans invented computers so they could play God, it's natural for them to think of God as a big computer programmer.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

And Evangelical says I'm intoxicated.

Well, that would be a viable hypothesis to explain many of your rants.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Right we're just pawns in God's giant computer game. Sounds diabolical. Missing is the notion of grace as the mutual enjoyment of Christ by God and man. Your proposition is an unsatifactory interpretation of Lee's.

How is using a computer simulation "missing the notion of grace"? We use them to train airline pilots. When a pilot crashes in a simulation instead of in a real plane why isn't that the manifestation of grace? We use computer simulations to train people for jobs, no one says that is "missing the notion of grace" yet if God uses computer simulation to train us to rule and reign then that is missing grace? What it is missing is the problem of evil.

We use computers to test applicants for jobs and for certification and licenses. Why couldn't God do the same for the kingdom?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Consider this - God became simulated in the person of Christ so that he could experience His simulation. Christ is the perfect reality-simulation man, and while his body on Earth was simulated, now I guess it is more real than before. Don't video gamers wish they could enter into the game they are playing in a more immersive environment? Isn't that why they created virtual reality?

This is docetism (from the Greek δοκεῖν/δόκησις dokeĩn (to seem) dókēsis (apparition, phantom), the doctrine that the phenomenon of Christ, his historical and bodily existence, and above all the human form of Jesus, was mere semblance without any true reality. Docetism was unequivocally rejected at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 and is regarded as heretical by the Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, and Coptic Church.

Well I would say that science's job is incomplete - they have only addressed the aspect of God enjoying man. They have not yet explained man enjoying God but in a few years someone may write an article about that. Games and virtual or AI environments that interact back with the player for the AI's "enjoyment" - it's coming. In fact I could write a scientific paper on this but it probably wouldn't be accepted because things have to be explained in a certain way, even though it would be correct.

All you have to do is produce a conscious machine that can experience enjoyment. No big deal.

Anyway it's no surprise to me that computers/science and religion are so compatible, since I think that humans invented computers so they could play God, it's natural for them to think of God as a big computer programmer.

Metaphors are natural to the human mind.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

How is using a computer simulation "missing the notion of grace"?

First, see my last reply to Evangelical.

We use them to train airline pilots. When a pilot crashes in a simulation instead of in a real plane why isn't that the manifestation of grace? We use computer simulations to train people for jobs, no one says that is "missing the notion of grace" yet if God uses computer simulation to train us to rule and reign then that is missing grace? What it is missing is the problem of evil.

In your example the simulator is used to train a real pilot. In Evangelical's example below, WE were the simulation...a simulation for God's entertainment. Then, Evan changed the situation proposing that Christ was a simulation. The former proposition conflicts with the Judeo-Christian ethos in which humankind are real and substantial embodied souls. The latter proposition is heretical with regard to the nature of Christ.

We use computers to test applicants for jobs and for certification and licenses. Why couldn't God do the same for the kingdom?

The idea that we are being tested in this life is Judeo-Christian. But, the idea that we are in a simulator rather than a substantial reality with real material consequences is not.

Furthermore, the analogy lacks the factor of unmerited favor or love. Witness Lee used to say that grace was more than unmerited favor. But, he didn't say it was less. That's why I said that Evangelical's interpretation of Lee's teaching on grace was unsatisfactory. Which is not to say that Lee's concept of grace was satisfactory in the first place. What we have here are at least two orders of declension from the reality of grace.

It might be asserted that any concept of grace departs infinitely from the reality of grace. However, the word grace participates in grace as a purveyor of its meaning. So, it is never infinitely separated from the reality.

Every existent being participates in grace in the sense of unmerited favor by the mere fact of existence since nothing invents itself out of nothing. But, unmerited favor was entirely left out of the equation in Evangelical's simulation proposition. Further, a simulation lacks the reality of grace that is ontologically present in the real thing. It has being, but it lacks authenticity and the grace of authenticity.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

This is docetism (from the Greek δοκεῖν/δόκησις dokeĩn (to seem) dókēsis (apparition, phantom), the doctrine that the phenomenon of Christ, his historical and bodily existence, and above all the human form of Jesus, was mere semblance without any true reality. Docetism was unequivocally rejected at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 and is regarded as heretical by the Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, and Coptic Church.

No, not really, because it is all relative, and we are thinking from the perspective of a Master Programmer, not ourselves. I will try to explain.

In our realm, we are real, and our creations - computers, AI's etc are virtual to us. We create simulated and virtual models of ourselves, for example, which we know are not real, but replicate us as much as possible.

Imagine, in a higher realm, a master programmer is real, and He has replicated Himself in us. He has created everything physical such as we know it, which to Him is like AI is to us - a virtual copy or creation of Himself.

In other words - the human flesh and our physical existence is the simulation. This changes nothing about the physical nature of Christ, therefore it is not docetism. God becoming human flesh is God becoming a simulation of Himself. In the "simulated world", everything is real.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

The former proposition conflicts with the Judeo-Christian ethos in which humankind are real and substantial embodied souls. The latter proposition is heretical with regard to the nature of Christ.

Sorry, could you help me understand why my suggestion that a computer simulation is a reasonable analogy to our human life is somehow in conflict with the Bible?

Originally Posted by zeek

The idea that we are being tested in this life is Judeo-Christian.

I found your response confusing because you kept weaving in references to Evangelical's version with mine. So how about just responding to mine.

I am saying our souls are eternal, our bodies are not. Our lifetime in this existence is temporary and extremely short in comparison to eternity (Biblical and similar to a computer simulation). What you do in this life does have real world consequences (Biblical and also true of computer simulations and computer certification). It will determine if you enter the kingdom or not, it will determine your future in eternity (Biblical and similar to using a computer to test you). But just like a computer game, when your character "dies" or in this case when your "body" dies you don't (Biblical and also true of computer simulation). Also answers the question "how can God allow this evil" (just like a computer simulation answers the question why we would allow an untrained pilot to crash a commercial airline).

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In other words - the human flesh and our physical existence is the simulation. This changes nothing about the physical nature of Christ, therefore it is not docetism. God becoming human flesh is God becoming a simulation of Himself. In the "simulated world", everything is real.

I would agree that in my idea it is only the physical world that is being simulated. Therefore Christ becoming flesh is not a violation of the Bible. The Bible makes it clear that the flesh was created by God just as a computer simulation is created by the programmer. You see the way this works is "in the beginning is the word, the word is with the programmer and ultimately to all those in the simulation the word is the programmer"

Imagine for a moment how stupid someone would feel if they spent their entire life trampling on others to get to the top of the heep, they tore down their original barns and put up newer, bigger, top of the line barns, and then they died only to discover this was a big computer simulation. All that treasure you accumulated? Whose is it? And now what is it? Rusted, cankered, worthless trash that you exchanged your immortal soul for. Oops. Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.

But you know it really isn't fair, someone should tell people the rules of the game. Moses, or one of the prophets, or better yet if someone came back from the dead then surely they would believe that person.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

No, not really, because it is all relative,

No it isn't. The statement "it is all relative" is a self-refuting tautology. Of necessity, relativity implies an absolute. According to Western Monotheism including Christianity that absolute is God.

and we are thinking from the perspective of a Master Programmer, not ourselves. I will try to explain.

In our realm, we are real, and our creations - computers, AI's etc are virtual to us. We create simulated and virtual models of ourselves, for example, which we know are not real, but replicate us as much as possible.

Imagine, in a higher realm, a master programmer is real, and He has replicated Himself in us. He has created everything physical such as we know it, which to Him is like AI is to us - a virtual copy or creation of Himself.

In other words - the human flesh and our physical existence is the simulation. This changes nothing about the physical nature of Christ, therefore it is not docetism. God becoming human flesh is God becoming a simulation of Himself. In the "simulated world", everything is real.

In Post #1249 you stated "God became simulated in the person of Christ." That's wrong. According to Christian theology Christ is God not a simulation of God. Your analogy is in error.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Sorry, could you help me understand why my suggestion that a computer simulation is a reasonable analogy to our human life is somehow in conflict with the Bible?

What you are proposing is analogous to Christian Platonism [CP]. Nee and Lee were CP although they would deny it. Platonism had a deep influence on historic Christianity. According to Plato everyday external phenomena are unreal. Only the Absolute, God, is really real. On this point Platonism agrees with much of Eastern religions like Hinduism and Buddhism. Life is but a dream, an illusion, Maya or in your word a "simulation."

I am saying our souls are eternal, our bodies are not. Our lifetime in this existence is temporary and extremely short in comparison to eternity (Biblical and similar to a computer simulation). What you do in this life does have real world consequences (Biblical and also true of computer simulations and computer certification). It will determine if you enter the kingdom or not, it will determine your future in eternity (Biblical and similar to using a computer to test you). But just like a computer game, when your character "dies" or in this case when your "body" dies you don't (Biblical and also true of computer simulation). Also answers the question "how can God allow this evil" (just like a computer simulation answers the question why we would allow an untrained pilot to crash a commercial airline).

More Platonism. Plato's doctrine of the soul influenced the historic church. Augustine was one Platonist, a prominent one among many. But, this stands in contradistinction to Judaism. Jesus was a Jew. His teachings reflect that.

According to you there's an eternal soul and a simulated body. That's dualism. According to Judaism, there's no soul without a body and no living body without a soul. The soul and the body are one in life. Hence, the necessity of a RESURRECTION if there's going to be ETERNAL LIFE. And what did John's Jesus say? "I AM THE RESURRECTION AND THE LIFE."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

According to you there's an eternal soul and a simulated body. That's dualism. According to Judaism, there's no soul without a body and no living body without a soul. The soul and the body are one in life. Hence, the necessity of a RESURRECTION if there's going to be ETERNAL LIFE. And what did John's Jesus say? "I AM THE RESURRECTION AND THE LIFE."

Genesis says that God created man, then He breathed into man and man became a living soul. Likewise in my analogy of a computer simulation (this is simply an analogy to help us understand how certain things could be) you would first create the computer simulation, then when you plug a person into the simulation it would become animated. So in a computer simulation of a commercial airline they would create the entire system first. Then when a pilot came along, sat in the chair and they began the simulation that would be "the living soul". So Genesis does not say God created the living soul, but rather it took place when He breathed into the man's body (in my analogy this is when you turn on the simulator and plug in a pilot).

Once again, like any analogy it is not complete or perfect, but can help us to understand how you could die on the simulator but then get up from the simulation, talk to Jesus, and then go and wait for the results (the day of judgement).

I disagree with your definition of "Eternal Life". There cannot be eternal torment of unbelievers if you have to experience Jesus as the resurrection life to be eternal. Experiencing Jesus as the resurrection is akin to Paul's "outstanding resurrection" in Phil. If you have to distinguish the Christian resurrection as the "outstanding" one then it indicates there are others as well.

How are the dead raised and everyone appears before the Judgement seat of Christ? Clearly not all are Christians.

We are judged based on what we do in this lifetime, which in my analogy is similar to being judged by how you perform on the computer simulation (a technique we use a lot today).

There is no contradiction between my analogy of a very short human lifetime in the grand scheme of eternity as a computer simulation with the Lord being the Resurrection and the Life.

But this also gives us a way to understand a universe with 10 or 11 dimensions. If the simulator has 4 dimensions, and the living souls are in a realm with 4 dimensions, and the Spirit is in a realm with 3 dimensions, there are your 11 dimensions. This in turn resembles the design of the temple, a good analogy since the Bible says our Body is a temple.

It also explains why scientists see evidence that the universe is a hologram. And also why everything in the universe follows such precise mathematical rules.

Of course it also explains all of the accounts of people who were resuscitated from the dead, it explains how Jesus could resurrect from the dead and His strange description of his body, and it explains how prophets can prophesy.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

No it isn't. The statement "it is all relative" is a self-refuting tautology. Of necessity, relativity implies an absolute. According to Western Monotheism including Christianity that absolute is God.

Yes God is the absolute but from a computer simulation's perspective, we, its creators, are its absolute. So it's relative.

Originally Posted by zeek

In Post #1249 you stated "God became simulated in the person of Christ." That's wrong. According to Christian theology Christ is God not a simulation of God. Your analogy is in error.

If we understand simulated to mean Christ's physical body, then there is no problem. The real and the simulated are both together in hypostasis. I was not using the term simulated or virtual as "not physically existing" and I don't think the scientists were either.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Genesis says that God created man, then He breathed into man and man became a living soul.

Yes one organism "a living soul", not a soul in a body.

Likewise in my analogy of a computer simulation (this is simply an analogy to help us understand how certain things could be) you would first create the computer simulation, then when you plug a person into the simulation it would become animated. So in a computer simulation of a commercial airline they would create the entire system first. Then when a pilot came along, sat in the chair and they began the simulation that would be "the living soul". So Genesis does not say God created the living soul, but rather it took place when He breathed into the man's body (in my analogy this is when you turn on the simulator and plug in a pilot). Once again, like any analogy it is not complete or perfect, but can help us to understand how you could die on the simulator but then get up from the simulation, talk to Jesus, and then go and wait for the results (the day of judgement).

It helps that you admit it's not a complete or perfect analogy. The problems I cited with it stand as instances of its imperfections.

I disagree with your definition of "Eternal Life". There cannot be eternal torment of unbelievers if you have to experience Jesus as the resurrection life to be eternal. Experiencing Jesus as the resurrection is akin to Paul's "outstanding resurrection" in Phil. If you have to distinguish the Christian resurrection as the "outstanding" one then it indicates there are others as well.

Only God is eternal. How we experience God is up to us.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yes God is the absolute but from a computer simulation's perspective, we, its creators, are its absolute. So it's relative.

If, in your computer analogy, we stand in the place of God, it's not relative.

If we understand simulated to mean Christ's physical body, then there is no problem. The real and the simulated are both together in hypostasis. I was not using the term simulated or virtual as "not physically existing" and I don't think the scientists were either.

Was Christ's physical body not Christ? Saying Jesus was a simulation of God is just wrong according to New Testament theology. The devil is a simulation of God. Jesus as the Christ is the real thing.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Yes one organism "a living soul", not a soul in a body.

What if the body is composed of artificial limbs, and prostethics?

What about doctors using robots to visit patients in remote regions?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What if the body is composed of artificial limbs, and prostethics?

What about doctors using robots to visit patients in remote regions?

What's your point?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

Was Christ's physical body not Christ? Saying Jesus was a simulation of God is just wrong according to New Testament theology. The devil is a simulation of God. Jesus as the Christ is the real thing.

You are not understanding that it is the physical body which is simulated, so in t that sense, Jesus was a simulation, and every other human being who has a human body. Yet Jesus had two natures, the nature of a simulation (humanity) and the nature of reality (divinity). It was the simulation which died on the cross. We could say that the old creation is a mere simulation, the new creation (as in Jesus's new body which can go through walls etc) is probabily a better simulation.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You are not understanding that it is the physical body which is simulated, so in t that sense, Jesus was a simulation, and every other human being who has a human body. Yet Jesus had two natures, the nature of a simulation (humanity) and the nature of reality (divinity). It was the simulation which died on the cross. We could say that the old creation is a mere simulation, the new creation (as in Jesus's new body which can go through walls etc) is probabily a better simulation.

Docetism in the extreme. You seem drawn to heresies. No wonder Witness Lee works for you. "A simulation died on the cross"?! Witness Lee would have rent his garments at that. Listen to yourself. Don't you have any intuition about how off the mark that is? You make a sham of the crucifixion. That is the best documented fact regarding the historical Jesus and the very basis of salvation according to Paul.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

Docetism in the extreme. You seem drawn to heresies. No wonder Witness Lee works for you. "A simulation died on the cross"?! Witness Lee would have rent his garments at that. Listen to yourself. Don't you have any intuition about how off the mark that is? You make a sham of the crucifixion. That is the best documented fact regarding the historical Jesus and the very basis of salvation according to Paul.

Docetism says Christ was a phantom and this is not the same thing because I never said Christ was a phantom.

It sounds post modern to me and if you are being post modern then you cannot say that and disagree with my subjective reality that everything is so simulated.

Anyway Scientists have found we are not living in a simulation so you can stop being a fundamentalist now:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/p...ter-simulation

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Docetism says Christ was a phantom and this is not the same thing because I never said Christ was a phantom.

It sounds post modern to me and if you are being post modern then you cannot say that and disagree with my subjective reality that everything is so simulated.

Anyway Scientists have found we are not living in a simulation so you can stop being a fundamentalist now:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/p...ter-simulation

Occasionally, as here, even quantum mechanics confirms the opinions of common sense. However, our dialogue on this makes me doubt you not only as a representative of Witness Lee's ministry but as one who comprehends The Christian Faith. I imagine you can get away with any form of heterodoxy in the Local Churches of the New Zealand without even being made aware of it. Am I wrong?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

Occasionally, as here, even quantum mechanics confirms the opinions of common sense. However, our dialogue on this makes me doubt you not only as a representative of Witness Lee's ministry but as one who comprehends The Christian Faith. I imagine you can get away with any form of heterodoxy in the Local Churches of the New Zealand without even being made aware of it. Am I wrong?

To be able to declare something heterodox you need an absolute position from which to stand. Which in this case is what? the Catholic church? the Orthodox church? science? the bible? The Nicene creed? I believe your position is a relative one of your own making, as you refer to your own common sense. If my common sense tells me that everything is simulated then according to postmodernism, you cannot argue with that, and if pressed further, I could say you are offending my emotions and violating my religious freedom.

Well I think we don't follow the so-called creeds religiously so there is possibly some freedom to believe in things which are contrary to the "Orthodox faith" or Catholic faith. Then again salvation by faith alone is heterodox to Catholicism. So it's always strange when people invoke the orthodox/heterodox argument particularly if they are non-Catholics , knowing full well that the Reformers and protestants since have redefined the term in a relative way, such that the term almost has no meaning. Particularly since, evangelical/protestant Christians have little concept of the practical church or church administration which could enforce orthodoxy and expel heterodoxy as was done in the various Councils of the past when. In other words, I could possibly hold "heterodox" beliefs in any number of denominations today without consequence, being fully admitted to communion and participation in all social gatherings. Even in the Catholic church I could be a member of a secret society as well and even rise to the status of a Cardinal or Pope while holding onto heterodox beliefs. So with all this considered I don't think you know what you are talking about when you speak of "getting away with any form of heterodoxy". From my perspective, denominationalism and the very existence of different denominations is unorthodox and a heresy.

Supporting the Bible with science or quantum mechanics as I have is not heterodoxy, as I have never supported the idea that Christ is a phantom, and it shows you don't understand Docetism or even the science of quantum mechanics and how it could possibly relate to the Bible. My use of the term simulated is the same way that science says the physical world is a simulation. In other words, simulation does not mean without substance. To me it's a suitable analogy and thinking of things in terms of simulations is as good as thinking of things in terms of any other metaphor.

In fact I can think of some more good ones such as "God wants to install His software in you", and corporate gatherings, or church, could be thought of as a computer network. Why can't these be suitable modern analogies and metaphors?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

What's your point?

They have designed a robot with wheels, a video screen, microphone, speakers, etc. They put this robot into hospitals in rural regions. Then they hook it up to the internet, a doctor can now visit patients, talk to them and diagnose them.

To me this is an analogy of the verse in Genesis.

The internet is an excellent analogy of the triune God. It is tripartite (server, the transmission, and the signal) while at the same time it is one thing -- the internet. In some respects it is "omniscient" and "omnipresent".

So man made a robot, then once the internet breathed into it, it became a living soul.

Awareness asked what kind of body walks through walls or on top of water. Yet, in this very day we have wifi signals that do both. So this robot that the doctors use in hospitals can be wifi. Awareness claimed that buying into this would create cognitive dissonance with science, which is absurd. Science has fully bought into this without any cognitive dissonance. It isn't myth, it is our reality.

Awareness said "They don't like science, and find every fault and flaw in it they can find, to disparage it to their children.

But that's not working, even in the cults ... the last holders-on.

Religion has a long history of holding back science and progress. Science keeps on winning. Facts are stubborn."

Yet his posts prove he doesn't like religion. And my point is that it was religion that was thousands of years ahead of science.

Archaelogists teach there are 4 key criteria that separate man from all other species.

Religion and organization are two of these. You cannot have societies larger than bands (what apes and wolves have) without better conflict resolution and that requires better organization. In human society it is religion that teaches us we can identify ourselves based on what we believe (freedom, democracy, NY Yankees, etc) rather than on who our grandparents are (Abraham was the father of faith). It is religion that teaches us conflict resolution other than vendettas and revenge. It is religion that teaches us that human society can be specialized like parts of the body. That is a huge advance. Without specialists there would be no spaceships, telecommunications, computers, internet, etc. Human society as we know it would not exist. That means there would be no scientists to be "held back" by religion if there were no religion. Without religion scientists wouldn't exist.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

To be able to declare something heterodox you need an absolute position from which to stand. Which in this case is what? the Catholic church? the Orthodox church? science? the bible? The Nicene creed?

All of the above.

I believe your position is a relative one of your own making, as you refer to your own common sense.

Common sense is not idiosyncratic. It is sense that people have in common. In this case it refers to the notions that there is a real world that exists independently of us, independently of our experiences, our thoughts, our language. We have direct perceptual access to that world through our senses, especially touch and vision. Now the latter of those propositions has been called naive realism. There are scientific and philosophical limitations to it. Nevertheless, cosmos magazine study supports it as far as it goes.

If my common sense tells me that everything is simulated then according to postmodernism, you cannot argue with that, and if pressed further, I could say you are offending my emotions and violating my religious freedom.

That's a caricature of PM, the kind usually wielded by an opponent of PM as a reductio ad absurdum argument against it. On you it looks like pure polemics. I ain't buying it.

Well I think we don't follow the so-called creeds religiously so there is possibly some freedom to believe in things which are contrary to the "Orthodox faith" or Catholic faith. Then again salvation by faith alone is heterodox to Catholicism.

You're conflating catholicism with Roman Catholicism. Catholicism refers to the one universal faith. In that sense, the local churches are supposed catholic.

So it's always strange when people invoke the orthodox/heterodox argument particularly if they are non-Catholics , knowing full well that the Reformers and protestants since have redefined the term in a relative way, such that the term almost has no meaning. Particularly since, evangelical/protestant Christians have little concept of the practical church or church administration which could enforce orthodoxy and expel heterodoxy as was done in the various Councils of the past when. In other words, I could possibly hold "heterodox" beliefs in any number of denominations today without consequence, being fully admitted to communion and participation in all social gatherings. Even in the Catholic church I could be a member of a secret society as well and even rise to the status of a Cardinal or Pope while holding onto heterodox beliefs. So with all this considered I don't think you know what you are talking about when you speak of "getting away with any form of heterodoxy". From my perspective, denominationalism and the very existence of different denominations is unorthodox and a heresy.

I know what you mean. But, that isn't what we were talking about and you've already conceded that you were wrong based on the latest scientific study

Supporting the Bible with science or quantum mechanics as I have is not heterodoxy, as I have never supported the idea that Christ is a phantom, and it shows you don't understand Docetism or even the science of quantum mechanics and how it could possibly relate to the Bible. My use of the term simulated is the same way that science says the physical world is a simulation. In other words, simulation does not mean without substance. To me it's a suitable analogy and thinking of things in terms of simulations is as good as thinking of things in terms of any other metaphor.

Yeah but you claimed Christ was a simulation of God and I don't accept that.

In fact I can think of some more good ones such as "God wants to install His software in you", and corporate gatherings, or church, could be thought of as a computer network. Why can't these be suitable modern analogies and metaphors?

You can try it out when you're proselytizing people. It wouldn't work on me though. I find it dehumanizing and unattractive.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

They have designed a robot with wheels, a video screen, microphone, speakers, etc. They put this robot into hospitals in rural regions. Then they hook it up to the internet, a doctor can now visit patients, talk to them and diagnose them.

To me this is an analogy of the verse in Genesis.

The internet is an excellent analogy of the triune God. It is tripartite (server, the transmission, and the signal) while at the same time it is one thing -- the internet. In some respects it is "omniscient" and "omnipresent".

So man made a robot, then once the internet breathed into it, it became a living soul.

Awareness asked what kind of body walks through walls or on top of water. Yet, in this very day we have wifi signals that do both. So this robot that the doctors use in hospitals can be wifi. Awareness claimed that buying into this would create cognitive dissonance with science, which is absurd. Science has fully bought into this without any cognitive dissonance. It isn't myth, it is our reality.

Awareness said "They don't like science, and find every fault and flaw in it they can find, to disparage it to their children.

But that's not working, even in the cults ... the last holders-on.

Religion has a long history of holding back science and progress. Science keeps on winning. Facts are stubborn."

Yet his posts prove he doesn't like religion. And my point is that it was religion that was thousands of years ahead of science.

Archaelogists teach there are 4 key criteria that separate man from all other species.

Religion and organization are two of these. You cannot have societies larger than bands (what apes and wolves have) without better conflict resolution and that requires better organization. In human society it is religion that teaches us we can identify ourselves based on what we believe (freedom, democracy, NY Yankees, etc) rather than on who our grandparents are (Abraham was the father of faith). It is religion that teaches us conflict resolution other than vendettas and revenge. It is religion that teaches us that human society can be specialized like parts of the body. That is a huge advance. Without specialists there would be no spaceships, telecommunications, computers, internet, etc. Human society as we know it would not exist. That means there would be no scientists to be "held back" by religion if there were no religion. Without religion scientists wouldn't exist.

Seems like your issue is with Awareness not with me.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

They have designed a robot with wheels, a video screen, microphone, speakers, etc. They put this robot into hospitals in rural regions. Then they hook it up to the internet, a doctor can now visit patients, talk to them and diagnose them.

To me this is an analogy of the verse in Genesis.

The internet is an excellent analogy of the triune God. It is tripartite (server, the transmission, and the signal) while at the same time it is one thing -- the internet. In some respects it is "omniscient" and "omnipresent".

So man made a robot, then once the internet breathed into it, it became a living soul.

Awareness asked what kind of body walks through walls or on top of water. Yet, in this very day we have wifi signals that do both. So this robot that the doctors use in hospitals can be wifi. Awareness claimed that buying into this would create cognitive dissonance with science, which is absurd. Science has fully bought into this without any cognitive dissonance. It isn't myth, it is our reality.

Awareness said "They don't like science, and find every fault and flaw in it they can find, to disparage it to their children.

But that's not working, even in the cults ... the last holders-on.

Religion has a long history of holding back science and progress. Science keeps on winning. Facts are stubborn."

Yet his posts prove he doesn't like religion. And my point is that it was religion that was thousands of years ahead of science.

Archaelogists teach there are 4 key criteria that separate man from all other species.

Religion and organization are two of these. You cannot have societies larger than bands (what apes and wolves have) without better conflict resolution and that requires better organization. In human society it is religion that teaches us we can identify ourselves based on what we believe (freedom, democracy, NY Yankees, etc) rather than on who our grandparents are (Abraham was the father of faith). It is religion that teaches us conflict resolution other than vendettas and revenge. It is religion that teaches us that human society can be specialized like parts of the body. That is a huge advance. Without specialists there would be no spaceships, telecommunications, computers, internet, etc. Human society as we know it would not exist. That means there would be no scientists to be "held back" by religion if there were no religion. Without religion scientists wouldn't exist.

His post is way toooooo whack-a-noodle to address.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

His post is way toooooo whack-a-noodle to address.

No one can deny that Biblical prophecies were thousands of years ahead of scientists.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

No one can deny that Biblical prophecies were thousands of years ahead of scientists.

Many may be instances of Vāticinium ex ēventū, that is "prophecy from the event", a technical theological or historiographical term referring to a prophecy written after the author already had information about the events supposedly being "foretold".

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Many may be instances of Vāticinium ex ēventū, that is "prophecy from the event", a technical theological or historiographical term referring to a prophecy written after the author already had information about the events supposedly being "foretold".

Jesus said the end of the age would be "as the days of Noah".

Now those who push this "prophecy from event" theory feel that Noah was a myth. If that were true it would make it that much more improbable that this prophesy would be fulfilled. (How does something happen again if it never happened in the first place?)

Yet here we are, we have seen the "day" when we realized we were in the 6th great extinction (it made the cover of Time magazine -- The Earth was the "man of the year"). We have seen the "day" when we realized a coming "catastrophic climate change". We have seen the "day" when men gathered together every seed of every creature and stored them in arks to preserve them for after this cataclysm.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Jesus said the end of the age would be "as the days of Noah".

Now those who push this "prophecy from event" theory feel that Noah was a myth. If that were true it would make it that much more improbable that this prophesy would be fulfilled. (How does something happen again if it never happened in the first place?)

Yet here we are, we have seen the "day" when we realized we were in the 6th great extinction (it made the cover of Time magazine -- The Earth was the "man of the year"). We have seen the "day" when we realized a coming "catastrophic climate change". We have seen the "day" when men gathered together every seed of every creature and stored them in arks to preserve them for after this cataclysm.

What does the Bible say the days of Noah were like?

Gen 6:5 And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Has there ever been a generation of humankind when Jehovah couldn't make this observation? No. From the standpoint of perfection, humans always look wicked. Therefore, "the end of the age" has been the expectation of every generation of Bible apocalyptically-oriented Christian since the time of Jesus. The problem is they were all wrong. None of which is to make light of the 6th great extinction which I take seriously and am trying to do my part by supporting organizations like the World Wildlife Fund.

The Gospel of John isn't apocalyptically-oriented, however. You don't read about a future apocalypse there. John's perspective is an instance of a "realized eschatology". In John Jesus as the Christ IS the "Resurrection and the Life." No need to speculate about another. It's already present in the person of Jesus as a spiritual reality. There are different theologies right there in the Bible.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

What does the Bible say the days of Noah were like?

Has there ever been a generation of humankind when Jehovah couldn't make this observation? No. From the standpoint of perfection, humans always look wicked. Therefore, "the end of the age" has been the expectation of every generation of Bible apocalyptically-oriented Christian since the time of Jesus. The problem is they were all wrong. None of which is to make light of the 6th great extinction which I take seriously and am trying to do my part by supporting organizations like the World Wildlife Fund.

The Gospel of John isn't apocalyptically-oriented, however. You don't read about a future apocalypse there. John's perspective is an instance of a "realized eschatology". In John Jesus as the Christ IS the "Resurrection and the Life." No need to speculate about another. It's already present in the person of Jesus as a spiritual reality. There are different theologies right there in the Bible.

That is not the "days" of Noah, it is the time of Noah.

Days of Noah --

Day he learned there would be a flood that would cause an extinction.

Day he began to build the ark

Day he gathered all the animals into the ark

Day it began to rain

Etc.

When you translate Days as time, and generalize what is being said so that anything can be said then nothing is being said. If someone did this to your writing you would scream that it is a lie, they have distorted your speaking.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That is not the "days" of Noah, it is the time of Noah.

Days of Noah --

Day he learned there would be a flood that would cause an extinction.

Day he began to build the ark

Day he gathered all the animals into the ark

Day it began to rain

Etc.

When you translate Days as time, and generalize what is being said so that anything can be said then nothing is being said. If someone did this to your writing you would scream that it is a lie, they have distorted your speaking.

Matt 24: 37 And as were the days of Noah, so shall be the coming of the Son of man. 38 For as in those days which were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark,

[zeek]

According to Alan Kirby, postmodernism has been superseded by pseudomodernism:

Pseudo-modernism belongs to a world pervaded by the encounter between a religiously fanatical segment of the United States, a largely secular but definitionally hyper-religious Israel, and a fanatical sub-section of Muslims scattered across the planet: pseudo-modernism was not born on 11 September 2001, but postmodernism was interred in its rubble.

In this context pseudo-modernism lashes fantastically sophisticated technology to the pursuit of medieval barbarism – as in the uploading of videos of beheadings onto the internet, or the use of mobile phones to film torture in prisons. Beyond this, the destiny of everyone else is to suffer the anxiety of getting hit in the cross-fire.

But this fatalistic anxiety extends far beyond geopolitics, into every aspect of contemporary life; from a general fear of social breakdown and identity loss, to a deep unease about diet and health; from anguish about the destructiveness of climate change, to the effects of a new personal ineptitude and helplessness, which yield TV programmes about how to clean your house, bring up your children or remain solvent.

This technologised cluelessness is utterly contemporary: the pseudo-modernist communicates constantly with the other side of the planet, yet needs to be told to eat vegetables to be healthy, a fact self-evident in the Bronze Age. He or she can direct the course of national television programmes, but does not know how to make him or herself something to eat – a characteristic fusion of the childish and the advanced, the powerful and the helpless.

For varying reasons, these are people incapable of the “disbelief of Grand Narratives” which Lyotard argued typified postmodernists.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Matt 24: 37 And as were the days of Noah, so shall be the coming of the Son of man. 38 For as in those days which were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark,

Those days -- referring to the days of Noah. At the same time that Noah is getting his revelation, building his boat, gathering the animals etc. what is everyone else doing?

It is the same today. At the same time there are those who are preparing for the Lord's return we have reality shows concerning marriage, getting married, giving in marriage, eating and drinking, etc.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Those days -- referring to the days of Noah. At the same time that Noah is getting his revelation, building his boat, gathering the animals etc. what is everyone else doing?

It is the same today. At the same time there are those who are preparing for the Lord's return we have reality shows concerning marriage, getting married, giving in marriage, eating and drinking, etc.

But we don't have the reason for the flood : Nephilim's. So we need divine intervention of those infamous Sons of God again. Dangle a bunch of sweet 16 virgins in the Levant. That should attract them.

But according to the Bible storytellers, the flood didn't kill all the Nephilim. They show up again with Caleb in Numbers 13:33. So on the other hand, they may still be with us, as in the days of Noah.

I hope if someone finds them, or one of them, it hits the national news. Then we'll know the end time is very near.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

But we don't have the reason for the flood : Nephilim's. So we need divine intervention of those infamous Sons of God again. Dangle a bunch of sweet 16 virgins in the Levant. That should attract them.

But according to the Bible storytellers, the flood didn't kill all the Nephilim. They show up again with Caleb in Numbers 13:33. So on the other hand, they may still be with us, as in the days of Noah.

I hope if someone finds them, or one of them, it hits the national news. Then we'll know the end time is very near.

Are you serious? We have ancient temples built with stones weighing 300 tons, perfectly cut, sitting on top of mountains. Now the extraordinary lengths we have to go to move a 69 ton stone demonstrates how incredible this is. We could never move a 300 ton stone without steel, cranes and machinery. That would entail smelting and mining operations and all kinds of technology that would blow the mind of any theory of ancient history.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Those days -- referring to the days of Noah. At the same time that Noah is getting his revelation, building his boat, gathering the animals etc. what is everyone else doing?

It is the same today. At the same time there are those who are preparing for the Lord's return we have reality shows concerning marriage, getting married, giving in marriage, eating and drinking, etc.

I won't deny that such can be said of the present moment. But, it could be said of every generation since the dawn of civilization. Which, perhaps, from a spiritual point of view, is the point.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

I won't deny that such can be said of the present moment. But, it could be said of every generation since the dawn of civilization. Which, perhaps, from a spiritual point of view, is the point.

An interesting way to say they are "clueless" or "oblivious" due to their preoccupation.

[zeek]

 The mind is inherently embodied.

 Thought is mostly unconscious.

 Abstract concepts are largely metaphorical.

How does Christianity respond to these propositions?

[zeek]

The Hebrew Bible [the so-called "Old Testament"] contains a number of competing traditions. It's many books were written by various authors and authors from multiple generations edited previous writings. Valid interpretation requires acknowledging the variety of often competing positions found in the same anthology of texts.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by zeek

The Hebrew Bible [the so-called "Old Testament"] contains a number of competing traditions. It's many books were written by various authors and authors from multiple generations edited previous writings. Valid interpretation requires acknowledging the variety of often competing positions found in the same anthology of texts.

An important example of a reformulation of tradition in the OT occurred in the 5th century BCE under the leadership of Ezra the scribe. Ezra 9:2 says

For they have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, so that the holy seed is mixed with the peoples of those lands. Indeed, the hand of the leaders and rulers has been foremost in this trespass.”

The "holy seed" can be translated "holy race". See for example the RSV.

So foreign wives were expelled under Ezra's rule for the sake of racial purity.

On that day they read from the Book of Moses in the hearing of the people, and in it was found written that no Ammonite or Moabite should ever come into the assembly of God, because they had not met the children of Israel with bread and water, but hired Balaam against them to curse them. However, our God turned the curse into a blessing. So it was, when they had heard the Law, that they separated all the mixed multitude from Israel. Nehemiah 13:1-3

But, other OT books counsel the Jews to make room for the other. For example, in the story of Ruth which explains that David had a non-Jewish Moabite mother.

In Isaiah 56 the Lord explicitly contradicts the exclusionary tradition of Ezra by welcoming foreigners and eunuchs.

3 Do not let the son of the foreigner
Who has joined himself to the Lord
Speak, saying,
“The Lord has utterly separated me from His people”;
Nor let the eunuch say,
“Here I am, a dry tree.”
4 For thus says the Lord:
“To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths,
And choose what pleases Me,
And hold fast My covenant,
5 Even to them I will give in My house
And within My walls a place and a name
Better than that of sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
That shall not be cut off.
6 “Also the sons of the foreigner
Who join themselves to the Lord, to serve Him,
And to love the name of the Lord, to be His servants—
Everyone who keeps from defiling the Sabbath,
And holds fast My covenant—
7 Even them I will bring to My holy mountain,
And make them joyful in My house of prayer.
Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices
Will be accepted on My altar;
For My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations.”
8 The Lord God, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, says,
“Yet I will gather to him
Others besides those who are gathered to him.”

[zeek]

"The main sources for our knowledge of Jesus himself, the gospels in the New Testament, are, from the point of view of the historian, tainted by the fact that they were written by people who intended to glorify their hero. The sources for Jesus are better, however, than those that deal with Alexander. The original biographies of Alexander have all been lost, and they are known only because they were used by later – much later – writers. The primary sources for Jesus were written nearer his own lifetime, and people who had known him were still alive. That is one of the reasons for saying that in some ways we know more about Jesus than about Alexander."
Sanders, E. The Historical Figure of Jesus

The historicity of Jesus is a matter judgment about the plausibility or probability of the proposition. I am at this moment convinced that he was an historical person. If you're not may I suggest Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth by Bart Ehrman. The question then becomes what "manner of man" was he? How much of the stories told about him are historically accurate and how much is the overlay of the authors?

From a historical standpoint strict supernaturalist orthodoxy is lost. Yet, an historical Jesus is probable. But, was he an apocalyptical prophet or a wisdom teacher? If the former, he anticipated an imminent cataclysm followed by a mass resurrection and a divine final judgment. If the latter, he preached unconventional wisdom in aphorisms and parables designed to bring the hearer into an first-hand relationship with the divine spirit that he was experiencing himself. If the latter is the case, the apocalyptical stuff was appended to his ministry by his followers sometime after his death.

If Jesus was a wise Rabbi, why was he crucified? Because Jesus' message although non-violent, was subversive of the established conventional order. He would have been a troublemaker as far as the Jewish priesthood who cooperated with the Romans were concerned. Josephus paints Pontius Pilate as far more tyrannical than do the gospels. He would have had no qualms about executing a trouble-maker.

But, Ehrman and the majority of 20th century scholars since Schweitzer favored the apocalyptical prophet model. Borg and Crossan favor the wisdom teacher model. The latter model of Jesus exemplifies a kind of spirituality and compassion that I find relevant even at this time.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

The historicity of Jesus is a matter judgment about the plausibility or probability of the proposition. I am at this moment convinced that he was an historical person. If you're not may I suggest Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth by Bart Ehrman. The question then becomes what "manner of man" was he? How much of the stories told about him are historically accurate and how much is the overlay of the authors?

From a historical standpoint strict supernaturalist orthodoxy is lost. Yet, an historical Jesus is probable. But, was he an apocalyptical prophet or a wisdom teacher? If the former, he anticipated an imminent cataclysm followed by a mass resurrection and a divine final judgment. If the latter, he preached unconventional wisdom in aphorisms and parables designed to bring the hearer into an first-hand relationship with the divine spirit that he was experiencing himself. If the latter is the case, the apocalyptical stuff was appended to his ministry by his followers sometime after his death.

If Jesus was a wise Rabbi, why was he crucified? Because Jesus' message although non-violent, was subversive of the established conventional order. He would have been a troublemaker as far as the Jewish priesthood who cooperated with the Romans were concerned. Josephus paints Pontius Pilate as far more tyrannical than do the gospels. He would have had no qualms about executing a trouble-maker.

But, Ehrman and the majority of 20th century scholars since Schweitzer favored the apocalyptical prophet model. Borg and Crossan favor the wisdom teacher model. The latter model of Jesus exemplifies a kind of spirituality and compassion that I find relevant even at this time.

I think Ehrman et al. are looking from back then to now, and Borg and Crossan are perchance looking from now to back then.

There's plenty of evidence that Jesus was apocalyptic. But God didn't intervene, drive the Romans out, and set up His kingdom, with the 12 disciples ruling over and judging the 12 tribes of Israel.

So now, looking back, it looks as if Jesus was a wisdom/Sophia teacher.

Maybe he was both. By the end of the 1st century he became "the way and the truth and the life."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

The historicity of Jesus is a matter judgment about the plausibility or probability of the proposition. I am at this moment convinced that he was an historical person. If you're not may I suggest Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth by Bart Ehrman. The question then becomes what "manner of man" was he? How much of the stories told about him are historically accurate and how much is the overlay of the authors?

It surprises me that anyone could actually doubt that Jesus was a real man, living in Israel during the 1st century, and then crucified by the Romans. I would think, given the overwhelming historical evidence, that if we question his probability, then the existence of every other man in history is under suspicion. But, of course, in today's climate of historical upheaval, the education of the next generation is at stake.

From a historical standpoint strict supernaturalist orthodoxy is lost. Yet, an historical Jesus is probable. But, was he an apocalyptical prophet or a wisdom teacher? If the former, he anticipated an imminent cataclysm followed by a mass resurrection and a divine final judgment. If the latter, he preached unconventional wisdom in aphorisms and parables designed to bring the hearer into an first-hand relationship with the divine spirit that he was experiencing himself. If the latter is the case, the apocalyptical stuff was appended to his ministry by his followers sometime after his death.

I'm confused why there is a choice. Could not Jesus be an apocalyptical prophet and a wisdom teacher? It seems this false choice is designed to give an opening to those who wish to discredit the Biblical record.

If Jesus was a wise Rabbi, why was he crucified? Because Jesus' message although non-violent, was subversive of the established conventional order. He would have been a troublemaker as far as the Jewish priesthood who cooperated with the Romans were concerned. Josephus paints Pontius Pilate as far more tyrannical than do the gospels. He would have had no qualms about executing a trouble-maker.

The gospel of John tells us that the Jews first plotted Jesus death after He broke the Sabbath and healed a man. Once Jesus claimed to be God, this plot became priority number one. Apparently Jesus (with Judas' help) expedited His own death and manner of death, since the Jews had no intention of killing Him during the Passover.

But, Ehrman and the majority of 20th century scholars since Schweitzer favored the apocalyptical prophet model. Borg and Crossan favor the wisdom teacher model. The latter model of Jesus exemplifies a kind of spirituality and compassion that I find relevant even at this time.

Why are their "models" so restrictive? Merely academic disputes?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

There's plenty of evidence that Jesus was apocalyptic. But God didn't intervene, drive the Romans out, and set up His kingdom, with the 12 disciples ruling over and judging the 12 tribes of Israel.

Before I knew Jesus in any personal way, I worked in a large Engineering office. The subject of prophecy was often discussed, prompted by Hal Lindsey's popular book. Though much was speculation, one designer I worked with would mention the actual fulfillment of prophecy to support the Biblical record. It was fascinating to many of the young draftsmen like myself. Hailing from a serious Catholic city, most of us literally knew nothing of the Book of Revelation, prophecies or their actual fulfillment to date.

For almost 2 millennia, it seemed that these apocalyptic writings about a future Israel were a joke. How could Israel exist in the Mideast surrounded by hostile neighbors? Then the biggest concentration of Jews in Poland was all but wiped out in the gas chambers. But here we were in 1975, and Israel was a nation, and Jerusalem was partly in their possession. The impossible had happened. Could the rest of these impossibilities also happen?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I think Ehrman et al. are looking from back then to now, and Borg and Crossan are perchance looking from now to back then.

I don't know how anyone living today can "look from back then to now". So, historians including those mentioned above must reconstruct history based on available evidence.

There's plenty of evidence that Jesus was apocalyptic.

Jesus scholars are all analyzing a similar core of evidence with varying interpretations. For most of the 20th century the apocalyptic prophet interpretation of Jesus prevailed. Beginning in the 1980s a new scholarly consensus emerged that in the earliest layers of the developing gospel tradition Jesus did not claim to be the Messiah or the Son of God in a special sense who expected a supernatural world-ending event in his own generation. As an example of the new consensus, The five gospels: the search for the authentic words of Jesus new translation and commentary by Robert Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar supports this view.

So now, looking back, it looks as if Jesus was a wisdom/Sophia teacher. Maybe he was both. By the end of the 1st century he became "the way and the truth and the life."

If you compare the sketches of Jesus by Borg or Crossan with those of Schweitzer, or Bultmann or Ehrman, I don't see how he could be both.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It surprises me that anyone could actually doubt that Jesus was a real man, living in Israel during the 1st century, and then crucified by the Romans. I would think, given the overwhelming historical evidence, that if we question his probability, then the existence of every other man in history is under suspicion. But, of course, in today's climate of historical upheaval, the education of the next generation is at stake.
I'm confused why there is a choice. Could not Jesus be an apocalyptical prophet and a wisdom teacher? It seems this false choice is designed to give an opening to those who wish to discredit the Biblical record.

The gospel of John tells us that the Jews first plotted Jesus death after He broke the Sabbath and healed a man. Once Jesus claimed to be God, this plot became priority number one. Apparently Jesus (with Judas' help) expedited His own death and manner of death, since the Jews had no intention of killing Him during the Passover.

Why are their "models" so restrictive? Merely academic disputes?

The apocalyptical prophet model begins with the observation that compares the historical Jesus to the apocalyptic prophets that have appeared throughout history proclaiming the end of the age. Since John the Baptist, Paul and Palestinian Jewish milieu were apocalyptic, it only makes sense that the historical Jesus was apocalyptic too. Those texts with elements of "realized eschatology" - the Gospel of Luke, the Gospel of John, and the Gospel of Thomas - reflect a softening of apocalyptic expectation at the end of the first century or in the early second century when Jesus failed to return. Jesus' extreme teachings make sense as an "interim ethic" that is intended to apply to the short period of under a generation between the time of Jesus and the end of the age. His cleansing of the Temple make sense in the context of the eschatological expectations of the historical Jesus.

The model of Jesus as a wisdom sage acknowledges that the views of John the Baptist and Paul and other Palestinian Jews were apocalyptically oriented and that the early church came to share Paul's apocalyptical view. However, Jesus taught an unconventional wisdom that represent God's rule as present to those with the spiritual eyes to see. Jesus' best attested teachings became obfuscated by the pessimistic apocalyptic notions of Jesus' immediate predecessors, contemporaries, and successors.

"Wisdom sage" theorists point to Jesus sayings that run counter to the popular apocalyptical views like

Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’.
For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.” [Luke 17:20-21]

and

"But if I cast out demons with the finger of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you." [Luke 11:20]

According to the wisdom sage model the best explanation is that these sayings and the best attested parables originated with Jesus, since they go against the dominant trend of the unfolding apocalyptic tradition. The subtlety of Jesus' sense of time - the simultaneity of present and future - was almost lost on his followers, many of whom started as disciples of John the Baptist, and are represented, in the gospels, as understanding Jesus poorly."

[zeek]

I favor the model of Jesus as wisdom sage and man of the spirit because my experience is more compatible with it. However, after years of study I am still unable to distinguish whether that model is more probable than the apocalyptical prophet model on historical grounds.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't know how anyone living today can "look from back then to now". So, historians including those mentioned above must reconstruct history based on available evidence.

Yes but Ehrman et al. are working from what they've put together about the historical Jesus. That's why I say from then to now.

Originally Posted by zeek

Jesus scholars are all analyzing a similar core of evidence with varying interpretations. For most of the 20th century the apocalyptic prophet interpretation of Jesus prevailed. Beginning in the 1980s a new scholarly consensus emerged that in the earliest layers of the developing gospel tradition Jesus did not claim to be the Messiah or the Son of God in a special sense who expected a supernatural world-ending event in his own generation. As an example of the new consensus, The five gospels: the search for the authentic words of Jesus new translation and commentary by Robert Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar supports this view.

That's a lot of top notch scholars. So if they hold to the wisdom model of the "real" Jesus that holds some merit.

So where did Jesus the apocalypticist come from?

Originally Posted by zeek

If you compare the sketches of Jesus by Borg or Crossan with those of Schweitzer, or Bultmann or Ehrman, I don't see how he could be both.

It depends on how you consider scripture. If you consider every word of it to be the very Word of God, then you can see both in the scripture. You can see that Jesus considered the end to be imminent (within that generation), and you can see the sermon on the mount as the wisdom/Sophia Jesus.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I favor the model of Jesus as wisdom sage and man of the spirit because my experience is more compatible with it. However, after years of study I am still unable to distinguish whether that model is more probable than the apocalyptical prophet model on historical grounds.

The difficulty of every scientific model is that none meets all the criteria or answers all the questions. Each model may be beneficial, but are also a limitation. I agree the former model fits more of our experience, since it matches Jesus as our Lord, our Friend, our Savior, our Shepherd during the church age of grace.

During the coming restoration of Israel, we will see more of Jesus as the apocalyptic Prophet fulfilling age old prophecies.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes but Ehrman et al. are working from what they've put together about the historical Jesus. That's why I say from then to now.


That's a lot of top notch scholars. So if they hold to the wisdom model of the "real" Jesus that holds some merit.

So where did Jesus the apocalypticist come from?


It depends on how you consider scripture. If you consider every word of it to be the very Word of God, then you can see both in the scripture. You can see that Jesus considered the end to be imminent (within that generation), and you can see the sermon on the mount as the wisdom/Sophia Jesus.

Both theories are espoused by scholars based on what they have "put together about the historical Jesus". That's the problem. There are "top notch" scholars in both groups. Where the apocalypticist passages came from is the question. Did it come from Jesus or from his followers over time? The text are self-evidently written by people not magically. They do sometimes make claims to be the "word of the Lord" and, it is a matter of tradition that the entire book is God inspired. Those clams are matters of faith whereas the theorists we're discussing analyze the book in terms of historically documented facts as well as the sciences including anthropology and sociology.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Both theories are espoused by scholars based on what they have "put together about the historical Jesus". That's the problem. There are "top notch" scholars in both groups. Where the apocalypticist passages came from is the question. Did it come from Jesus or from his followers over time? The text are self-evidently written by people not magically. They do sometimes make claims to be the "word of the Lord" and, it is a matter of tradition that the entire book is God inspired. Those clams are matters of faith whereas the theorists we're discussing analyze the book in terms of historically documented facts as well as the sciences including anthropology and sociology.

After the local church it was a shear delight to read Robert Funk's "Honest to Jesus: Jesus for a New Millennium." After Witness Lee, and his take on the Bible, Funk's take was very freeing. It was like an eye-popping breath of fresh air.

Annzywho, Robert Funk was the founder of The Jesus Seminar. Here's what I understand about the over 200 Bible scholars. I think everyone knows that they have not only the red letter addition of the New Testament, but the Pink, Gray, and Black addition.

Red = Jesus said it.
Pink = Maybe Jesus said it.
Gray = Jesus probably didn't say it.
Black = Jesus didn't say it (the storyteller put the words in his mouth)

They published their New Testament in a book entitled "The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus," (The Gospel of Thomas is the fifth gospel.) Their gospels is where they apply their color code.

As I understand their method, they take a saying of Jesus from our primary sources, the gospels, dig down into "Q" and up thru the first and early second century, and look for "attestations" or other "witnesses" to the saying. And if they find that there are a lot of attestations, then it gets a Red. Conversely, if they find no other attestations, or witnesses, it gets a Black.

That said, to my point. If these Seminar Scholars, unlike Ehrman et al., consider Jesus to be a Wisdom sage, why is so little of the sermon on the mount in Red? That's seems to me to be the core of 'a' wisdom sage.

But then, if they found sections of the sermon on the mount that had little or no other evidence, I guess they had to put parts of the sermon on the mount in Black.

So then, where's the wisdom sage? Seems he disappeared into the Black. They don't believe Jesus was an apocalypticist, and the wisdom sage is gone into the Black. Where did Jesus go? He's the mystery man (maybe the Docetist's were right).

Will the real Jesus please stand up ... and tell us that he either preached apocalypticism or wisdom ... or both?

For some reason we need to know.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The difficulty of every scientific model is that none meets all the criteria or answers all the questions. Each model may be beneficial, but are also a limitation.

That's true. That's why existential commitment requires a leap of faith as Soren Kierkegaard realized and Francis Schaeffer denied.

I agree the former model fits more of our experience, since it matches Jesus as our Lord, our Friend, our Savior, our Shepherd during the church age of grace.

You seem to agree with the experiential part but not with the non-eschatological Jesus part which I will have to get into a bit deeper to answer Harold above.

Originally Posted by Ohio

During the coming restoration of Israel, we will see more of Jesus as the apocalyptic Prophet fulfilling age old prophecies.

So they say. "God only knows. God makes his plan. The information is unavailable to the mortal man" Paul Simon "Slip Sliding Away."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

After the local church it was a shear delight to read Robert Funk's "Honest to Jesus: Jesus for a New Millennium." After Witness Lee, and his take on the Bible, Funk's take was very freeing. It was like an eye-popping breath of fresh air.

Annzywho, Robert Funk was the founder of The Jesus Seminar. Here's what I understand about the over 200 Bible scholars. I think everyone knows that they have not only the red letter addition of the New Testament, but the Pink, Gray, and Black addition.

Red = Jesus said it.
Pink = Maybe Jesus said it.
Gray = Jesus probably didn't say it.
Black = Jesus didn't say it (the storyteller put the words in his mouth)

They published their New Testament in a book entitled "The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus," (The Gospel of Thomas is the fifth gospel.) Their gospels is where they apply their color code.

As I understand their method, they take a saying of Jesus from our primary sources, the gospels, dig down into "Q" and up thru the first and early second century, and look for "attestations" or other "witnesses" to the saying. And if they find that there are a lot of attestations, then it gets a Red. Conversely, if they find no other attestations, or witnesses, it gets a Black.

That said, to my point. If these Seminar Scholars, unlike Ehrman et al., consider Jesus to be a Wisdom sage, why is so little of the sermon on the mount in Red? That's seems to me to be the core of 'a' wisdom sage.

But then, if they found sections of the sermon on the mount that had little or no other evidence, I guess they had to put parts of the sermon on the mount in Black.

So then, where's the wisdom sage? Seems he disappeared into the Black. They don't believe Jesus was an apocalypticist, and the wisdom sage is gone into the Black. Where did Jesus go? He's the mystery man (maybe the Docetist's were right).

Will the real Jesus please stand up ... and tell us that he either preached apocalypticism or wisdom ... or both?

For some reason we need to know.

The sayings the Jesus Seminar voted as most likely to be authentic were:

Other cheek (Q) Matt 5:39, Luke 6:29a
Coat & shirt (Q) Matt 5:40, Luke 6:29b
Congratulations, poor! (Q, Thomas) Luke 6:20, Thomas 54
Matt 5:3
Second mile (Q) Matt 5:41
Love of enemies (Q) Luke 6:27b, Matt 5:44b, Luke 6:32, 35a
Leaven (Q, Thomas) Luke 13:20-21, Matt 13:33, Thom 96:1-2
Emperor & God (Thomas, Mark) Thom 100:2b, Mark 12:17b, Luke 20:25b, Matt 22:21c
Give to beggars (Q) Matt 5:42a, Luke 6:30a
The Samaritan (L) Luke 10:30-35
Congratulations, hungry! (Q, Thomas) Luke 6:21a, Matt 5:6, Thom 69:2

Notice there isn't an apocalyptical prophesy in the bunch.

Jesus Seminar Fellows also came to consensus on the following:

Jesus of Nazareth did not refer to himself as the Messiah, nor did he claim to be a divine being who descended to earth from heaven in order to die as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. These are claims that some people in the early church made about Jesus, not claims he made about himself.

At the heart of Jesus’ teaching and actions was a vision of a life under the reign of God (or, in the empire of God) in which God’s generosity and goodness is regarded as the model and measure of human life; everyone is accepted as a child of God and thus liberated both from the ethnocentric confines of traditional Judaism and from the secularizing servitude and meagerness of their lives under the rule of the empire of Rome

Jesus did not hold an apocalyptic view of the reign (or kingdom) of God—that by direct intervention God was about to bring history to an end and bring a new, perfect order of life into being. Rather, in Jesus’ teaching the reign of God is a vision of what life in this world could be, not a vision of life in a future world that would soon be brought into being by a miraculous act of God.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

The sayings the Jesus Seminar voted as most likely to be authentic were:

That's some slim pickin's ; just the bones of Jesus. Jesus is just about gone.

Originally Posted by zeek

Jesus Seminar Fellows also came to consensus on the following:

Gospel of Thomas v113.
His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?"

"It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, 'Look, here!' or 'Look, there!' Rather, the Father's kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."

So no sacrifice for sins, no imminent end, but everybody is a child of God, and the kingdom is here and now.

That's kind of nice. But what about our sins?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's some slim pickin's ; just the bones of Jesus. Jesus is just about gone.



Gospel of Thomas v113.
His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?"

"It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, 'Look, here!' or 'Look, there!' Rather, the Father's kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."

So no sacrifice for sins, no imminent end, but everybody is a child of God, and the kingdom is here and now.

That's kind of nice. But what about our sins?

“Jesus died for our sins” has been traditionally understood to be an essential doctrinal element in the Christian belief system. It has become a doctrinal requirement: we are made right with God by believing that Jesus is the sacrifice. Seen this way believing in Jesus is the new requirement of the Law. Jesus, on the other hand proclaimed and lived according to the radical grace of God. Seen through the lens of Jesus' unconventional wisdom “Jesus died for our sins” means the abolition of the system of requirements, not the establishment of a new requirement.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

“Jesus died for our sins” has been traditionally understood to be an essential doctrinal element in the Christian belief system.

Are you saying that it wasn't original to Jesus? In our records it's starts early with Paul.

Maybe they had to cook up an alternative plan when the end times kingdom coming in that generation didn't come.

I don't know. I wasn't there. We weren't there.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Are you saying that it wasn't original to Jesus?

Both theories are saying that.

In our records it's starts early with Paul.

Well, the New Testament starts with Paul. So, in terms of the chronology of the writing "Jesus did for our sins" is there from the beginning.

Maybe they had to cook up an alternative plan when the end times kingdom coming in that generation didn't come.

"Cook[ed] up" suggests contrivance or fabrication. Neither theory proposes that the disciples did that. Beginning with Mary and Peter the disciples had visions experienced visions of Jesus. The Hebrew scriptures took on new meaning for them in which Jesus as the resurrected messiah was central. The inspired vision was powerful and transformative enough to empower them through adversity and persecution.

I don't know. I wasn't there. We weren't there.

If that's your position, you should give up on history, cuz you weren't there much of it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Both theories are saying that.

So these top scholars, when searching for the real words of Jesus, strip away salvation, apocalypticism, and trim down the wisdom sage, to just a few paltry words. To them, I guess, Jesus was just a great guy. What about the miracles? Are they gone too?

The Hebrews had their healers. The Romans had healing gods. Was healing not a distinguishing characteristic of Jesus? Was he just considered another itinerant healer ; common and ordinary?

So what made Jesus stand out. What made him have such a widespread attraction? Why him?

The scholars turn him into just an ordinary guy. Maybe smarter than most, but ordinary.

Originally Posted by zeek

Well, the New Testament starts with Paul. So, in terms of the chronology of the writing "Jesus did for our sins" is there from the beginning.

So Paul did it? Paul made Jesus a success. Or actually, according to the story, Jesus thru Paul, made Jesus a success. That was certainly different enough to get attention.

But wouldn't it/he have been better, more effective say, since at this point Jesus was a Spirit, if he appeared to everybody like he did to Paul?

Just wondering how this not saving, no end of times, somewhat wise, man had such an impact.

Such an impact that, 2000 years laters scolars spend their whole life trying to figure out what he actually said.

Originally Posted by zeek

"Cook[ed] up" suggests contrivance or fabrication. Neither theory proposes that the disciples did that. Beginning with Mary and Peter the disciples had visions experienced visions of Jesus. The Hebrew scriptures took on new meaning for them in which Jesus as the resurrected messiah was central. The inspired vision was powerful and transformative enough to empower them through adversity and persecution.

They were too innocent and gullible to be devious. Like everyone else in those days, they accepted any kind of fantastical story passed around. But that doesn't mean that they weren't trying to put together what happened with this Jesus guy.

The stories coming down from him were full of salvation, end of times, with healing's of all kinds, even raising the dead, and full of loads of wisdom ... and that he rose from the dead, ascended to heaven, and became a Spirit, that anyone could receive.

And all those stories were gathered together, to write the gospels. And that is the Jesus we've got today. Sorry scholars, you can't change what's written.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

So these top scholars, when searching for the real words of Jesus, strip away salvation, apocalypticism, and trim down the wisdom sage, to just a few paltry words. To them, I guess, Jesus was just a great guy.

Uncertainty can feel disconcerting. But, what's the alternative? Shall we claim to know or believe that which we have no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe? Eighty-two percent of the words ascribed to Jesus in the gospels were not actually spoken by him, according to the Jesus Seminar. But, the remainder are hardly "paltry" in terms of their ethical significance or what they reveal about the character of Jesus.

On the other hand, Sanders says the following facts are "almost beyond dispute":

• Jesus was born c. 4 BCE, near the time of the death of Herod the Great;
• he spent his childhood and early adult years in Nazareth, a Galilean village; he was baptized by John the Baptist;
• he called disciples;
• he taught in the towns, villages and countryside of Galilee (apparently not the cities);
• he preached ‘the kingdom of God’; about the year 30 he went to Jerusalem for Passover;
• he created a disturbance in the Temple area;
• he had a final meal with the disciples;
• he was arrested and interrogated by Jewish authorities, specifically the high priest;
• he was executed on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate.
• his disciples at first fled;
• they saw him (in what sense is not certain) after his death;
• as a consequence, they believed that he would return to found the kingdom; they formed a community to await his return and sought to win others to faith in him as God’s Messiah.

Sanders, E.. The Historical Figure of Jesus (Kindle Locations 285-298). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

I will address the rest of your questions in another post.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

To them [top scholars], I guess, Jesus was just a great guy. What about the miracles? Are they gone too?

The Hebrews had their healers. The Romans had healing gods. Was healing not a distinguishing characteristic of Jesus? Was he just considered another itinerant healer ; common and ordinary?

So what made Jesus stand out. What made him have such a widespread attraction? Why him?

The scholars turn him into just an ordinary guy. Maybe smarter than most, but ordinary.

So Paul did it? Paul made Jesus a success. Or actually, according to the story, Jesus thru Paul, made Jesus a success. That was certainly different enough to get attention.

But wouldn't it/he have been better, more effective say, since at this point Jesus was a Spirit, if he appeared to everybody like he did to Paul?

Just wondering how this not saving, no end of times, somewhat wise, man had such an impact.

Such an impact that, 2000 years later scholars spend their whole life trying to figure out what he actually said.

They were too innocent and gullible to be devious. Like everyone else in those days, they accepted any kind of fantastical story passed around. But that doesn't mean that they weren't trying to put together what happened with this Jesus guy.

The stories coming down from him were full of salvation, end of times, with healing's of all kinds, even raising the dead, and full of loads of wisdom ... and that he rose from the dead, ascended to heaven, and became a Spirit, that anyone could receive.

And all those stories were gathered together, to write the gospels. And that is the Jesus we've got today. Sorry scholars, you can't change what's written.

You answer many of your own questions. Scholars generally agree that Jesus was an exorcist and a healer. But that would not have made him unique during his time as there were others who exorcised and healed. Of course, these scholars aren't talking about miracles in the sense of suspension of natural law. But, even the historian Josephus mentions that Jesus was known for his "startling deeds". He was an unconventional wisdom teacher at least some of whose teaching survives in the synoptic gospels. So, the resurrection experiences and their interpretation in terms of apocalyptic eschatology seems to critical to the origin and early spread of the Christian church.

The question is, how much of that apocalyptic eschatology originates with Jesus and how much of it was applied to him retrospectively? Among those who assert that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, there are prominent scholars who do not think that Jesus preached himself as the messiah or the unique Son of God. He may or may not have given his own death martyrological significance and he may or may not have identified himself with the coming Son of man depending on which peer-reviewed scholarly theory one subscribes to.