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.
Since Mike Way has said he is divorcing himself from the thread I'll go ahead and address this to you...
One of the more reasonable non supernatural explanations to the idea that the apostles saw the risen Jesus is one that indicates that Jesus (as a real person) was some sort of Social Justice Warrior who was executed by the Romans/Jews (or both).
The resurrection was symbolic in that it allowed Jesus to continue to be the leader of the movement and allowed the movement to continue on `despite the loss of its leader.
Apologists would argue that the apostles would not have allowed themselves to be martyred if Jesus really hadn't physically risen from the grave. However, that notion is somewhat simplistic.
Dying for a cause is not unusual or infrequent. If they indeed were martyred, it could have been that they died for Jesus' "cause"...
The other thing is that apologists act like these apostles would have simply been let go if they said..."no, Jesus didn't rise from the dead." Like the Romans would have said. "Ok, you can go now. Everything is good." That is a fanciful notion. Especially after Nero started the persecutions.
It stands to reason that along the way the figurative resurrection became interpreted as being literal as the movement grew more remote in time from Jesus' actual death. In fact it is possible that there was enough time between his death and the writing of the gospels for this to have occurred.
Surely this transformation of figurative to literal resurrection would have naturally occurred with converts far away from the events in Judea in both distance and time.
Mike never mentions the one thing that would be fatal to his argument: that in the earliest days of Christianity Jesus was thought to be a celestial entity--an "Angel of the Lord" and Paul says so in Galatians 4:14:
Galatians 4:14, ESV: and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.
If Paul thought of Jesus as a spirit entity and he was later than the apostles then certainly the apostles thought of Jesus as a spirit entity which means that whatever Michael Way keeps insisting they saw would NOT have been in human body form but spirit form. So let's grant the apostles did see something. It could not have been a Jesus crucified on earth but a Jesus crucified in the heavens by Satan and his minions.
And Paul says as much--that Jesus was crucified not by humans but by spiritual entities--in 1 Corinthians 2:8
"None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."
Paul was not referring to humans when he says "rulers of this age, he is referring to demonic entities.
CLAIM: Is Paul referring to Pilate, Caiaphas, and Herod, when he mentions the “rulers of this age?” Or is he referring to demonic rulers?
RESPONSE: It’s possible that Paul could be referring to human rulers. However, in our estimation, it is more likely that Paul is referring to demonic rulers for a number of reasons:
First, the term “rulers” often refers to demons. Jesus used this same terminology (archōn), when he said, “The ruler [archōn] of this world has been judged” (Jn. 16:11). Elsewhere, Paul refers to the “god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:4), who is clearly Satan—not a human authority. He also writes, “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers [archas]… against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Eph. 6:12). Here, as well, Paul refers to rulers “in the heavenly places,” rather than earthly rulers (cf. Col. 1:16).
Second, the human rulers were already out of the picture. Paul also uses the present tense (“who are passing away”). This would be an odd way of describing Herod, Caiaphas, and Pilate, who were either dead or out of power, when Paul wrote his letter.
Third, “passing away” fits better with demonic rulers. The expression “passing away” (katargeō) literally means “to cause something to be unproductive, use up, exhaust, waste” or “to cause something to lose its power or effectiveness, invalidate, make powerless” (BDAG). This would fit with demonic rulers, who have been defeated by the death of Christ (Col. 2:15).
I guess since they're fictional it doesn't really matter, but several sources I found said 66. Probably a sort of code for 666.
The Protestants removed 7 books during the Reformation. Catholics and Orthodox have always recognized 73 books. In fact, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church recognizes 81 books as Scripture.
Fiction is a specific genre of literature. It's goofy to describe the Bible as "fiction". Even if its contents are not historically factual, that's a far cry from labelling it as "fiction".
The Protestants removed 7 books during the Reformation. Catholics and Orthodox have always recognized 73 books. In fact, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church recognizes 81 books as Scripture.
Fiction is a specific genre of literature. It's goofy to describe the Bible as "fiction". Even if its contents are not historically factual, that's a far cry from labelling it as "fiction".
The New Testament is theology inserted into a historical setting as is about 99.999% of all Period Drama. Look at Gone With the Wind. Fictional drama inserted into historic setting. Same with the gospels.
Many biblical scholars view the discussion of historicity as secondary, given that gospels were primarily written as theological documents rather than historical accounts.
“In the entire Christian century, Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religious scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence. Zero! Zip references!”
— Bart Ehrman (c.2012)
The Protestants removed 7 books during the Reformation. Catholics and Orthodox have always recognized 73 books. In fact, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church recognizes 81 books as Scripture.
Fiction is a specific genre of literature. It's goofy to describe the Bible as "fiction". Even if its contents are not historically factual, that's a far cry from labelling it as "fiction".
LOLOLOLOLOLOL
it's not fiction, but its contents are not historically factual...that's desperation thinking.
The New Testament is theology inserted into a historical setting as is about 99.999% of all Period Drama. Look at Gone With the Wind. Fictional drama inserted into historic setting. Same with the gospels.
Many biblical scholars view the discussion of historicity as secondary, given that gospels were primarily written as theological documents rather than historical accounts.
“In the entire Christian century, Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religious scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence. Zero! Zip references!”
— Bart Ehrman (c.2012)
Jesus was NOT a prominent or important secular person, Thrill any more than you are. Why the hell do you think He would be written about by historians? He was a nobody-itnerant rabbi in the remotest region of the vast Roman Empire during an era of limited coverage of any significance. When His adherents became a nuisance to the Roman authorities that is when they got attention and tried to explain Him and His impact..
Dying for a cause is not unusual or infrequent. If they indeed were martyred, it could have been that they died for Jesus' "cause"...
Jonestown, the Branch Davidians, and pretty much every war ever, demonstrate that people offer up their lives for all sorts of good, bad, and indifferent causes and principles, all the time. The bar is actually pretty low. So this old chestnut about the apostles wouldn't have been martyred, or persevered in the faith if it didn't have a real basis is not valid. A real basis would certainly help, but is not necessary or sufficient to make it happen.
LOLOLOLOLOLOL
it's not fiction, but its contents are not historically factual...that's desperation thinking.
This derision is unwarranted since you (and Harry, et al.) call it fiction inappropriately, period. Fiction is determined by the authors' INTENT, NOT your assessment of its historic accuracy!!! They were not specifically trying to write history but recounting what they actually believed had occurred. Whether their BELIEFS were accurate enough for you or their descriptions too embellished is moot. Get a clue!
Jesus was NOT a prominent or important secular person, Thrill any more than you are. Why the hell do you think He would be written about by historians? He was a nobody-itnerant rabbi in the remotest region of the vast Roman Empire during an era of limited coverage of any significance. When His adherents became a nuisance to the Roman authorities that is when they got attention and tried to explain Him and His impact..
And really, that's it.
Quite often...dare I say, MOST often, when 'history' is being made, the people involved don't think of their actions or their witnessing of actions as 'history being made...' at the time it's 'being made.'
When Rodney King uttered those famous words, "Can we all get along?", I seriously doubt that he said them with the belief that his words would go down in 'history'. And that HE would be the one that people would remember as saying those words.
I believe that probably a whole bunch of people said those words before him. They may have said them in various forms: "Can't we all JUST GET ALONG?" "Why can't you guys JUST get along?" "Fercryinoutloud, Why's it so hard for everyone to JUST get along?"
Yet, when King said them, it somehow took on meaning. Until his trial, he was a nobody. Just someone else who broke the law. And his transgressions came out during his trial.
But when he said those words during his trial, those words 'stuck' with the public SO MUCH, that when a number of people say them in certain circumstances, the one's who say them, and the one's who hear them, know exactly where they're coming from.
I can say the same thing in this forum, Mystic. I can write, "Can't we all get along?", with a smile.
And MOST of us would know WHO I'm quoting. Here it is, 30+ years later, and we STILL quote his words...
As long as we now agree that the bible is "not historically factual"...I'm fine.
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.
