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.
No, Mike. It is NOT about lying. It is about speaking to them in ways that they NEED to be spoken to in order to reach them. "Those who have ears to hear . . ." Have you seen a rotted corpse, Mike. Why do you insist on magical thinking just because God is involved? For all intents and purposes, our spiritual body will seem normal to us because that is how we perceive ourselves. But we will be "born again" as Spirit. That which is born as Spirit is Spirit, NOT flesh and anything else.Since the Jews were wrong about Jesus, why do you use Jewish thoughts about resurrection to understand what Jesus meant???
Jesus never shied away from speaking the truth. He went out of His way to show the disciples that He was not a spirit, but that His resurrected body was flesh and bone. If then in fact He had been a spirit when He flat out stated and showed that He wasn't, it would have been a lie no matter how you try to slice it.
While His resurrection body was a glorified body of incorruptibility and immortality, and therefore spiritual in that sense, it was still a physical body of flesh and bone. And mainstream Christianity recognizes that fact.
The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus
William Lane Craig
It has been argued on the basis of Paul’s testimony that Jesus’s resurrection body was spiritual in the sense of being unextended, immaterial, intangible, and so forth. But neither the argument appealing to the nature of Paul’s Damascus Road experience nor the argument from Paul’s doctrine of the resurrection body supports such a conclusion. On the contrary, Paul’s information serves to confirm the gospels’ narratives of Jesus’s bodily resurrection. Not only is the gospels’ physicalism well-founded, but it is also, like Paul’s doctrine, a nuanced physicalism.
I've already mentioned that the Gospel writers regularly used thematic rather than chronological grouping of events. That is another way of saying that certain events have been deliberately relocated or shifted in the Gospel accounts. And it's not dishonest. You can't hold the writings of 1st century Jews to modern day literary standards. While it is possible that Jesus cleared the temple twice, and it seems that this was the view held by most commentators until the 1900's, only a few scholars today hold to this view. The other view is that John relocated the temple clearing event according to a thematic or topical outline although I'm not sure what his reason for doing so might have been.
On thinking about it however, a case can be made that Jesus did clear the temple twice. Once at the beginning of His ministry, and again at the end. The reason being that the synoptic Gospels give an abbreviated account of Jesus' ministry while John covers events throughout Jesus' three year ministry. John records three different Passover observances while the synoptics skip over much of Jesus' ministry. So that leaves open the idea that Jesus may indeed have cleansed the temple twice.
I'm not sure which angelic message you are referring to unless it is the fact that Luke records the angel Gabriel's message to Mary (Luke 1:26-36), whereas Matthew records an angel of the Lord, probably Gabriel's message to Joseph (Matthew 1:20-21). If so, there is no contradiction. Two different messages to two different people.
On the other hand, you might be referring to what the angels said at the tomb when Mary and the others arrived early on the first day of the week to bring spices to anoint Jesus' body. Matthew 28:5-7, Mark 16:5-7, Luke 24:4-6, and John 20:12. The differences are explained by the fact that none of the Gospel writers provide a complete report of what was said. They provide only partial accounts of all that was said.
There is also another possibility which would explain some of the alleged contradictions in the Gospel accounts. And that is that in the oral rendition of the events and sayings of Jesus which were passed down within the life times of the eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry, there was a certain freedom and flexibility within allowed limits in how the story was told, so that while the basic facts were handed down, some variation in the details was allowed. And when the Gospel writers penned the events they maintained that freedom and flexibility.
Also, it is obvious that the Gospel writers often paraphrased some of the things which Jesus said. And that is perfectly legitimate.
Your argument is that the apostles couldn't have believed in a solid bodily resurrection because of discrepancies in the Gospels. Your opinion, as stated in post #15 is that what they referred to as resurrection was Jesus' spirit rising from His body and going to heaven.
Post #15
''they were promoting a belief they thought was true - that Jesus' spirit had risen from his body and gone back to heaven.''
Aside from the fact (which is completely relevant) that you've been shown that in Jewish thought, resurrection before, during, and after the time of Jesus always referred to a physical, bodily resurrection (Posts #17 and 54), the Gospel writers plainly show that Jesus' resurrection was not His spirit rising from His body and going to heaven, but that His body was raised from the dead.
Three words are pertinent.
1.) ἀνάστασις - anastasis, translated as resurrection, as in Matt. 22:23; Acts 1:22, 2:31-32; 4:33; Rom. 6:5; Phil. 3:10,
2.) ἐγείρω - egeiro, which means 'I raise up', 'I wake', and which is translated as 'raised' and 'arise' in many NT passages, such as Matt. 17:9, 20:19; Luke 8:54, 20:37; John 2:19-22, John 5:21, Acts 2:31-32, 26:8, 13:30; Rom. 4:24, 8:11; 2 Cor. 1:9, Gal. 1:1,
3.) ἀνίστημι - anistemi which means' to raise up,' 'to cause to stand.' As in Acts 2:32.
Now, the Old Testament equivalent of ἐγείρω - egeiro is קוּם - qum which means 'arose.' It is used in Isa. 26:29 for the raising of dead corpses or bodies to life.
Isa. 26:29 Your dead will live; Their corpses will rise. You who lie in the dust, awake and shout for joy, For your dew is as the dew of the dawn, And the earth will give birth to the departed spirits.
In Luke 7:14, 7:22; and 8:54 the word ἐγείρω - egeiro is used regarding dead persons who have been brought back to life.
Luke 7:14 And He came up and touched the coffin; and the bearers came to a halt. And He said, "Young man, I say to you, arise!"
Luke 7:22 And he answered them, “Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them.
Luke 8:53 And they began laughing at Him, knowing that she had died. 54] He, however, took her by the hand and called, saying, "Child, arise!"55] And her spirit returned, and she got up immediately; and He gave orders for something to be given her to eat.
In Acts 2:31-32 both the words ἀνάστασις - anastasis - 'resurrection', and ἀνίστημι - anistemi - 'to raise up', are used of Jesus. And it is said in connection with Him being raised or resurrected, that His flesh would not see decay or corruption.
Acts 2:31 he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. 32] This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.
Now according to you, the apostles used the word resurrection with regard to Jesus' spirit rising from His body and going to heaven. But in Acts 2:31-32 it is stated that Jesus' flesh did not decay. What happens to the body a short while after death? It begins to decay. But Jesus' body did not see decay because it was raised on the third day. This speaks of a physical bodily resurrection of Jesus' body. All four Gospels speak of the empty tomb. They do not speak of a body still being in the tomb and beginning to decay. The tomb was empty because Jesus' body had been resurrected.
And what did Jesus say in anticipation of His crucifixion. He said with reference to His body, ''destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again.
John 2:19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20] The Jews then said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21] But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22] So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.
Jesus didn't say, destroy this temple (this body) and in three days My spirit will go to heaven, He said destroy this temple, this body, and in three days I will raise it up in three days. And notice that verse 22 states the when Jesus was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this, and they believed the Scripture and what Jesus had said.
I already showed you at the bottom of post #54 that Paul referred to a physical, bodily resurrection.
I'll repost it.
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.
But that's not all that Paul had to say about it. In Philippians 3:21 Paul wrote about the future transformation of our bodies in conformity with the glory of Jesus' body. He didn't write that our bodies will be abandoned, but that they will be transformed. And again, this is in contrast to your opinion that the apostles thought of resurrection in terms of the spirit rising from the body and going to heaven.
Your opinion that the disciples thought of Jesus' resurrection as His spirit rising from His body and going to heaven simply is not valid as shown by what has been stated above.
Nope, sorry. You have already been shown that the excuse of a different way of writing (which doesn't seem to apply to any other historian of the time) doesn't explain away the contradictions which are glaring. You can't explain away the shifting of the Temple cleansing in John in tha way. As I said before it is more effort to shift it than leave it where it was.
I have also explained that Jewish thought is not the question and not a serious problem for what I propose. You can select a bit of Paul that seems to support your view, but I can indicate parts of Romans that show that Paul thought in terms of a messiah (and I think even the spirit of Adam) who had come to animate Jesus (who could do nothing of himself but only through the 'power' that was in him) to redeem by obedience the sin brought about by Adam's disobedience.
This is not the reason I propose a spiritual resurrection just for Jesus - not the rest of humankind - no matter how inter changeable the terms are, because the resurrection accounts debunk a bodily resurrection rather than record it. Your point about a transformed body is part of that as Jesus' body wasn't transformed; it still had the crucifixion marks on for the purposes of identification, and Luke contradicts John about what they were, as he does about whether Thomas was there. The three accounts contradict all the way though.
And yet I can't deny that Paul was a real person, and he attests to the apostles and thus to Jesus and his resurrection. so if there really wasn't one, why was there? I don't blame you for not buying my argument. It is a bit hypothetical, but it does offer an explanation, and is backed up by Paul's account of the appearances of Jesus which do not accord with the Gospel accounts, though Luke tries to fiddle it (24.34) so it does.
You argue very well, and Lane Craig himself couldn't do better, but I don't buy it, and I explain why.
Nope, sorry. You have already been shown that the excuse of a different way of writing (which doesn't seem to apply to any other historian of the time) doesn't explain away the contradictions which are glaring. You can't explain away the shifting of the Temple cleansing in John in tha way. As I said before it is more effort to shift it than leave it where it was.
I have also explained that Jewish thought is not the question and not a serious problem for what I propose. You can select a bit of Paul that seems to support your view, but I can indicate parts of Romans that show that Paul thought in terms of a messiah (and I think even the spirit of Adam) who had come to animate Jesus (who could do nothing of himself but only through the 'power' that was in him).
This is not the reason I propose a spiritual resurrection just for Jesus - not the rest of humankind - no matter how inter changeable the terms are, because the resurrection accounts debunk a bodily resurrection rather than record it. Your point about a transformed body is part of that as Jesus' body wasn't transformed; it still had the crucifixion marks on for the purposes of identification, and Luke contradicts John about what they were, as he does about whether Thomas was there. The three accounts contradict all the way though.
And yet I can't deny that Paul was a real person, and he attests to the apostles and thus to Jesus and his resurrection. so if there really wasn't one, why was there? I don't blame you for not buying my argument. It is a bit hypothetical, but it does offer an explanation, and is backed up by Paul's account of the appearances of Jesus which do not accord with the Gospel accounts, though Luke tries to fiddle it (24.34) so it does.
You argue very well, and Lane Craig himself couldn't do better, but I don't buy it, and I explain why.
All you've shown Transponder are your own personal opinions and that you disagree with what has been shown both with regard to John's Gospel, and with regard to the issue of resurrection.
Jewish thought regarding what resurrection meant is certainly pertinent because the Bible must be understood in the time and in the culture in which it was written. And the apostles, being Jews themselves, understood resurrection in the Jewish manner. And for that reason, they didn't even understand Jesus' statements that He would be killed and rise again on the third day because in Jewish thought no one would be resurrected until the last day. And so they weren't expecting Jesus to be resurrected. And for that reason, when, after the risen Jesus did appear to the apostles except for Thomas who wasn't present, and they told Thomas about it, he didn't believe them. And so then when Jesus did appear to Thomas, He told him to place his hand in His side, and in the nail prints in His hands (wrists). (John 20:19-29). Once Thomas saw the risen Jesus standing before him, he then believed.
Your opinion is that the apostles thought of resurrection as Jesus' spirit leaving His body and going to heaven. And you base that opinion on alleged contradictions in the Gospel accounts as you stated in post #15.
''they were promoting a belief they thought was true - that Jesus' spirit had risen from his body and gone back to heaven.
What they were not promoting was a claim that his body got up and walked, displayed its wounds and ate a piece of fish. The evidence for that rests not in the disciples and their doings in the latter part of the 1st c, but in three contradictory stories that show every sign of having been concocted by three different writers - and that means they only had one resurrection story they agreed on - the tomb was empty.''
In no way do the Gospel accounts debunk a bodily resurrection, and I've already shown, most recently in post #184, the passages which prove that. The meanings of the following words, as shown in post #184 carry the meaning of a physical, bodily resurrection or raising. Not an immaterial spirit body resurrection, and not of the spirit of a dead person rising and going to heaven, although the soul and spirit of the believer do go to heaven. But that is not what the word 'resurrection' refers to.
1.) ἀνάστασις - anastasis, translated as resurrection, as in Matt. 22:23; Acts 1:22, 2:31-32; 4:33; Rom. 6:5; Phil. 3:10,
2.) ἐγείρω - egeiro, which means 'I raise up', 'I wake', and which is translated as 'raised' and 'arise' in many NT passages, such as Matt. 17:9, 20:19; Luke 8:54, 20:37; John 2:19-22, John 5:21, Acts 2:31-32, 26:8, 13:30; Rom. 4:24, 8:11; 2 Cor. 1:9, Gal. 1:1,
3.) ἀνίστημι - anistemi which means' to raise up,' 'to cause to stand.' As in Acts 2:32.
You mentioned William Lane Craig, so I will post what he has to say about Jesus' physical, bodily resurrection for the benefit of whoever may be reading this thread.
The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus
William Lane Craig
It has been argued on the basis of Paul’s testimony that Jesus’s resurrection body was spiritual in the sense of being unextended, immaterial, intangible, and so forth. But neither the argument appealing to the nature of Paul’s Damascus Road experience nor the argument from Paul’s doctrine of the resurrection body supports such a conclusion. On the contrary, Paul’s information serves to confirm the gospels’ narratives of Jesus’s bodily resurrection. Not only is the gospels’ physicalism well-founded, but it is also, like Paul’s doctrine, a nuanced physicalism.
Since I have gone into great detail on this thread showing that Jesus' resurrection was a physical, bodily resurrection, and you still don't accept that fact, there is little point in continuing to debate the matter. All debates must end sooner or later after all, and you have the right to believe whatever you choose to believe. The issue of whether Jesus' resurrection was an intangible spiritual resurrection, or a solid, physical, bodily resurrection will always be argued by those who hold to either view. But the writers of the Gospels, and Paul do speak of a physical, bodily resurrection. And I will direct any new readers to what I've already posted.
Those posts being #12, 17, 54, 118, 120, 137, 184, 186, 191.
All you've shown Transponder are your own personal opinions and that you disagree with what has been shown both with regard to John's Gospel, and with regard to the issue of resurrection.
Jewish thought regarding what resurrection meant is certainly pertinent because the Bible must be understood in the time and in the culture in which it was written. And the apostles, being Jews themselves, understood resurrection in the Jewish manner. And for that reason, they didn't even understand Jesus' statements that He would be killed and rise again on the third day because in Jewish thought no one would be resurrected until the last day. And so they weren't expecting Jesus to be resurrected. And for that reason, when, after the risen Jesus did appear to the apostles except for Thomas who wasn't present, and they told Thomas about it, he didn't believe them. And so then when Jesus did appear to Thomas, He told him to place his hand in His side, and in the nail prints in His hands (wrists). (John 20:19-29). Once Thomas saw the risen Jesus standing before him, he then believed.
Your opinion is that the apostles thought of resurrection as Jesus' spirit leaving His body and going to heaven. And you base that opinion on alleged contradictions in the Gospel accounts as you stated in post #15.
''they were promoting a belief they thought was true - that Jesus' spirit had risen from his body and gone back to heaven.
What they were not promoting was a claim that his body got up and walked, displayed its wounds and ate a piece of fish. The evidence for that rests not in the disciples and their doings in the latter part of the 1st c, but in three contradictory stories that show every sign of having been concocted by three different writers - and that means they only had one resurrection story they agreed on - the tomb was empty.''
In no way do the Gospel accounts debunk a bodily resurrection, and I've already shown, most recently in post #184, the passages which prove that. The meanings of the following words, as shown in post #184 carry the meaning of a physical, bodily resurrection or raising. Not an immaterial spirit body resurrection, and not of the spirit of a dead person rising and going to heaven, although the soul and spirit of the believer do go to heaven. But that is not what the word 'resurrection' refers to.
1.) ἀνάστασις - anastasis, translated as resurrection, as in Matt. 22:23; Acts 1:22, 2:31-32; 4:33; Rom. 6:5; Phil. 3:10,
2.) ἐγείρω - egeiro, which means 'I raise up', 'I wake', and which is translated as 'raised' and 'arise' in many NT passages, such as Matt. 17:9, 20:19; Luke 8:54, 20:37; John 2:19-22, John 5:21, Acts 2:31-32, 26:8, 13:30; Rom. 4:24, 8:11; 2 Cor. 1:9, Gal. 1:1,
3.) ἀνίστημι - anistemi which means' to raise up,' 'to cause to stand.' As in Acts 2:32.
You mentioned William Lane Craig, so I will post what he has to say about Jesus' physical, bodily resurrection for the benefit of whoever may be reading this thread.
The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus
William Lane Craig
It has been argued on the basis of Paul’s testimony that Jesus’s resurrection body was spiritual in the sense of being unextended, immaterial, intangible, and so forth. But neither the argument appealing to the nature of Paul’s Damascus Road experience nor the argument from Paul’s doctrine of the resurrection body supports such a conclusion. On the contrary, Paul’s information serves to confirm the gospels’ narratives of Jesus’s bodily resurrection. Not only is the gospels’ physicalism well-founded, but it is also, like Paul’s doctrine, a nuanced physicalism.
Since I have gone into great detail on this thread showing that Jesus' resurrection was a physical, bodily resurrection, and you still don't accept that fact, there is little point in continuing to debate the matter. All debates must end sooner or later after all, and you have the right to believe whatever you choose to believe. The issue of whether Jesus' resurrection was an intangible spiritual resurrection, or a solid, physical, bodily resurrection will always be argued by those who hold to either view. But the writers of the Gospels, and Paul do speak of a physical, bodily resurrection. And I will direct any new readers to what I've already posted.
Those posts being #12, 17, 54, 118, 120, 137, 184, 186, 191.
It is easy to dismiss any argument you disagree with as 'opinion'. I posted here not long ago what ought to be the strongest possible evidence that the Nativity stories cannot be true. The resurrection stories are no better (and I debunked a Lane Craig on this once before) And I do keep in mind Jewish thought, but I have just explained that the opening -tombs resurrection and the divine emanations from God are different concepts, no matter how the terms of the time are applied.
Lane Craig's extract makes a claim based on opinion. He refers to Acts, which is every bit as dubious as the Lucan gospel (which is very dubious indeed) and all we get anyway is a disembodied voice and blinding lights (or so Luke claims - Paul says nothing of it) and to say this rules out a Jesus in the spirit dong the same Voice that God used at the Baptism and transfiguration (or so the gospels say) is rather typical Lane Craig in stating out with a faith -based opinion and then leaping to the desired conclusion. Here, using rather flawed arguments.
In every way the gospels debunk a bodily resurrection for the reason I gave (and am happy to keep giving) that if there was a common story (as distinct from a common claim that had to be given substance) you wouldn't have ended up with four different accounts (if you count the gospel of Peter) and a lack of any account in Mark other than the empty tomb and angelic message.
And you may not remember but I already showed that, if you take the gospels as reliable that only means (again, I debunked Lane Craig's assertion) that a plot to get Jesus out alive is a case provable in a court of law. But as I told you (under my Arq monicker...yes,it's me ) I don't take the gospels as reliable, so the resurrection accounts founder either way.
This means that some explanation has to be made as to why the apostles apparently believed that Jesus had one to heaven and would be returning, if one credits Paul, and that much, I do. Taking the clues I mentioned into consideration (the hinting at visions in Paul) and the gospels, indeed - why they have Jesus' body propelled about the place by this Holy Spirit - a risen spirit explanation fits. I don't claim any more than that.
Let's look at your#184
"I've already mentioned that the Gospel writers regularly used thematic rather than chronological grouping of events. That is another way of saying that certain events have been deliberately relocated or shifted in the Gospel accounts. And it's not dishonest. You can't hold the writings of 1st century Jews to modern day literary standards. While it is possible that Jesus cleared the temple twice, and it seems that this was the view held by most commentators until the 1900's, only a few scholars today hold to this view. The other view is that John relocated the temple clearing event according to a thematic or topical outline although I'm not sure what his reason for doing so might have been.
On thinking about it however, a case can be made that Jesus did clear the temple twice. Once at the beginning of His ministry, and again at the end. The reason being that the synoptic Gospels give an abbreviated account of Jesus' ministry while John covers events throughout Jesus' three year ministry. John records three different Passover observances while the synoptics skip over much of Jesus' ministry. So that leaves open the idea that Jesus may indeed have cleansed the temple twice.
I'm not sure which angelic message you are referring to unless it is the fact that Luke records the angel Gabriel's message to Mary (Luke 1:26-36), whereas Matthew records an angel of the Lord, probably Gabriel's message to Joseph (Matthew 1:20-21). If so, there is no contradiction. Two different messages to two different people.
On the other hand, you might be referring to what the angels said at the tomb when Mary and the others arrived early on the first day of the week to bring spices to anoint Jesus' body. Matthew 28:5-7, Mark 16:5-7, Luke 24:4-6, and John 20:12. The differences are explained by the fact that none of the Gospel writers provide a complete report of what was said. They provide only partial accounts of all that was said.
There is also another possibility which would explain some of the alleged contradictions in the Gospel accounts. And that is that in the oral rendition of the events and sayings of Jesus which were passed down within the life times of the eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry, there was a certain freedom and flexibility within allowed limits in how the story was told, so that while the basic facts were handed down, some variation in the details was allowed. And when the Gospel writers penned the events they maintained that freedom and flexibility.
Also, it is obvious that the Gospel writers often paraphrased some of the things which Jesus said. And that is perfectly legitimate."
I have already said that the " thematic rather than chronological grouping of events" excuse will not wash. It took some work for John to remove the Temple cleansing from 12.20 and shift it to 2.13. Comparing it, is is certainly the same event, and to claim that John mentioned the "First" temple cleansing but omitted the "2nd" when it would have been easier to just leave it in while the other three mention the "2nd" but don't mention the "First" is apologetic gymnastics that you clearly don't buy yourself, so good on you for that. If so, why it is not applicable to the rest of the gospels? The announcement in the Synagogue in Luke (4.16) is just as bad - shifted from a later position and placed at the outset of the ministry, when leaving it where it was would be easier., ans also adding an important event overlooked by the others, which means the 'wrote from a different point off view' excuse doesn't wash either. And the gospels are full of such contradictions. The nativities and the resurrections are just a couple of the worst.
What John's motives were are not known but, again clues in the gospels suggest that all four were at pains to water down the significance (which they might have thought coincidentally apparent, rather than real [I think it real, not apparent] and that is what John was doing.
Sorry I should give refs. Yes it was the message at the tomb and what I was getting at (as i recall) is that Luke changes what is said in sense not just in wording. Compare them, and you'll see. Again (given a common original text - which I suppose will be another argument) it required more work to change it than to leave it as it was. This explanation also supposes that the disciples never talked about this stuff later on, thus correcting any misunderstandings and ensuring that everybody knew what important things esus said and did, which again puts pressure on the notable contradictions and omissions. Finally, we know why Luke changed the message - because originally the angel told the disciples to go to Galilee. But Luke does not want the m to go to Galilee. He wants them to stay in Jerusalem and found the apostolic church which can than be used to legitimize Paul's self -appointed mission to the gentiles. So he changes it from going Galilee to what Jesus said in Galilee.
"Freedom and flexibility" doesn't account for it. Fiddling and fabrication does.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-23-2016 at 04:29 AM..
What evidence was the prime factor in convincing you to believe in the existence of the christian god? I figured that sharing this information would be very helpful to atheists to help us identify the most convincing evidence so that we can look into it further.
How will you be able to make black holes evident to humans in stone age. There is no way for humans to get the truth of black holes as it's out of the reach of their science.
For them to reach this truth, a modern man may be sent back (say by a time machine) to tell them the truth and for them to believe with faith.
Evidence is provided that you can physically go to the place to do your observations. Humans in stone age won't be able to gather evidence of black holes as its beyond their capability to reach. There's thus no way for them to reach such a truth using the method of examining evidence. The only way as a chance for them to get to know the truth is by putting faith in what the modern man says.
This is the way of trusting human witnessing in the replacement of examining the evidence. This is a more common way for humans to reach a truth. Even today you don't rely on examining the evidence to know that black hole exists, you trust what is said by the scientists as the direct witnesses.
It is easy to dismiss any argument you disagree with as 'opinion'. I posted here not long ago what ought to be the strongest possible evidence that the Nativity stories cannot be true. The resurrection stories are no better (and I debunked a Lane Craig on this once before) And I do keep in mind Jewish thought, but I have just explained that the opening -tombs resurrection and the divine emanations from God are different concepts, no matter how the terms of the time are applied.
Lane Craig's extract makes a claim based on opinion. He refers to Acts, which is every bit as dubious as the Lucan gospel (which is very dubious indeed) and all we get anyway is a disembodied voice and blinding lights (or so Luke claims - Paul says nothing of it) and to say this rules out a Jesus in the spirit dong the same Voice that God used at the Baptism and transfiguration (or so the gospels say) is rather typical Lane Craig in stating out with a faith -based opinion and then leaping to the desired conclusion. Here, using rather flawed arguments.
In every way the gospels debunk a bodily resurrection for the reason I gave (and am happy to keep giving) that if there was a common story (as distinct from a common claim that had to be given substance) you wouldn't have ended up with four different accounts (if you count the gospel of Peter) and a lack of any account in Mark other than the empty tomb and angelic message.
And you may not remember but I already showed that, if you take the gospels as reliable that only means (again, I debunked Lane Craig's assertion) that a plot to get Jesus out alive is a case provable in a court of law. But as I told you (under my Arq monicker...yes,it's me ) I don't take the gospels as reliable, so the resurrection accounts founder either way.
This means that some explanation has to be made as to why the apostles apparently believed that Jesus had one to heaven and would be returning, if one credits Paul, and that much, I do. Taking the clues I mentioned into consideration (the hinting at visions in Paul) and the gospels, indeed - why they have Jesus' body propelled about the place by this Holy Spirit - a risen spirit explanation fits. I don't claim any more than that.
Let's look at your#184
"I've already mentioned that the Gospel writers regularly used thematic rather than chronological grouping of events. That is another way of saying that certain events have been deliberately relocated or shifted in the Gospel accounts. And it's not dishonest. You can't hold the writings of 1st century Jews to modern day literary standards. While it is possible that Jesus cleared the temple twice, and it seems that this was the view held by most commentators until the 1900's, only a few scholars today hold to this view. The other view is that John relocated the temple clearing event according to a thematic or topical outline although I'm not sure what his reason for doing so might have been.
On thinking about it however, a case can be made that Jesus did clear the temple twice. Once at the beginning of His ministry, and again at the end. The reason being that the synoptic Gospels give an abbreviated account of Jesus' ministry while John covers events throughout Jesus' three year ministry. John records three different Passover observances while the synoptics skip over much of Jesus' ministry. So that leaves open the idea that Jesus may indeed have cleansed the temple twice.
I'm not sure which angelic message you are referring to unless it is the fact that Luke records the angel Gabriel's message to Mary (Luke 1:26-36), whereas Matthew records an angel of the Lord, probably Gabriel's message to Joseph (Matthew 1:20-21). If so, there is no contradiction. Two different messages to two different people.
On the other hand, you might be referring to what the angels said at the tomb when Mary and the others arrived early on the first day of the week to bring spices to anoint Jesus' body. Matthew 28:5-7, Mark 16:5-7, Luke 24:4-6, and John 20:12. The differences are explained by the fact that none of the Gospel writers provide a complete report of what was said. They provide only partial accounts of all that was said.
There is also another possibility which would explain some of the alleged contradictions in the Gospel accounts. And that is that in the oral rendition of the events and sayings of Jesus which were passed down within the life times of the eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry, there was a certain freedom and flexibility within allowed limits in how the story was told, so that while the basic facts were handed down, some variation in the details was allowed. And when the Gospel writers penned the events they maintained that freedom and flexibility.
Also, it is obvious that the Gospel writers often paraphrased some of the things which Jesus said. And that is perfectly legitimate."
I have already said that the " thematic rather than chronological grouping of events" excuse will not wash. It took some work for John to remove the Temple cleansing from 12.20 and shift it to 2.13. Comparing it, is is certainly the same event, and to claim that John mentioned the "First" temple cleansing but omitted the "2nd" when it would have been easier to just leave it in while the other three mention the "2nd" but don't mention the "First" is apologetic gymnastics that you clearly don't buy yourself, so good on you for that. If so, why it is not applicable to the rest of the gospels? The announcement in the Synagogue in Luke (4.16) is just as bad - shifted from a later position and placed at the outset of the ministry, when leaving it where it was would be easier., ans also adding an important event overlooked by the others, which means the 'wrote from a different point off view' excuse doesn't wash either. And the gospels are full of such contradictions. The nativities and the resurrections are just a couple of the worst.
What John's motives were are not known but, again clues in the gospels suggest that all four were at pains to water down the significance (which they might have thought coincidentally apparent, rather than real [I think it real, not apparent] and that is what John was doing.
Sorry I should give refs. Yes it was the message at the tomb and what I was getting at (as i recall) is that Luke changes what is said in sense not just in wording. Compare them, and you'll see. Again (given a common original text - which I suppose will be another argument) it required more work to change it than to leave it as it was. This explanation also supposes that the disciples never talked about this stuff later on, thus correcting any misunderstandings and ensuring that everybody knew what important things esus said and did, which again puts pressure on the notable contradictions and omissions. Finally, we know why Luke changed the message - because originally the angel told the disciples to go to Galilee. But Luke does not want the m to go to Galilee. He wants them to stay in Jerusalem and found the apostolic church which can than be used to legitimize Paul's self -appointed mission to the gentiles. So he changes it from going Galilee to what Jesus said in Galilee.
"Freedom and flexibility" doesn't account for it. Fiddling and fabrication does.
Transponder, all you do is give your personal opinions which I obviously do not agree with, and try to pass them off as being authoritative rather than personal opinion. You haven't debunked anyone or anything. And the scriptures do not debunk a physical resurrection. They quite clearly affirm it as has been shown. Again, there is no point in continuing with this. And readers can refer to what I've already posted with my last post being #193.
And regardless of your personal opinion, while thematic or topical arrangement of material in the Gospels does not resolve all of the alleged contradictions, thematic rather than chronological grouping of events does often occur in the Gospels and does explain many of the apparent discrepancies. If you disagree, then you disagree. However, here is an article regarding the thematic grouping of material in the Gospels for anyone who is interested, whether you personally are or not.
Transponder, all you do is give your personal opinions which I obviously do not agree with, and try to pass them off as being authoritative rather than personal opinion. You haven't debunked anyone or anything. And the scriptures do not debunk a physical resurrection. They quite clearly affirm it as has been shown. Again, there is no point in continuing with this. And readers can refer to what I've already posted with my last post being #193.
And regardless of your personal opinion, while thematic or topical arrangement of material in the Gospels does not resolve all of the alleged contradictions, thematic rather than chronological grouping of events does often occur in the Gospels and does explain many of the apparent discrepancies. If you disagree, then you disagree. However, here is an article regarding the thematic grouping of material in the Gospels for anyone who is interested, whether you personally are or not.
Mike, all you are doing is ignoring the contradictions that cannot be explained away by appeal to Writing Differently as argued in that crafty little apologetic you linked, which ignores the serious problems and makes it look like they are explaining everything by explaining away an apparent lack of rigour in the chronology which actually doesn't really wash if you look at it. But that apologetic - indeed the whole 'witnesses don't always agree/wrote from a different point of view' apologetic - is no more than an excuse not to look at all.
I began my study by reconciling the various event to make the chronology agree and even the events, and that only showed up how glaringly they didn't agree. I've referred you to the best (or worst) examples so you can see for yourself - evidence in the text - not 'my opinion' as you put it.
And of course you can disagree. But you haven't given me any good reason to think I might be wrong.
I might be willing to run say three examples past you for discussion - nativity (historical impossibility), death of Judas (evidence of retrospective prophecy) and the resurrection (irreconcilable contradiction), just to see how you can reconcile them. The evidence is right there to be seen and cannot be just put down to my 'opinion'.
Or you can grab your hat and walk out. I don't mind, either way.
How will you be able to make black holes evident to humans in stone age. There is no way for humans to get the truth of black holes as it's out of the reach of their science.
For them to reach this truth, a modern man may be sent back (say by a time machine) to tell them the truth and for them to believe with faith.
Evidence is provided that you can physically go to the place to do your observations. Humans in stone age won't be able to gather evidence of black holes as its beyond their capability to reach. There's thus no way for them to reach such a truth using the method of examining evidence. The only way as a chance for them to get to know the truth is by putting faith in what the modern man says.
This is the way of trusting human witnessing in the replacement of examining the evidence. This is a more common way for humans to reach a truth. Even today you don't rely on examining the evidence to know that black hole exists, you trust what is said by the scientists as the direct witnesses.
So why exactly should the stone age man believe everything this modern man says without evidence? For all you know, this "modern man" could be just a teenage prankster going back in time to different cultures to mess with their minds to see what they would believe and do. Can they accept what he says as an interesting tidbit of information? I guess so, why not? No skin off their noses for that. Should they have faith and trust in what this man says to the extent that they start sacrificing their children to the "black hole gods"? I should hope not. Not without evidence. Hopefully, not even WITH evidence.
Mike, all you are doing is ignoring the contradictions that cannot be explained away by appeal to Writing Differently as argued in that crafty little apologetic you linked, which ignores the serious problems and makes it look like they are explaining everything by explaining away an apparent lack of rigour in the chronology which actually doesn't really wash if you look at it. But that apologetic - indeed the whole 'witnesses don't always agree/wrote from a different point of view' apologetic - is no more than an excuse not to look at all.
Sorry, Arq, but Mike is right. Linear chronological thinking and organizing our experiences is a relatively recent development along with personal timepieces. They were NOT linear, chronological thinkers and had no personal timepieces. Everything was event-oriented. For a modern cultural comparative, the Latin cultures, particularly Brazil are event-oriented, not linear chronological. The use of time is very different in such cultures.
What evidence was the prime factor in convincing you to believe in the existence of the christian god? I figured that sharing this information would be very helpful to atheists to help us identify the most convincing evidence so that we can look into it further.
Hi myth.
I'm not sure what you're asing for. Verifiable evidence, as in scientific? That I don't have. I do have anecdotal evidence, from my own experience, and I'll share that with you. Hopefully anecdotal evidence is admissible. I'm not trying, and don't want to conince you of anything though, just sharing part of myself.
Back when I blew up my closet (came out as transgender) to my family, who are very conservative Christian, I was disowned on advice from my Mother's pastor. Up til that time family was incredibly important to me. So my whole universe felt like it had exploded. I was in pain I can't describe. I still feel it, but not as intensely. One night I was lying in my bed smoking out my bedroom window, sort of thinking, praying into the ether, just trying to find something to hold onto. Out of nowhere I started sobbing. Not like "boohoo", I mean ugly crying. Tears flying everywhere, snot streaming out of my noise, bizarre animal sounds...ugly crying. I cried until I was exhausted. It scared the #@$! out of me. I didn't know where it was coming from, and I couldn't stop. When I finally was able to get control of myself, I tried to find the cigarette I was smoking, but couldn't so lit another one. I felt this sense of peace inside, and love I can't describe. It was as if love became a big fuzzy blanket and wrapped itself around me. I believe that was me encountering God for the very first time.
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 don't take the gospels as reliable, so the resurrection accounts founder either way.
