Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The New Testament writers were not writing fiction, and while you may choose not to believe them, they expected what they wrote to be taken as factual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
The gospel author were writing stories not history.
There were no Rod Serlings back then, Rafe. Writing was not commonplace. It was reserved for important things and there was no difference between what you call stories and other information considered important at the time, like genealogies and significant events they wanted to preserve for future generations. The modern view of writing and the distinctions you apply to them make no sense given the use of writing in those eras. As Mike says, you can choose not to believe the content, but back then THEY did believe it.
I am no longer a Christian, but I do believe that the authors in the Christian bible who introduced the idea that "God is love" got it right. I'm convinced that that God exists, by virtue of the fact that I've observed and experienced what it is to love and be loved (not talking about an emotion, here). There is a "spirit" that moves people to care about other beings and things beyond just their own survival and best interests, and which allows us to transcend our self-involvement. If you're a materialist, you'll likely want to debate that this is not God, but rather something arising from our physical brains. But, as far as I'm concerned, that's not a vitally important debate. I'm okay with either answer, I just lean toward the answer being [literally] "God".
I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say "I've observed and experienced what it is to love and be loved (not talking about an emotion, here)". How do you define love? As far as caring about other beings beyond our own survival and self interest, we all do that. It comes from an innate sense of empathy and fairness that we (even animals) have. It has developed based on the need of people having to get along with each other and live together and thrive in groups/society. Even animals other than humans have a sense have a sense of fairness, empathy and morality, so why attribute it to a god? No god is necessary.
So, do you currently, actively believe that a god does in fact exist? If this god is an actual "being" that exists, can you tell us more about him/it? Is it a supernatural, divine being, with reasoning abilities? What are its characteristics and what does it do? What evidence/proof do you have that your particular god exists? How did you come to find and know about this god, and how does it differ from other gods?
As far as your belief in this "god" why do you put all references to such, in quotes? It appears that you are just redefining existing natural concepts and attributing it to a "god." You seem as if you are using a goddidit explanation for something you cannot explain or don't have an answer for, hence your statement about "leaning toward the answer being God." If you actually believed in this god's existence, I would think you know the answer. "Leaning towards" the answer being "god" indicates that you do not currently, actively believe, but are considering god as the answer. As an atheist, I also think that a god may be "possible." I don't go around saying that gods do not in fact exist. How would I know? There could be hundreds of gods out there! I just do not currently have any belief in any particular god at the moment which makes me by definition an atheist. That doesn't mean that I couldn't be 100% convinced by some kind of proof of a god tomorrow!
I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say "I've observed and experienced what it is to love and be loved (not talking about an emotion, here)". How do you define love? As far as caring about other beings beyond our own survival and self interest, we all do that. It comes from an innate sense of empathy and fairness that we (even animals) have. It has developed based on the need of people having to get along with each other and live together and thrive in groups/society. Even animals other than humans have a sense have a sense of fairness, empathy and morality, so why attribute it to a god? No god is necessary.
So, do you currently, actively believe that a god does in fact exist? If this god is an actual "being" that exists, can you tell us more about him/it? Is it a supernatural, divine being, with reasoning abilities? What are its characteristics and what does it do? What evidence/proof do you have that your particular god exists? How did you come to find and know about this god, and how does it differ from other gods?
As far as your belief in this "god" why do you put all references to such, in quotes? It appears that you are just redefining existing natural concepts and attributing it to a "god." You seem as if you are using a goddidit explanation for something you cannot explain or don't have an answer for, hence your statement about "leaning toward the answer being God." If you actually believed in this god's existence, I would think you know the answer. "Leaning towards" the answer being "god" indicates that you do not currently, actively believe, but are considering god as the answer. As an atheist, I also think that a god may be "possible." I don't go around saying that gods do not in fact exist. How would I know? There could be hundreds of gods out there! I just do not currently have any belief in any particular god at the moment which makes me by definition an atheist. That doesn't mean that I couldn't be 100% convinced by some kind of proof of a god tomorrow!
You simply do not even try to understand WHAT the products of our brain ARE as phenomena within the overall reality. You just consider them in some penumbra around what you consider the "real" reality. Until you do, you simply will never understand what we actually ARE, and subsequently what God IS.
I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say "I've observed and experienced what it is to love and be loved (not talking about an emotion, here)". How do you define love? As far as caring about other beings beyond our own survival and self interest, we all do that. It comes from an innate sense of empathy and fairness that we (even animals) have. It has developed based on the need of people having to get along with each other and live together and thrive in groups/society. Even animals other than humans have a sense have a sense of fairness, empathy and morality, so why attribute it to a god? No god is necessary.
So, do you currently, actively believe that a god does in fact exist? If this god is an actual "being" that exists, can you tell us more about him/it? Is it a supernatural, divine being, with reasoning abilities? What are its characteristics and what does it do? What evidence/proof do you have that your particular god exists? How did you come to find and know about this god, and how does it differ from other gods?
As far as your belief in this "god" why do you put all references to such, in quotes? It appears that you are just redefining existing natural concepts and attributing it to a "god." You seem as if you are using a goddidit explanation for something you cannot explain or don't have an answer for, hence your statement about "leaning toward the answer being God." If you actually believed in this god's existence, I would think you know the answer. "Leaning towards" the answer being "god" indicates that you do not currently, actively believe, but are considering god as the answer. As an atheist, I also think that a god may be "possible." I don't go around saying that gods do not in fact exist. How would I know? There could be hundreds of gods out there! I just do not currently have any belief in any particular god at the moment which makes me by definition an atheist. That doesn't mean that I couldn't be 100% convinced by some kind of proof of a god tomorrow!
You can think whatever you like about whether I actually "believe" or not. You might be right. I don't know God exists; I think God exists. (And am convinced that "God is love" is a true statement, either literally or metaphorically.)
"God is love" is my working hypothesis and my desire is to be aligned with that God, in my beliefs, thoughts and behaviors. I also trust, implicity, that a God who is love would desire to empower me to do just that, whether I know or believe beyond doubt at any given moment that God (literally) exists or not. Unless someone can show me why that's an unhealthy attitude or detrimental to me or others in any way, I'm going with it.
Ps. I put "God" and "spirit" and such in quotes when speaking with atheists out of respect for your right to unbelief, I guess. I seek common ground with those who honor love, whether they think God exists or not.
Didn't I answer these points already? John is not a reliable guide to what the disciples thought. Like the other three, he is (I argue) a Greek rather than Jewish Christian and that is the view he puts in his gospel which may (as I said) indeed include some reliable eyewitness about what happened to Jesus.
The OT gives a Jewish view of what resurrection meant to Pharisee group Apparently the Sadducees didn't believe in any kind of resurrection.
Even less useful are the opinions of early Christian writers on what resurrection meant to them, or what they thought it meant to the disciples.
If anyone can give us a clue it is Paul. and what he tells us is of a Jewish type revival from the grave for his followers, and a Jesus who had already risen and ascended to heaven.
The only real debate is whether he ascended as a solid body or as a spirit.
Biblically there is no debate---Flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of heaven--I Cor 15:50
Not magic. You were given the answer to your question as to how John could remember the details. As Jesus has stated, the Holy Spirit would bring to remembrance all that He had taught them (John 1:26).
Of course you won't accept that answer, since you don't believe in God.
Quote:
Mere speculation in attempt to hand-wave away the fact that John cannot quote words that were being spoken when he was asleep.. The problem remains.
Two valid explanations were given concerning why John was able to record something he had not personally heard. Again, you are unwilling to accept the explanations. But they are valid.
Quote:
You haven't got any eye-witnesses.
The Gospel writers say otherwise. The Gospel of John claims to have been written by the disciple whom Jesus loved who had leaned on Jesus' breast at the last supper. That makes him an eyewitness (John 21:20:24). And Luke writes at the beginning of his Gospel account of the things which had been handed down by those who had been eyewitnesses from the beginning (Luke 1:1-2). Luke himself had not been an eyewitness, but he was alive at the time that eyewitness's to Jesus were still alive, and he had the opportunity to interview them.
You won't accept that, but John, the disciple whom Jesus loved was an eyewitness and wrote the Gospel of John. And Luke interviewed eyewitnesses of Jesus.
Quote:
How do you know? We don't even know who the authors of the Gospels were. What we do know is that they were not written by M.M.L or J. What we also know is that there is no mention of any gospels until the second century. The Gospels were unknown to your beloved Church Fathers and the evidence is this:
Since the oldest extant writing of the apostolic church fathers is 1st Clement (c. A.D. 96), one wouldn't expect to find any writings mentioning the Gospels before that time. As mentioned below, while Clement didn't refer to any of the four Gospel accounts by name, he did state that the apostles received the Gospel from Jesus.
Of the four Gospels, John's is the only one that states that the writer was an eyewitness. Most scholars believe John to be the disciple referred to as the disciple whom Jesus loved who was the author of the Gospel of John.
Since the early Church does affirm that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were the writers of the synoptic Gospels, and since there is no competing tradition which denies that, and since the early church could have picked better names to attach to the Gospels if indeed Matthew, Mark, and Luke were not the actual writers, it is safe to assume that they were indeed the author's of those Gospel accounts even if most modern critical scholars don't agree. It's a matter of whether you are willing to believe the testimony of the early Church.
Quote:
The first epistle of Clement of Rome which is reasonably dated to 95 C.E., makes no mention of any of the Gospels although it does mention the epistles of Paul. This is a strange omission had the Gospels been circulating at that time.
While Clement didn't mention the four Gospel accounts, he did state that the apostles received the Gospel from Jesus Christ.
CLEMENT OF ROME, First Epistle
1Clem 42:1
The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus
Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God.
1Clem 42:2
So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both
therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order.
Having received the Gospel from Jesus, the apostles and others first spread the gospel message orally. The Gospel accounts were written later. There are very few scholars today who deny that the Gospels were written before the end of the first century.
Quote:
None of the Gospels are mentioned in the letters of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, which can be dated from 110 C.E.
The first mention of the Gospels, as we know them, comes around 140 C.E. in the work of Aristides of Athens who refers to “the holy Gospel writingâ€.
Justin Martyr, writing in the middle of the second century and desperately trying to prove the divinity of your Jesus would have certainly made good use of your Gospels had they actually existed in his time. Yet , though he made more than three hundred quotations from the books of the Old Testament and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New Testament, he didn't mention the gospels at all. Not until 150 C.E. when Justin Martyr composed the first of his two Apologies, did he specifically refers to the writings of Luke, Matthew, and Mark as “memoirs†About 10 years later, Justin’s student, Tatian brought together the four Gospels and combined them into one harmonized book which he called the Diatessaron, written in Tatian’s native language of Syric. And by 180 C.E. Irenaeus wrote in his principal work, Against Heresies, that: 'The Gospels could not possibly be either more or less in number than they are. Since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds…Now the Gospels, in which Christ is enthroned, are like these…'
So pretty good evidence that there were no gospels until the mid-second century.
Against your argument that the Gospels weren't written until the mid -second century is the statement by Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 125-202 ) that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
And again, very few scholars today think that the Gospels were written after the end of the first century.
Quote:
No he wasn't. The claim is that he saw him in a 'vision'.
By Paul's own statement, Jesus appeared to him which means that Paul was an eyewitness to the risen Jesus. The fact that Jesus appeared in a vision doesn't invalidate it being an eyewitness account.
1 Cor. 15: 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4] and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5] and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6] After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7] then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8] and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.
And actually, Jesus appeared to Paul on more than one occasion; Acts 18:9 for instance.
But you won't accept any of this, first, because you don't even believe that Jesus existed historically,
Quoting you.
''I don't really think there was a historical Jesus and frankly, I don't particularly care short of enjoying a good discussion about it but if there was then I'm with you...he was no gospel Jesus.''
or that the apostles existed historically which of course means that if they didn't exist they couldn't have written the Gospels. And secondly, you won't accept the testimony of Christians because in your opinion Christians can't be trusted. And you are simply here to try and discredit the Bible presenting the same objections over and over and you have no interest in being objective. Your bias is about as bad as it can be. And that really makes bothering with you a waste of time. And therefore, this conversation has gone on long enough. It's too time consuming talking to a wall. Others who may read this post can either accept what is written, or reject it.
Again, it is stated in the Gospel of John itself that the writer of that Gospel is the disciple whom Jesus loved. That means that the Gospel of John was written by an eyewitness. And no, the synoptics are not wrong.
The disciples were Jews and their beliefs about resurrection were Jewish. That includes Paul. And the Jewish idea about resurrection was that of a physical bodily resurrection. The concept of resurrection did not have the connotation of the soul leaving the body and going to heaven.
You say nevermind the views of Justin. How easy it is to simply dismiss inconvenient evidence which refutes your own views.
Justin Martyr was but one example which demonstrates that resurrection was thought of as a resurrection of the body.
Another clear example is found in 2 Macabees in a story about a mother and her seven sons who refuse to obey the demands of the tyrant Antiochus Epiphanes to disregard the requirements of the Mosaic Law about not eating unclean food. As a result they are tortured and killed. As they are being tortured they voice their expectations of being raised to life again in the flesh.
2 Macabees Chapter 7
7 So when the first was dead after this number, they brought the second to make him a mocking stock: and when they had pulled off the skin of his head with the hair, they asked him, Wilt thou eat, before thou be punished throughout every member of thy body?
8 But he answered in his own language, and said, No. Wherefore he also received the next torment in order, as the former did.
9 And when he was at the last gasp, he said, Thou like a fury takest us out of this present life, but the King of the world shall raise us up, who have died for his laws, unto everlasting life.
10 After him was the third made a mocking stock: and when he was required, he put out his tongue, and that right soon, holding forth his hands manfully.
11 And said courageously, These I had from heaven; and for his laws I despise them; and from him I hope to receive them again.
12 Insomuch that the king, and they that were with him, marvelled at the young man's courage, for that he nothing regarded the pains.
13 Now when this man was dead also, they tormented and mangled the fourth in like manner.
14 So when he was ready to die he said thus, It is good, being put to death by men, to look for hope from God to be raised up again by him: as for thee, thou shalt have no resurrection to life.
23 But doubtless the Creator of the world, who formed the generation of man, and found out the beginning of all things, will also of his own mercy give you breath and life again, as ye now regard not your own selves for his laws' sake. [Bolding mine]
This passage from 2 Macabees shows that resurrection was thought of as being raised back to physical life after having been dead.
Josephus expressed his view of resurrection as being raised back to life again in the age to come.
Do you not know that those who depart out of this life, according to the law of nature, and pay that debt which was received from God, when he that lent it us is pleased to require it back, enjoy eternal fame? that their houses and their posterity are sure, that their souls are pure and obedient, and obtain a most holy place in heaven, from whence, in the revolution of ages, they are again sent into pure bodies; while the souls of those whose hands have acted madly against themselves, are received by the darkest place in Hades, and while God, who is their father, punishes those that offend against either of them in their posterity? for which reason God hates such doings, and the crime is punished by our most wise legislator. [Bolding mine]
Josephus, Wars of the Jews, book 3, chapter 8, section 5.
Josephus then believed that after having spent time in heaven, a person will be sent into pure bodies. Resurrection wasn't going to heaven, but was after going to heaven for an interim period will be physically resurrected in a future age.
Clement of Rome understood the resurrection of which Jesus is the firstfruit, as being in the flesh, which means that he understood Jesus to have been resurrected in the flesh.
1Clem 24:1
Let us understand, dearly beloved, how the Master continually
showeth unto us the resurrection that shall be hereafter; whereof He
made the Lord Jesus Christ the firstfruit, when He raised Him from
the dead.
1Clem 24:2
Let us behold, dearly beloved, the resurrection which happeneth at
its proper season.
1Clem 24:3
Day and night show unto us the resurrection. The night falleth
asleep, and day ariseth; the day departeth, and night cometh on.
1Clem 24:4
Let us mark the fruits, how and in what manner the sowing taketh
place.
1Clem 24:5
The sower goeth forth and casteth into the earth each of the
seeds; and these falling into the earth dry and bare decay: then out
of their decay the mightiness of the Master's providence raiseth them
up, and from being one they increase manifold and bear fruit.
1Clem 25:1
Let us consider the marvelous sign which is seen in the regions of
the east, that is, in the parts about Arabia.
1Clem 25:2
There is a bird, which is named the phoenix. This, being the only
one of its kind, liveth for five hundred years; and when it hath now
reached the time of its dissolution that it should die, it maketh for
itself a coffin of frankincense and myrrh and the other spices, into
the which in the fullness of time it entereth, and so it dieth.
1Clem 25:3
But, as the flesh rotteth, a certain worm is engendered, which is
nurtured from the moisture of the dead creature and putteth forth
wings. Then, when it is grown lusty, it taketh up that coffin where
are the bones of its parent, and carrying them journeyeth from the
country of Arabia even unto Egypt, to the place called the City of
the Sun;
1Clem 25:4
and in the daytime in the sight of all, flying to the altar of the
Sun, it layeth them thereupon; and this done, it setteth forth to
return.
1Clem 25:5
So the priests examine the registers of the times, and they find that
it hath come when the five hundredth year is completed.
1Clem 26:1
Do we then think it to be a great and marvelous thing, if the
Creator of the universe shall bring about the resurrection of them
that have served Him with holiness in the assurance of a good faith,
seeing that He showeth to us even by a bird the magnificence of His
promise?
1Clem 26:2
For He saith in a certain place And Thou shalt raise me up, and I
will praise Thee; and; I went to rest and slept, I was awaked,
for Thou art with me.
1Clem 26:3
And again Job saith And Thou shall raise this my flesh which hath
endured all these things. [Bolding mine]
John 12:24 "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.
Ignatius of Antioch (died c. A.D 110) in his letter to the Smyrnaeans alludes to Luke 24:39-43 and states that he knows and believes that Jesus was raised in the flesh.
Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans
CHAPTER 2
2:1 For He suffered all these things for our sakes
[that we might be saved]; and He suffered truly, as
also He raised Himself truly; not as certain
unbelievers say, that He suffered in semblance, being
themselves mere semblance. And according as their
opinions are, so shall it happen to them, for they are
without body and demon-like.
CHAPTER 3 3:1 For I know and believe that He was in the flesh
even after the resurrection; 3:2 and when He came to Peter and his company, He
said to them, _Lay hold and handle me, and see that I
am not a demon without body._ And straightway they
touched Him, and they believed, being joined unto His
flesh and His blood. Wherefore also they despised
death, nay they were found superior to death.
3:3 And after His resurrection He [both] ate with
them and drank with them as one in the flesh, though
spiritually He was united with the Father.
Jesus Himself stated that He would be raised in the flesh when He said to the Jews, 'Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up. The temple to which He referred was His body. In three days His body would be raised up. And John who recorded this statement of Jesus understood this.
John 2:19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
Paul as well understood that resurrection referred to a bodily resurrection as is made clear in Romans.
Romans 8:9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. 10] If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11]But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.
Skipping ahead to Romans 8:23 Paul speaks of the resurrection in terms of the 'redemption of our body.'
Romans 8:23 And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.
While in Romans 8:9-10 Paul speaks of the believer's spiritual life which he now possesses, the subject changes in verse 11 to the promise of a future resurrection of the body which in verse 23 Paul refers to as the redemption of our body. While there is a sense in which the believer already has received the adoption as sons [v. 15], there is a future sense in which the believer will receive the adoption in its completeness with reference to the redemption of the body in resurrection.
Jesus' body was physically resurrected in a state of immortality and incorruptibility, and this is what is taught in the New Testament. Again, and as has been shown, Jewish thought concerning the subject of resurrection was of the body being raised after having been in some intermediate state after physical death. And Jesus' body was raised on the third day after His death.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Didn't I answer these points already? John is not a reliable guide to what the disciples thought. Like the other three, he is (I argue) a Greek rather than Jewish Christian and that is the view he puts in his gospel which may (as I said) indeed include some reliable eyewitness about what happened to Jesus.
John is indeed a reliable guide to what the disciples taught. I am aware of the reasons why many doubt the historicity of John, but those reasons don't hold up. It wasn't John's intent to go into detail about what the other three Gospels had already stated. Therefore he included information that the other Gospel writers chose not to write about while not including a lot of what the other Gospel writers did include in their Gospel accounts. Further, none of the Gospel writers were concerned with writing in strict chronological order. They often wrote thematically. John was also more interested in affirming and defending Jesus' divinity then the other Gospel writers were.
For anyone who may be interested, Craig L. Blomberg has a book called The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel, Issues & Commentary.
The OT gives a Jewish view of what resurrection meant to Pharisee group Apparently the Sadducees didn't believe in any kind of resurrection.
Even less useful are the opinions of early Christian writers on what resurrection meant to them, or what they thought it meant to the disciples.
If anyone can give us a clue it is Paul. and what he tells us is of a Jewish type revival from the grave for his followers, and a Jesus who had already risen and ascended to heaven.
The only real debate is whether he ascended as a solid body or as a spirit.
What you have been given is proof that in Jewish thought, before, during, and after the time of Jesus, whether resurrection was believed or rejected as was the case with the Sadducees, resurrection was always though of as a physical, bodily, resurrection. This included the disciples of Jesus who at the time He told them, could not understand that He would be killed and then rise again bodily the third day. And I have already shown, to anyone who bothered to read my post, that Paul also thought in terms of a bodily resurrection. That's why I went to the time and trouble of making that post, which apparently was a waste of time.
Jesus was physically, bodily resurrected. This is shown both in the Gospels and in Paul's writings.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
? I'm rapidly running out of eyerolling Icons, but the pitiful level of apologetics...
