I wonder if this is true... (paradise, after-life, suicide, ghost)

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by Mike555

I didn't even refer to Exodus 3:14. I specifically referred to the 'I am' statements of God in Isaiah.

From post #29.

And of course, Jesus Himself self designates as God when He states in John 8:58, ''before Abraham was born, I am.' In the context of John 8:58 Jesus' 'I am' statement reflects the 'I am' statements of God in Old Testament passages such as Isaiah 41:4 'I, the LORD, am the first, and with the last. I am He.' Isaiah 42:8 ''I am the LORD, that is My name; . . .'' Isa. 43:10, Isa. 43:13, Isa. 44:6, etc.

The Hebrew ’ă·nî- hū means 'I [am] he.' Strictly speaking, ’ă·nî- means 'I.' So ’ă·nî- hū is 'I he.' The word 'am' is inserted.

Quoting scholar Dr. F. F. Bruce on John 8:58 and Jesus' 'I am' statement;

Jesus' reply to their protest repeats the affirmation 'I am He' (egō eimi), used twice already in this chapter (verses 24, 28), and does so in a way which underlines the magnitude of the claim which it expresses. He echoes the language of the God of Israel, who remains the same from everlasting to everlasting: 'I, the LORD, the first, and with the last, I am He' (Isa. 41:4). . . So much, in this context, is conveyed by egō eimi. And if we suppose that the conversation was carried on in Aramaic or even or even in Hebrew, then Jesus would have uttered the very words ’ă·nî hū, as though he were applying them to himself.

The Gospel of John, F. F. Bruce, pp. 205-6

Originally Posted by Richard1965

I don’t care what Bruce says...Ego eimei means I am just Ani means I am...Anyway, I can say the same thing, I am he, it doesn’t mean that I am G-d...Why dont you do what I did, and go and study the pertinent languages without someone else’s bias?...

You say that you don't care what Bruce said when he agrees that egō eimi and ă·nî both mean 'I am.' Again, I didn't refer to Exodus 3:14. I referred to the various Isaiah passages in which God says ’ă·nî hū - 'I am.' If you had taken the time to actually read what I said, and what Bruce said, you would have known that.

And, you hypocrite, if you can run to your favorite go to guy,'Rashi,' I think I can quote scholars to back up what I say.

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Well, here we are again. I have given evidence and you say 'what evidence?' You have claimed oral traditions and provide no real evidence for it, except quoting a few Authorities.

It was just the same with Acts being a contradiction with Paul. You invented an explanation and stuck to it.

Ok, you believe what you want. That's your right, but, as you know, I am persuaded by good evidence, not denial and excuse or appeal to what this or that writer on Bible -studies says.

I have considered the gospels, and the only oral tradition I find is a failed Jewish messiah, and That was overlaid by a Pauline interpetation of the disciples belief that Jesus would come back and finish the job properly.

So I see three kinds of gospel -writing overlaying this, and by Gospel -writing I mean Jew -despising Greek Christians who had evolved Paul's messianic spirit into a holy one which, as I said, became more holy in John that it was in Mark.

1`. the original synoptic version, essentially like Mark shorn of the common material with Matthew and like Luke, shorn of his common material with Mathew, which incudes the sermon on the mount, John's question, the details of the temptations.

2 the additions common to two of them, indicating some written (Not oral, I think) as mentioned above.

3 individual additions, and this is shown up where they contracict each other, such as the nativity and the resurrection.

If I had to give dates, well the Pauline messianic spirit -Christianity itself deeloping from 'for the gentiles' and the Law being binding on all Jews around AD 45 to one that released all jews from the law around AD 55..

The oral tradition of the Jewish messianic mission being a death at the hands of the Romans being blamed on the Jews (through an absurd blasphemy charge and a release custom that nobody knew about (1). the various write -ups started to appear after the Jewish war where Christianity now had a free hand, (other than still being persecuted by Rome) and it was almost inevitable that they would see the destruction of the Temple as God's punishment for rejecting and killing Jesus. We get this in the lament over Jerusalem in the gospels and Bar Serapeon's remark that the Jews killed their king.

So Mark in the revised form (with additions of his own, like Pilate's surprise) c AD 80? John early 2nd c, Matthew and Luke late second or early 3rd. ballpark figures.

You may dismiss all of this (and I haven't given my evidence - which you will dismiss anyway) and I dould be wrong totally, not just in detail. But I'm saying that i do think my 'evidence' has credibility, appeal to oral traditions and explanations that you frankly invent, and appealing to this or that writer whom you claim supports your view.

Well, I'm out on a limb as Nobody I know is doing the work I have done, And I'm getting ready to post Ch 1 at least, and perhaps it can be refuted, though I don't see how (2).

So I know I have to make my case, and that you dismiss my evidence as no evidence, and present your no evidence as evidence, I don't think that's good enough and frankly I think that even Skeptical Bible -scholars are still labouring under a Christian tradition of how and by whom the Gospels were written, so waving them at me is getting you nowhere.

(1) yes. This is signal indication that something wasn't true. John doesn't know of the transformation, history doesn't know of the massacre of innocents or the release custom. The difference is that the release was made up early on for the Christian story getting Rome off the hook for Jesus' death and blaming the Jews and Matthew's massacre is just made up as part of his nativity plot.

(2) Pneuma did his very best to validate the nativity, mainly by ignoring the real contradictions and arguing a bout piddling details like the reappointment of Joazar trying to make the Augustan loyalty oath of 3 BC the Lucan census (all the evidence is against it) and making the re

ason the nativity was made up - Bethlehem birth - the "reliable fact" which justified dismissing and ignoring anything that doesn't fit.

Standard apologetics.

You are picky about which 'good evidence' you are willing to be persuaded by. As I told you, in compiling his Gospel account Luke himself admitted to using traditions which were handed down from eyewitnesses. He was not writing fiction.

As I told you, what Paul passed on to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is oral tradition. Scholars are virtually unanimous about that.

New Testament scholar Gary Habermas writes concerning 1 Corinthians 15:3-8;

In recent studies of the historical Jesus, this aspect has enjoyed the support of a broad scholarly consensus. E.P Sanders declares that the "equally secure facts" indicate that Jesus' disciples "saw him (in what sense is not certain) after his death . . . . Thereafter his followers saw him."[2]

That the vast majority of scholars, in spite of extensive disagreements in other areas, recognizes that the disciples had some sort of experience is a significant starting point. How these experiences are explained is another matter. But there are some rather impressive reasons that explain such a widespread, initial conclusion. We will begin by listing eight pointers, four from Paul and four more from various other sources.

(1) Contemporary critical scholars agree that the apostle Paul is the primary witness to the early resurrection experiences. A former opponent (1 Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:13-14; Phil. 3:4-7), Paul states that the risen Jesus appeared personally to him (1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8; Gal. 1:16). The scholarly consensus here is attested by atheist Michael Martin, who avers: "However, we have only one contemporary eyewitness account of a postresurrection appearance of Jesus, namely Paul’s."[3]

(2) In addition to Paul's own experience, few conclusions are more widely recognized than that, in 1 Corinthians 15:3ff., Paul records an ancient oral tradition(s). This pre-Pauline report summarizes the early Gospel content, that Christ died for human sin, was buried, rose from the dead, and then appeared to many witnesses, both individuals and groups.

Paul is clear that this material was not his own but that he had passed on to others what he had received earlier, as the center of his message (15:3). There are many textual indications that the material pre-dates Paul. Most directly, the apostle employs paredoka and parelabon, the equivalent Greek terms for delivering and receiving rabbinic tradition (cf. 1 Cor. 11:23). Indirect indications of a traditional text(s) include the sentence structure and verbal parallelism, diction, and the triple sequence of kai hoti Further, several non-Pauline words, the proper names of Cephas (cf. Lk. 24:34) and James, and the possibility of an Aramaic original are all significant. Fuller attests to the unanimity of scholarship here: "It is almost universally agreed today that Paul is here citing tradition."[4] Critical scholars agree that Paul received the material well before this book was written.[5]

The most popular view is that Paul received this material during his trip to Jerusalem just three years after his conversion, to visit Peter and James, the brother of Jesus (Gal. 1:18-19), both of whose names appear in the appearance list (1 Cor. 15:5; 7). An important hint here is Paul's use of the verb historesai (1:18), a term that indicates the investigation of a topic.[6] The immediate context both before and after reveals this subject matter: Paul was inquiring concerning the nature of the Gospel proclamation (Gal. 1:11-2:10), of which Jesus' resurrection was the center (1 Cor. 15:3-4, 14, 17; Gal. 1:11, 16). [Bolding mine]

Dialog: Experiences of the Risen Jesus

Regardless of what you think, regardless of your amateur opinion, scholars recognize 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 as oral tradition.

You have provided nothing but your own personal opinion of which you are overly enamored, and which you try to pass off as evidence and then claim that I have not provided any evidence for the existence of oral tradition when in fact I have. Further, you care nothing about what professional historians have to say about the reality of oral tradition. In attempting to defend your own position you are reduced to having to claim that anyone who answers your arguments is inventing evidence and resorting to 'standard apologetics.' You are therefore incapable of objective thought when it comes to the Bible and Christianity which makes any discussion with you on the matter impossible.

And quite frankly, your opinions don't carry any weight. I prefer to study what historians and other scholars have to say about the matter and come to my own conclusions about things. Unlike you, I value the professional opinions of scholars and historians who have the academic credentials and have spent their professional lives studying Christianity and the Bible. I may not agree with certain things they say, but I don't dismiss them out of hand.

Now, this little discussion is at an end.

[LuminousTruth]

Originally Posted by LuminousTruth

No, the demon-haunted world is only yours. The Zoroastrians believe they get all of their ideas directly from God, the Creator, the Creative Principle of Goodness. The Zoroastrians (as it were the Persians), saved the Jews from Babylon because their empire was better than Jewish kingdoms that fell because their Kings' and Priests' religion was always false and wrong (bloody and heavily evil-influenced) and killing animals (including baby animals) for life-sacrifice (instead of for food) was wrong too. But the Zoroastrians were the ones that gave Bibliolatry to the Jewish people since the good Samaritans knew that there were no books before to tell the stories to the people, just the oral teachings from the priests. Then the Jewish elite class came back from Babylon thanks to the Zoroastrians and read the Jewish stories from their books to prove they were indeed Jewish.

And yes, I know that many times, the priests ate the supposed "sacrifices" after the sacrifice rituals... saying things sort of like "the smoke" from grilling the meat was the sacrifice. All "smoke and mirrors" if you ask me.

[Terryj]

Originally Posted by hljc

More likely the Zoroastrians borrowed ideas from God , and the demons also influenced this religions , as it was laced with pantheism, and gnostic ideas , still old religions were brought some truth from archangels of the Lord Almighty as there were four who ruled over the four corners of the earth bring truth is some way to control wickedness

Here is something you might want to read: https://www.zarathushtra.com/z/artic...connection.htm

The Bible is heavily influenced by Zoroastrian teachings as is the Koran. The Zoroastrian brought the idea of resurrection and the immortality of the soul to the preexilic* Judeans. The Zoroastrians believed that the soul rises from the dead body and for three nights after death resides in the material world and then proceeds to the other world. (from the same link as posted Daryoush Jahanian, M.D.)

Essentially immortality of the soul, judgement and rewards and punishments after death were not recognized by the preexilic Judeans. The preexilic view of Sheol, a shadowy and depersonalized existence that is the lot of men regardless of their actions during life, was suddenly abandoned and replaced by the notions of heaven and hell, rewards and punishments when the exiled Jews came in contact with the Persians which later entered Christianity. (from the same link as posted Daryoush Jahanian, M.D.)

*Pre-exilic: Relating to the history of the Jews before their exile in Babylonia in the sixth century BC.

[Richard1965]

Originally Posted by Mike555

You say that you don't care what Bruce said when he agrees that egō eimi and ă·nî both mean 'I am.' Again, I didn't refer to Exodus 3:14. I referred to the various Isaiah passages in which God says ’ă·nî hū - 'I am.' If you had taken the time to actually read what I said, and what Bruce said, you would have known that.

And, you hypocrite, if you can run to your favorite go to guy,'Rashi,' I think I can quote scholars to back up what I say.

Sorry...Knee jerk reaction...However, Rashi is a Jewish Sage commenting on a Jewish document from a Jewish perspective and not a Christian perspective...

[Richard1965]

Originally Posted by LuminousTruth

And yes, I know that many times, the priests ate the supposed "sacrifices" after the sacrifice rituals... saying things sort of like "the smoke" from grilling the meat was the sacrifice. All "smoke and mirrors" if you ask me.

The priests were entitled to a portion of the sacrifice...

[Richard1965]

Originally Posted by Terryj

Here is something you might want to read: https://www.zarathushtra.com/z/artic...connection.htm

The Bible is heavily influenced by Zoroastrian teachings as is the Koran. The Zoroastrian brought the idea of resurrection and the immortality of the soul to the preexilic* Judeans. The Zoroastrians believed that the soul rises from the dead body and for three nights after death resides in the material world and then proceeds to the other world. (from the same link as posted Daryoush Jahanian, M.D.)

Essentially immortality of the soul, judgement and rewards and punishments after death were not recognized by the preexilic Judeans. The preexilic view of Sheol, a shadowy and depersonalized existence that is the lot of men regardless of their actions during life, was suddenly abandoned and replaced by the notions of heaven and hell, rewards and punishments when the exiled Jews came in contact with the Persians which later entered Christianity. (from the same link as posted Daryoush Jahanian, M.D.)

*Pre-exilic: Relating to the history of the Jews before their exile in Babylonia in the sixth century BC.

Jews don’t believe in hell...

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Mike555

You are picky about which 'good evidence' you are willing to be persuaded by. As I told you, in compiling his Gospel account Luke himself admitted to using traditions which were handed down from eyewitnesses. He was not writing fiction.

As I told you, what Paul passed on to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is oral tradition. Scholars are virtually unanimous about that.

New Testament scholar Gary Habermas writes concerning 1 Corinthians 15:3-8;

In recent studies of the historical Jesus, this aspect has enjoyed the support of a broad scholarly consensus. E.P Sanders declares that the "equally secure facts" indicate that Jesus' disciples "saw him (in what sense is not certain) after his death . . . . Thereafter his followers saw him."[2]

That the vast majority of scholars, in spite of extensive disagreements in other areas, recognizes that the disciples had some sort of experience is a significant starting point. How these experiences are explained is another matter. But there are some rather impressive reasons that explain such a widespread, initial conclusion. We will begin by listing eight pointers, four from Paul and four more from various other sources.

(1) Contemporary critical scholars agree that the apostle Paul is the primary witness to the early resurrection experiences. A former opponent (1 Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:13-14; Phil. 3:4-7), Paul states that the risen Jesus appeared personally to him (1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8; Gal. 1:16). The scholarly consensus here is attested by atheist Michael Martin, who avers: "However, we have only one contemporary eyewitness account of a postresurrection appearance of Jesus, namely Paul’s."[3]

(2) In addition to Paul's own experience, few conclusions are more widely recognized than that, in 1 Corinthians 15:3ff., Paul records an ancient oral tradition(s). This pre-Pauline report summarizes the early Gospel content, that Christ died for human sin, was buried, rose from the dead, and then appeared to many witnesses, both individuals and groups.

Paul is clear that this material was not his own but that he had passed on to others what he had received earlier, as the center of his message (15:3). There are many textual indications that the material pre-dates Paul. Most directly, the apostle employs paredoka and parelabon, the equivalent Greek terms for delivering and receiving rabbinic tradition (cf. 1 Cor. 11:23). Indirect indications of a traditional text(s) include the sentence structure and verbal parallelism, diction, and the triple sequence of kai hoti Further, several non-Pauline words, the proper names of Cephas (cf. Lk. 24:34) and James, and the possibility of an Aramaic original are all significant. Fuller attests to the unanimity of scholarship here: "It is almost universally agreed today that Paul is here citing tradition."[4] Critical scholars agree that Paul received the material well before this book was written.[5]

The most popular view is that Paul received this material during his trip to Jerusalem just three years after his conversion, to visit Peter and James, the brother of Jesus (Gal. 1:18-19), both of whose names appear in the appearance list (1 Cor. 15:5; 7). An important hint here is Paul's use of the verb historesai (1:18), a term that indicates the investigation of a topic.[6] The immediate context both before and after reveals this subject matter: Paul was inquiring concerning the nature of the Gospel proclamation (Gal. 1:11-2:10), of which Jesus' resurrection was the center (1 Cor. 15:3-4, 14, 17; Gal. 1:11, 16). [Bolding mine]

Dialog: Experiences of the Risen Jesus

Regardless of what you think, regardless of your amateur opinion, scholars recognize 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 as oral tradition.

You have provided nothing but your own personal opinion of which you are overly enamored, and which you try to pass off as evidence and then claim that I have not provided any evidence for the existence of oral tradition when in fact I have. Further, you care nothing about what professional historians have to say about the reality of oral tradition. In attempting to defend your own position you are reduced to having to claim that anyone who answers your arguments is inventing evidence and resorting to 'standard apologetics.' You are therefore incapable of objective thought when it comes to the Bible and Christianity which makes any discussion with you on the matter impossible.

And quite frankly, your opinions don't carry any weight. I prefer to study what historians and other scholars have to say about the matter and come to my own conclusions about things. Unlike you, I value the professional opinions of scholars and historians who have the academic credentials and have spent their professional lives studying Christianity and the Bible. I may not agree with certain things they say, but I don't dismiss them out of hand.

Now, this little discussion is at an end.

Not yes, not from my end. One thing I have to point out is that you have changed the meaning of 'oral tradition'. Paul in Corinthians is to all intents and purposes writing down what he heard from the disciples and his own experiences about visions of a resurrected jesus.

That is not the same thing as claiming that a Bethlehem birth (for instance) has to be true, despite the three bits of evidence that I have given that it isn't (which you dismissed rather than debunked) claiming an oral tradition for which you have given no evidence other that a lot of scholars apparently accepting this explanation, and using Corinthians which isn;'t the same thing at all.

Mate, you will have to do better than that.

I am (and we have discussed this before, a couple of times, as i recall) inclined to accept what Paul says rather than not, and I am quite happy with it as

(1) it refutes the resurrection accounts in the gospels (though Luke fiddles his story to try to make it fit - another bit of evidence that he knew Paul's letters, even if the others din't,
(2) and that what Paul is describing is a vision in the head, which he doesn't seem to differentiate from what the apostles were seeing.

I note Luke's claim about writing what has been received and told. I don't doubt that in his day, lots of writing and sayings were floating around, and he set out do publish his take on it. That doesn't preclude his mighty fiddling of it to suit himself, nor prove that these are "Oral traditions" in the sense of being reliable accounts handed down, person to person.

[Harry Diogenes]

Jesus as a god.

John 1:1 is ambiguous, in Greek it can be read in two different ways. And as the Jews and early Christians used the word 'god' in different ways as well, John 1:1 can be read in more than two ways. The fact that it states the logos was WITH god tells us the author of John was probably NOT Trinitarian.

As for John 1:18 and "μονογενὴς Θεὸς [the] 'unique God", μονογενὴς (monogenes) means 'only begotten', an only child. It is used to mean unique when talking about a family relationship. From Josephus, Hesiod, Herodotus, Plato, they all use monogenes to mean an only child.

Further, we have John 8:44

ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς (τοῦ διαβόλου (genitive)) ἐστὲ
you of the father the devil are. Or literally "You are from the father of the Devil"

The author of John is saying the Jews worship a different god. The passage actually reads "You are from the father of the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and stood not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of him / it.

In the temple in John 8:12-20, Jesus proclaims that his own father is unknown to the Jews. This is why John was considered to have Gnostic ideas, because it supports the idea of two gods. The Christian father of Jesus and the dishonest god of the Jews.

Nativity.

But Mike is correct with John not mentioning the Nativity, if it was not of relevance to the authors of John's message, they would have omitted it. And if the accepted stance of historians is correct, that Mark, Matthew, Luke and John is the order of composition, the authors of John MUST have known them.

But you may also be correct. Luke's Nativity is added to the beginning. At first I thought this was because Luke later read Matthew's Nativity and added his amended version to his gospel. But it could also have been in response to Marcion's version of Luke. And John modified Luke's story of Lazarus. And if he used the first version of Luke, then he would not have known of the Nativity story.

On oral traditions, you are correct, that is just a guess. How could you verify if oral traditions happened or not? A written record, yes. And if Mark invented his gospel, then oral traditions are not required. As for 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, it uses opthe, to see in visions, so even if Paul heard this from the apostles, it is still talking about a Jesus seen in visions.

Dating the gospels.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

So Mark in the revised form (with additions of his own, like Pilate's surprise) c AD 80? John early 2nd c, Matthew and Luke late second or early 3rd. ballpark figures.

Did Justin Martyr (died ca 165 AD) know the NT? He mentions a few gospel passages, but gets thing terribly wrong elsewhere. No mention of Judas dying, the disciples fleeing after his crucifixion, the twelve (not eleven as would be expected) preaching immediately after the resurrection of Jesus, Jesus being born in a cave, the genealogy running through Mary, not Joseph, usw. He quotes some of Matthew, Mark and Luke, so I would argue they existed in some form at that time.

John 21 was probably added early 3rd century AD, but as the canon had been decided to a large degree 30 to 50 years earlier, I think we can be very confident the gospels and Acts existed during the 2nd century AD.

[LuminousTruth]

Originally Posted by Richard1965

The priests were entitled to a portion of the sacrifice...

Very entitled, since they upheld the crown and culture. It would have been unlikely that they would be willing to support a God-idea that didn't entitle them.