Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1045 of 1677 (844301)
11-27-2018 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1027 by GDR
11-26-2018 4:45 PM


Re: Jesus' resurrection
GDR writes:
Percy writes:
Jesus wasn't a real person.
I find it hard to believe that you believe that. We have more written about the life of Jesus than we do any other historical figure from around that time and for even many years later.
You're using the argumentum ad populum fallacy? Really?
Percy writes:
Whoever wrote Mark is putting words in his mouth at a time when the destruction of the Temple lay in the past.
Then why wouldn't Mark say that, ‘see’ , Jesus was right, it happened?
Is stepping outside the story to offer commentary ever something Mark actually does? Anyway, obviously Mark is writing for a community already very familiar with the destruction of the Temple. Mark was writing near enough in time for it to still be a recent event, and near enough to Jerusalem for it to be relevant.
Percy writes:
Mark wasn't writing in Jerusalem and wouldn't know how complete the destruction.
C'mon Percy. The Temple was destroyed in 70 AD and by that time the war had been going on for 4 years. Mark doesn't mention the war, and no matter where he was in the area he would be aware of what had happened to Jerusalem and the Temple in very short order.
Of course, but evidently what he heard was that none of the Temple was left standing, which is untrue. Why would that matter to you - you're not an inerrantist.
Percy writes:
It's pretty obviously a reference to what Jews actually did ("head for the hills") after the destruction of Jerusalem.
I'm sorry, but that is nonsense, however, even saying you're right then it is obvious that Mark was not writing about end times but about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.
I assumed we were talking about where Mark writes about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. I haven't mentioned the end times once in this thread, except just now to deny ever mentioning it.
Percy writes:
Yours is just one interpretation of a confusion of information gathered from conflicting sources, but more importantly, this is not a counter to, "How handy to have a martyr, especially one who defeated death, rose to heaven to sit by God." Whatever your goals, whether worldly or heavenly, if your leader is dead then claiming he defeated death and was carried bodily up to heaven to sit at the right hand of God is just making the best of a bad situation.
I'm really sorry to be rude, but that again is ridiculous.
You're not being rude, and it isn't ridiculous.
Why on earth would any of them want to carry on a movement that is based on the leader being crucified which very clearly says that he is just another failed messianic figure?
Let me ask you a question first: Why are you shifting the focus from the resurrection to the crucifixion? It sure isn't the crucifixion that Christians think amazing.
It would require the collaboration of a huge number of people. There is no benefit either earthly or spiritually for them to do that.
Actually all it requires is a single person telling a story that other people believe.
Percy writes:
But even more importantly, these events never happened. All the different interpreters of these Jesus stories are just arguing over fiction.
That is your unevidenced opinion based on your theological beliefs.
That you have no evidence is neither opinion nor theology - it's a fact. Unevidenced assertions require no rebuttal beyond noting the lack of evidence.
GDR writes:
Nobody after the Maccabees were put to death did anyone suggest that Judas Maccabees was resurrected even though he talked about resurrection. Everyone assumed that it would be resurrection at the end of time. Nobody suggested that Simon bar Gioria was resurrected in 70 AD. Nobody suggested that Simon bar Kokhba was resurrected in 135 AD. All of these guys led revolts that had varying degrees of military success and were put to death by the Romans. They were simply regarded as failed messiahs and then people looked for another messiah to lead them. (The idea pretty much dies out after 135 AD however.)
Percy writes:
Why do you think this helps your case?
I think that it is pretty clear.
This oughta be good.
There were numerous messianic movements within a hundred years or so around the time of Jesus. In each case they were ended by the Romans executing the messianic figures and in most cases whatever followers they could get hold of. Many of these such as the Maccabees, Simon bar Giora and Simon bar Khokhba...
All known to be historically real.
...all had a fair amount of military success. The Maccabees reigned for 100 years. When they were executed by the Romans and nobody suggested that they were still alive in some fashion, let alone that they had been resurrected.
Of course. So?
When Jesus was crucified, the leaders knew Jesus to be another failed messiah, denied Him...
After Jesus was crucified the apostles considered Jesus a failed messiah? This isn't an important point for me, but now I'm curious. You already know I think the gospels are fiction, but I *have* read them, and that the crucifixion caused them to consider Jesus a failed messiah doesn't sound familiar. If you could save me the trouble of reading the end portion of all the gospels, where do they say this? Thanks.
...and went into hiding not wanting to suffer the same fate.
This doesn't sound familiar either. Can you help me out again?
Then, all that changed and it would take something very dramatic.
Let's assume what you just said is true about what the gospels say, that after Jesus' crucifixion the apostles were depressed and in hiding, but then he was resurrected and the apostles became reenergized. This is the classic twist used in fiction stories since the beginning of time - just when things seem most hopeless something comes to the rescue. This exact plot must appear on TV dozens of time every day. The hero is dead. All is lost. Everyone's sad. But wait, his eyes flicker, he's alive! All is saved. Everyone erupts in joyous celebration!
How can you not see that your Jesus story is just another variant on an overdone plot?
Percy writes:
Paul is the founder of Christianity. He had his beliefs, but there's nothing to indicate they formed from evidence, nothing to indicate he observed anything recounted in the gospels, nothing to indicate he was close to any of the apostles, and Acts tells us that Paul and Peter disagreed.
Paul is not the founder of Christianity. Christianity was founded firstly as a Jewish reform movement eventually becoming a separate religion. Luke records this in Acts 11.
quote:
26and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.
Of course Paul's the founder of Christianity. Peter is the founder of an earlier tradition that Paul co-opted. Paul has a different theology than the Gospels and Peter.
Also of course, as you have agreed Paul interacted with Peter and so it is obvious that he would have interacted with all of the remaining disciples.
Gee, funny, the other apostles receive no mention. Probably because they were invented to give Jesus 12 apostles to correspond to the 12 tribes of Israel.
Paul is essentially the first theologian of the new movement...
Peter preceded Paul. Or I guess you could say Paul superseded Peter. But either way, are you calling Paul the first theologian because you think Peter inadequate to the task?
...and was the primary leader responsible for spreading the belief to the gentiles.
Hey, something we agree on.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1027 by GDR, posted 11-26-2018 4:45 PM GDR has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1046 of 1677 (844304)
11-27-2018 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1035 by GDR
11-26-2018 7:33 PM


Re: Matthew 24
GDR writes:
Percy writes:
So are you, while fooling yourself that what you believe is some 1st century understanding.
I've already explained to Tangle why that isn't the case, which isn't to say that I do it perfectly.
Yes, I saw your reply to Tangle, and the answer was unsatisfactory, so I commented, too. You *are* just fooling yourself about the most obvious things, like which direction Jesus is going.
Percy writes:
If Christianity is based upon a real person, there is no evidence it was a 1st century person. Jesus could have been a BC person.
What has that got to do with anything. Zero. AD/BC represents somewhat inaccurately the birth of Jesus.
You must have thought I was referring to the ambiguity of a few years about when, traditionally, they believe Jesus was born. What I actually meant was that Jesus, if he was real, might have lived his entire life in the first century BC. Maybe the character of Jesus is based upon someone even earlier, maybe the Teacher of Righteousness of the second century BC mentioned in some Dead Sea Scrolls.
Percy writes:
Unless by "1st century understanding" you mean a gullible understanding, whoever wrote Mark could only know about the destruction of the Temple after it happened, not before.
Well yeah, indicating that the Gospel was written prior to the war.
Again, Mark could only know about the destruction of the Temple after it happened, not before. Since Mark knew about the destruction of the Temple, he wrote afterward.
Percy writes:
So you believe that Jesus warned his followers (who by 70 AD would have been Christians, not Jews) that the Jewish Temple (which by then would have nothing to do with Christians) would be destroyed because someone (Jews? Christians?) were trying to defeat evil with more evil? What a mess of interpretive nonsense.
He was talking to Jews and it was a Jewish message. Jesus was never about starting a new religion but was about reforming the Jewish religion. Ultimately it didn't work out that way.
You're ignoring the confusions and contradictions. Why would Jesus prophesize to Jews about the Temple when it wouldn't come to pass until the followers of Jesus were Christians who no longer cared about the Temple?
GDR writes:
Jesus continually talked about not going down the road of violent revolution but about defeating evil with the weapon of love. It is about turning hearts away from evil.
Percy writes:
Finally, something we agree about.
Hooray. This actually gets right to the core of Christianity so it is great that it is something we agree on.
Hallelujah!
Percy writes:
Huh? How is that any different from believing it's all just made up? If you truly believed that we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Christianity is a religion based essentially on the belief of the Biblical narrative that God progressively revealed Himself to the Jews, and then fully revealed His nature, (Word or Logos) in the man Jesus. God then resurrected Him thereby establishing a Jesus Christ led Kingdom and establishing the basis for a renewed creation.
But I was replying to you saying, "All religion is man made." If you acknowledge that, why are we even having this discussion? If Christianity is man-made, why are you so insistent that Jesus couldn't possibly be fictional?
Percy writes:
You said this earlier in your message, and it's still crazy. Why would Jesus feel the need to inform his followers (who by then would be Christians living in small communities scattered about the Middle East and caring not a whit about the Jewish temple in Jerusalem) of his "forecast" that the Romans would eventually crush the Jewish revolt of 66 AD?
This was fundamental to His message. He spoke at great lengths about his anti-revolutionary message. He was warning what would happen in hopes that they would be able to either reject the idea of military revolution, and then if unable to do that to escape to the hills. He was a Jew and obviously didn't want to see the death of thousands of His people. Also, He wasn't about destroying the Temple but reforming it.
The same objection I described above still applies.
Percy writes:
So in your view Jesus was just someone with a strong political intuition? Hardly seems like someone worth worshipping or building a religion around. What happened to all the other mumbo jumbo about miracles and resurrection and rising to heaven and sitting at the right hand of God and being part of the trinity and having existed since the beginning of time?
I didn't deny any of that, but in addition He was a prophet...
Well there you go picking and choosing your interpretations again. (paraphrasing) "Jesus was a prophet, but when he talked about the destruction of the Temple that was just astute political forecasting." If you get to pick and choose, so does everyone else.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1035 by GDR, posted 11-26-2018 7:33 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1050 by GDR, posted 11-28-2018 11:04 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1049 of 1677 (844332)
11-28-2018 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1047 by GDR
11-27-2018 11:20 PM


Re: Giving It All Up and Urging Everyone To Do Likewise
I already replied to your Message 1022 (quoted from at the top of your message), so I'll just ignore that part and reply only to what you say to Ringo:
GDR writes:
ringo writes:
You're just confirming what I said: You cherry-pick the parts you like and hand-wave the parts you don't like. It's just ridiculous to pretend that nobody "would" fabricate the stories in the New Testament.
Your POV seems to be that either you have to accept everything literally or reject the whole thing.
Maybe I haven't been following Ringo's posts closely enough, but I wasn't aware he was pushing that dichotomy.
I disagree.
Me too, though it must be obvious to you that the inerrantist position is by far the stronger because it asserts everything and concedes nothing. The view that all religion is man-made, that the Bible is not literally inerrant, and that it's okay to make your own subjective Biblical interpretations opens up a Pandora's box where every view is equal. If you're free to say that some passage has "this meaning," then someone else is free to say it has "that meaning." If you're free to say that "this much" of the Bible is open to interpretation, then someone else is free to say it's "that much."
Each book of the Bible is by different authors with a variety of sources and motivations. All the writers of the NT consistently purport Jesus' resurrection. You guys don't accept this but there is no other reasonable reason to explain the rise of Christianity other than a firm belief in the resurrection.
I don't think that's true. I think we all see the resurrection story is a significant part of the appeal of Christianity, though even more compelling is the claim that Jesus died for our sins so that we might have eternal salvation in heaven.
They could be wrong about it but it is clear that they believe that the resurrection was an historical event.
How the resurrection myth arose is lost to history. Also lost is whether any NT writers didn't believe what they were saying.
With that in mind it is also reasonable to understand the Bible through Jesus' message of love.
The whole Bible? Or just the NT?
As far as creating converts, I don't think Jesus' message of love is anywhere near as important as salvation.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1047 by GDR, posted 11-27-2018 11:20 PM GDR has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1052 of 1677 (844347)
11-28-2018 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1050 by GDR
11-28-2018 11:04 AM


Re: Matthew 24
GDR writes:
I do have a life outside of EvC.
I'm aghast!
Percy writes:
Is stepping outside the story to offer commentary ever something Mark actually does? Anyway, obviously Mark is writing for a community already very familiar with the destruction of the Temple. Mark was writing near enough in time for it to still be a recent event, and near enough to Jerusalem for it to be relevant.
I’m sorry Percy but it makes far more sense to believe that the war and the destruction of the Temple at the time the Gospel of Mark was compiled.
I'm having trouble parsing this sentence. It might be me, but is the word "happened" or "occurred" supposed to appear between "Temple" and "at"? And by "compiled" do you mean Mark writing his gospel from source material he had gathered or had access to? But that would mean that you're saying, "It makes far more sense to believe that the war and the destruction of the Temple occurred at the time the Gospel of Mark was written," and that doesn't sound like something you'd say. I'd expect you to say that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple occurred after Mark wrote his gospel. So I guess I need to request clarification about what you mean.
GDR writes:
C'mon Percy. The Temple was destroyed in 70 AD and by that time the war had been going on for 4 years. Mark doesn't mention the war, and no matter where he was in the area he would be aware of what had happened to Jerusalem and the Temple in very short order.
Percy writes:
Of course, but evidently what he heard was that none of the Temple was left standing, which is untrue. Why would that matter to you - you're not an inerrantist.
It’s a discussion about when Mark was written and has nothing to do with inerrancy. The point is, is that if it had happened prior to Mark’s Gospel being compiled, Mark would have recorded it, likely wouldn’t include saying not one stone on another and would have shown that what Jesus predicted would happen actually had happened.
I ask again, does Mark ever step outside the story to offer commentary about what occurred later? If not, then why would you expect him to do so in this case? And even if so, why do you think Mark would think his audience needful of reminding of something that had happened within the past few years and not so far away?
Percy writes:
I assumed we were talking about where Mark writes about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. I haven't mentioned the end times once in this thread, except just now to deny ever mentioning it.
My point was that Mark wasn’t writing about end times but about the destruction of the Temple, however I might be confusing this discussion with you and the one I’m having with Tangle. All you atheists sound alike to me. 
I'm not an atheist. I believe in God, but I also believe that no religion has the correct story.
GDR writes:
Why on earth would any of them want to carry on a movement that is based on the leader being crucified which very clearly says that he is just another failed messianic figure?
Percy writes:
Let me ask you a question first: Why are you shifting the focus from the resurrection to the crucifixion? It sure isn't the crucifixion that Christians think amazing.
The point is that it would be unthinkable to claim that the messiah would be crucified and yet Paul says that he is not ashamed to preach a crucified messiah because although Jesus was crucified God resurrected Him.
Apparently a crucified messiah wasn't unthinkable, particularly a resurrected one. Paul obviously had no trouble thinking it.
Percy writes:
Actually all it requires is a single person telling a story that other people believe.
But it is a lot more than one person.
You've got stories that say there were a lot of witnesses. What you don't have is the testimony of any witnesses.
Percy writes:
That you have no evidence is neither opinion nor theology - it's a fact. Unevidenced assertions require no rebuttal beyond noting the lack of evidence.
But it isn’t unevidenced. The Gospel accounts are evidence. The rest of the NT is evidence. There are obviously written with the obvious intent that they are to be believed. You can reject the evidence and say it is insufficient for you, but it is still evidence.
So your position is that scripture written with the intent that it be believed is evidence. That sorta puts the Bible on an equal footing with any other religion's scripture, like the Koran or the Book of Mormon or Scientology. You guys should all get together and work out who's right, then get back to us.
GDR writes:
Nobody after the Maccabees were put to death did anyone suggest that Judas Maccabees was resurrected even though he talked about resurrection. Everyone assumed that it would be resurrection at the end of time. Nobody suggested that Simon bar Gioria was resurrected in 70 AD. Nobody suggested that Simon bar Kokhba was resurrected in 135 AD. All of these guys led revolts that had varying degrees of military success and were put to death by the Romans. They were simply regarded as failed messiahs and then people looked for another messiah to lead them. (The idea pretty much dies out after 135 AD however.)
Percy writes:
Why do you think this helps your case?
I’ll spell it out again. There were at least 12 messianic movements in that era. In every case the messianic figures were put to death including the ones mentioned. The belief was that a messiah, (the anointed one of God), would lead them against the hated Romans and defeat them. Many of these messianic figures actually achieved varying degrees of revolutionary success, but when they were executed nobody said that they were resurrected and the movements that they led immediately came to a halt. Jesus led no army, achieved no military success, and was crucified. Jesus had been crucified and it would have been clear that He was another failed messiah. However a couple of days later something changed and the Gospels tell us what it was.
Why do think including resurrection as part of a messianic story makes it true? As I said in another post, the plot of the dead hero somehow returning to life is as old as time.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1050 by GDR, posted 11-28-2018 11:04 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1054 by GDR, posted 11-28-2018 5:17 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1061 of 1677 (844416)
11-29-2018 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1054 by GDR
11-28-2018 5:17 PM


Re: Matthew 24
GDR writes:
Percy writes:
GDR writes:
When Jesus was crucified, the leaders knew Jesus to be another failed messiah, denied Him...
After Jesus was crucified the apostles considered Jesus a failed messiah? This isn't an important point for me, but now I'm curious. You already know I think the gospels are fiction, but I *have* read them, and that the crucifixion caused them to consider Jesus a failed messiah doesn't sound familiar. If you could save me the trouble of reading the end portion of all the gospels, where do they say this? Thanks.
First off, I’m sure that you’re familiar with the accounts of Peter denying Him 3 times.
Peter's denial must be one of the more well known elements of the Jesus story, so of course I'm familiar with it, but you said this occurred "when Jesus was crucified," and Peter's denial not only came before the crucifixion but even prior to the hearing before Pilate.
But I didn't inquire about any denial of Jesus. I asked about your claims about the apostles reaction to the crucifixion. I said I wasn't aware that the crucifixion caused the apostles to consider Jesus a failed messiah. I *have* read the gospels, and that the crucifixion caused them to consider Jesus a failed messiah doesn't sound familiar. I'd be ever so grateful if you could save me the trouble of reading the end portion of all the gospels and tell me where they say this.
As for the next part of your question about the disciples hiding out we have this in John 20.
quote:
19On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, Peace be with you!
Locking the doors is equivalent to hiding out? I guess I hide out every night. Isn't this a bit of a stretch as a reference to hiding out? Or are we "interpreting" again?
The main thing is that you've provided no support for your statement, "When Jesus was crucified, the leaders knew Jesus to be another failed messiah, denied Him and went into hiding not wanting to suffer the same fate." This isn't a big deal, I'm just curious where it says this in the gospels, because I hadn't heard this before.
Percy writes:
Me too, though it must be obvious to you that the inerrantist position is by far the stronger because it asserts everything and concedes nothing. The view that all religion is man-made, that the Bible is not literally inerrant, and that it's okay to make your own subjective Biblical interpretations opens up a Pandora's box where every view is equal. If you're free to say that some passage has "this meaning," then someone else is free to say it has "that meaning." If you're free to say that "this much" of the Bible is open to interpretation, then someone else is free to say it's "that much."
In a way that is the point.
Before I read on I have to again ask, then why are we having this discussion?
It is about free will and if we had absolute knowledge then we wouldn’t be free to accept God’s command to love.
Since we don't have absolute knowledge, or where religion is concerned even any knowledge, how do you know there was ever any command from God to love? Or even that there's a God?
It would turn the understanding of the Bible into a Pharisaical style of belief that if we follow this set of instructions God will reward us.
That pretty much describes Christianity, what with the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule and all that. Do you realize how far outside the mainstream of Christianity you are? You seem much more like a skeptic, which makes it very difficult to understand why you're defending your Biblical interpretations so fiercely.
So yes we are called to pick and choose. Jesus did just that. He combed through the Jewish Scriptures which led to His self understanding of His messianic vocation.
You're not Jesus. You're not eternal and one of the three persons of God. As a follower of Jesus it is not for you to pick and choose scripture to construct your own spiritual world. Are you sure you're a Christian rather than just someone who really knows his Bible and likes parts of it a great deal?
Yes, we should read the Scriptures critically.
Matthew 18:3:
quote:
And he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."
Of course there are Biblical passages for all occasions, but this one is definitely not encouraging you to read your scriptures critically.
I read the Scriptures with the understanding that in order to understand Jesus, a first century Jew steeped in the Hebrew Scriptures, who was forever quoting those Scriptures, then I need to have knowledge of the OT. However, to understand the OT I need to do it through the lens of Jesus. When I read Jesus saying that we are to love our enemies, turn the other cheek, that we are forgiven as we forgive and that those who live by the sword die by the sword it is very clear that God would not have ordered genocide or public stoning.
And yet he apparently did. It's all there in black and white.
Percy writes:
I don't think that's true. I think we all see the resurrection story is a significant part of the appeal of Christianity, though even more compelling is the claim that Jesus died for our sins so that we might have eternal salvation in heaven.
If He had simply died on the cross then how would that affect anything. I have trouble with that on several levels. The Bible message isn’t really about us getting to heaven but ultimately it’s about heaven coming to when all of creation is resurrected. Paul writes this in Ephesians 1.
quote:
9He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him 10with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him
It is about the renewal of all things. It isn’t about the destruction of the world or the universe.
I think that parts of the church have made the focus of the church personal salvation. It then becomes the idea of scaring people into the Kingdom and just as bad it suggests that people come to faith because of what’s in it for themselves. The Bible actually talks about dying to self and giving our hearts to God so that we want the things of God. I realize nobody, least of all me, does this well. Only Jesus did that. The point is that we should truly want to be like that.
Yeah, we agree, but eternal salvation still remains Christianity's most effective and widely used selling point.
Percy writes:
I'm having trouble parsing this sentence. It might be me, but is the word "happened" or "occurred" supposed to appear between "Temple" and "at"? And by "compiled" do you mean Mark writing his gospel from source material he had gathered or had access to? But that would mean that you're saying, "It makes far more sense to believe that the war and the destruction of the Temple occurred at the time the Gospel of Mark was written," and that doesn't sound like something you'd say. I'd expect you to say that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple occurred after Mark wrote his gospel. So I guess I need to request clarification about what you mean.
No wonder you had trouble. Part of the sentence is missing.  You are correct about what I would say. If the destruction had happened when Mark compiled the Gospel, ( and yes I am suggesting that like Luke he was using source material and possibly personal knowledge), the He would have recorded the destruction as Jesus’ prediction had come true. Also He wouldn’t have said that there wouldn’t be one stone on another.
Why would he have thought it necessary to interrupt his story, to step outside his story, to mention something already familiar to his community? Why would he have been so intimately familiar with the Temple that he knew about the western wall (a retaining wall) and the state the Romans left it in? Or maybe he considered the Temple to be strictly the Temple portion only, and not the entire complex. There are many possible explanations, not just yours. The advantage of any interpretations I make is that they don't require that someone have the ability to foretell the future.
Percy writes:
I ask again, does Mark ever step outside the story to offer commentary about what occurred later? If not, then why would you expect him to do so in this case? And even if so, why do you think Mark would think his audience needful of reminding of something that had happened within the past few years and not so far away?
As the eye witnesses died off he would feel compelled to record what had happened.
Now you're playing both sides of the fence. You can't argue that Mark wrote about the destruction of the Temple because eyewitnesses were dying off - the event hadn't happened yet. You could only make that argument if Mark wrote after the destruction of the Temple.
Again, Luke even explains that in His Gospel.
What Luke explains in his Gospel is about *his* gospel, not the Gospel of Mark.
Percy writes:
I'm not an atheist. I believe in God, but I also believe that no religion has the correct story.
I don’t think any person or religion has the whole truth. It seems to me that if you believe in God then I would think that you would have to agree that the resurrection is possible. If God is responsible for the processes that brought about life then I don’t think resurrection is much of a trick.
Let me be more clear. I believe in God, but I also believe that no religion is remotely close in any of their particulars to the correct story. My God gives purpose to the universe, a purpose unknown to us. Our role, if any, if we're not some side effect or unintended consequence, is miniscule. We have not as yet uncovered or encountered any evidence of God, so people who believe he exists do so solely on a foundation of faith.
The question of course is, did it actually happen. I am convinced that it did. This may sound strange but it actually makes sense to me in all sorts of ways.
When it comes to the spiritual, people believe what they believe independent of evidence. Many feel the need for evidence of what they believe and so they convince themselves that there is evidence, just as you are doing.
Others understand that there is no evidence. Of these some choose atheism or agnosticism, which makes good sense. And some, like me, understand that their faith in God is just something that comes from within and is part of their makeup.
Percy writes:
Apparently a crucified messiah wasn't unthinkable, particularly a resurrected one. Paul obviously had no trouble thinking it.
Yes he did, but he had to write several times that he wasn’t ashamed to preach a crucified messiah. Crucifixion was a shameful way to die in that culture. Also this is in Deuteronomy 21.
quote:
If a man guilty of a capital offense is put to death and you hang him on a tree, you must not leave the body on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury it that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is a curse of God.
As I said. A crucified messiah was unthinkable. It would take something momentous to overcome that belief. That momentous event was the resurrection.
We agree. Hey, twice in one message, a record.
But you're earlier argument, that the presence of the resurrection in the story is convincing evidence that the story is true, is bollocks. It's an old plotline used over and over.
Percy writes:
So your position is that scripture written with the intent that it be believed is evidence. That sorta puts the Bible on an equal footing with any other religion's scripture, like the Koran or the Book of Mormon or Scientology. You guys should all get together and work out who's right, then get back to us.
Well all religions can learn from each other.
You mean religions can let other religions inform their theology? I think few religions would admit that ever happens, and particularly not Christianity.
The point, though, was that the Gospel writers believed what they wrote. We can choose to believe them or believe they got it wrong. IMHO it is very clear that it isn’t a story they concocted for something unfathomable reason. Rightly or wrongly they believed they were writing about an historical event.
My mind is open concerning how much the gospel writers believed what they wrote, but what difference does it make? Just believing something true doesn't make it so.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1054 by GDR, posted 11-28-2018 5:17 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1069 by GDR, posted 11-29-2018 9:24 PM Percy has replied
 Message 1070 by Phat, posted 11-30-2018 6:47 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1067 of 1677 (844438)
11-29-2018 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1062 by GDR
11-29-2018 1:55 PM


Re: Matthew 24
GDR writes:
PaulK writes:
It’s one of many things you believe because they are convenient for your argument. Just like you think the NT writer’s belief in the Resurrection is sufficient reason to force the Bible into your favoured interpretation.
Firstly I contend that Mark was written prior to the war for reasons I have already given.
Yeah, bad ones. Your version has it that Jesus was an astute political forecaster who could see 30 years into the future for information irrelevant both to the people he was talking to (the forecasted events were too far in the future) and to the people in the future (who by that time would be Christians and wouldn't care about the Temple).
Actually it is obvious that Jesus was talking about the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem...
Why do you see the need to say this? Of course Jesus is talking about the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in Mark 13. There isn't a scintilla of ambiguity in the passage:
quote:
Mark 13 As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!
2Do you see all these great buildings? replied Jesus. Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.
Except many stones *were* "left on another," and "every one" was not "thrown down."
I am not saying that because the NT writers believed that the resurrection was an historical event proves that it was true. My point is only that the question is whether or not they concocted the accounts for their own purposes. IMHO it is very clear that they did believe what they wrote. The question is whether they got it right or not, and we come to our own conclusions about that.
This paragraph can't seem to decide which is the key issue. Is it whether the gospel writers believed what they wrote, or is it whether they got it right? Shouldn't you care most about whether they got it right? After all, who cares whether they believed it themselves as long as they got it right.
I am simply saying that I believe that essentially they got it right even though some of the details differ, and I have many times explained why I think that to be the most reasonable conclusion.
Accounts that differ on some points cannot both be right.
PaulK writes:
However, the real evidence that the passage comes earlier than 70AD is that things did not go as predicted. There was no abomination in the Temple. God did not intervene to save the Jews from defeat. No angels came to gather the elect. The version in Luke is changed to acknowledge these things, putting off the End Times to the near future - but it didn’t happen then, either.
You are just restating what you have previously and I have already answered that.
Maybe I'm recollecting incorrectly, but didn't you answer by inventing interpretations considerably at odds with what the passages clearly say?
Jesus was saying that if you carry on with the revolution the Jerusalem and the Temple will be destroyed. He saw a military revolution to be a case of fighting evil with evil and that evil and when you do that evil wins. Here is a quote from Ephesians 6.
quote:
12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
I think your familiarity with the Bible gets you in trouble. You frequently connect unrelated Biblical passages as if they supported your claims when they don't. Ephesians 6:12 is from a letter that was once thought Pauline but is now believed otherwise about the struggle being spiritual rather than physical. Mark 13:1-2 is Jesus talking about the destruction of the Temple, a very physical event.
And you once said religion should not be reduced to a set of rules that one follows in order to receive some reward, but what is Ephesians if not a lengthy set of rules?
Jesus was saying that God wouldn't intervene to save the Jews from defeat.
Not in Ephesians 6:12 he's not. It's not even Jesus talking, it's just the writings of someone once thought to be Paul. And if you meant Mark 13 then Mark doesn't say anything about God not intervening to prevent a Jewish defeat. He does say this, though:
quote:
Mark 13 30"Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."
This is Mark having Jesus say roughly when the Temple will be destroyed, more evidence that Mark wrote after the destruction of the Temple.
PaulK writes:
You don’t use that argument because you refuse to acknowledge those failures.
Firstly you are wrong that they didn't happen,...
You mean there *was* an "abomination" in the Temple? God *did* intervene to save the Jews from defeat? Angels *did* come to gather the elect? I don't think so.
...but secondly as I have already said that Jesus isn't telling the future supernaturally but predicting the future with the knowledge of the political situation.
You're "interpreting" again.
I agree that they are plain and you have plain got it wrong.
I can't see why you're saying this to PaulK. I can't see where he got anything wrong or you got anything right.
Your views seem way out there for a Christian. You must get into some interesting discussions with your fellow parishioners.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Spelling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1062 by GDR, posted 11-29-2018 1:55 PM GDR has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1068 of 1677 (844439)
11-29-2018 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1063 by GDR
11-29-2018 2:17 PM


Re: Giving It All Up and Urging Everyone To Do Likewise
GDR writes:
At least your replies are short. Replying to Percy is a full time unpaid position.
And if you replied to all my messages instead of just half you'd have to work double shifts!
The stories of genocide were written by scribes saying that God commanded genocide and public stonings. This of course comes from prophets claiming that God had told them this. These prophets were beholden to the leaders for their welfare and even their lives, in many cases, and in others were interested in their position in the community.
So the OT authors were just schmucks working under threat or a need for approval - no "inspired by God" there.
The Gospels were written accounts of what they believed actually happened. They aren't saying that God told them this but writing about events they claim to be historical. You can't look at the two on the same footing.
But the NT authors were recounting what they believed to be actual historical events - no "inspired by God" there, either.
Interesting that you're passing up on the "inspired by God" claim.
You make an overly broad claim about the historicity claims of the gospel writers. Only Luke claimed his account historical.
As I believe in the resurrection of Jesus as confirming His message about the nature of God then I can see that the position of "loving your enemy" is totally incompatible with ordering genocide and public stonings.
Put in other terms, you denigrate the OT authors because their accounts are not consistent with a loving God, and you elevate the NT authors because theirs are. Or are they? This is Jesus, one of the three persons of God, encouraging violence against slaves:
quote:
Luke 12:47 "The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows."
ringo writes:
And you're clearly making up a God that is palatable to you.
No, I'm following the God whose nature was perfectly embodied by Jesus as told in the NT.
For that matter, everyone follows a god that is palatable to them. That god might be a religion, or it might be any number of earthly things such as money, power or love of others. Everyone bases their life on something.
Once again you're conceding what everyone has been saying. But in your next message you'll continue on as if you didn't realize you'd already conceded.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1063 by GDR, posted 11-29-2018 2:17 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1080 by GDR, posted 12-01-2018 3:32 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1078 of 1677 (844483)
11-30-2018 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1069 by GDR
11-29-2018 9:24 PM


Re: Matthew 24
GDR writes:
Percy writes:
Peter's denial must be one of the more well known elements of the Jesus story, so of course I'm familiar with it, but you said this occurred "when Jesus was crucified," and Peter's denial not only came before the crucifixion but even prior to the hearing before Pilate.
Yes it was before but you’re splitting hairs.
Am I really splitting hairs? Or are you conflating events. Was it the crucifixion that sent the apostles into depression and hiding, or the arrest? Make up your mind.
It was obvious where this was going and Peter out of fear did not wanted to be associated with Jesus.
Out of fear of what? Arrest? Peter was present when the guards showed up to make tt the arrest, and they only arrested Jesus, which was what they had been instructed to do. Once the guards were gone what did Peter have to be afraid of? He already knew they had no interest in arresting him, so he couldn't have been afraid of being reported of being an associate of Jesus and being arrested because just minutes before he had been right there beside Jesus when Jesus was arrested and he was not. Though fear makes sense, the gospel stories, which seem nearly identical about this, don't even make clear why Peter denied Jesus. This is a part of the Jesus story you should discard. It probably got included in all three synoptics because it shows Jesus foretelling the future again, and because of the drama that it caused Peter such pain.
Peter's denial marks the beginning of the story of Jesus's last day on Earth, about which the synoptic accounts differ. Matthew's and Mark's accounts could possibly fit in a single day if Pilate is just sitting around doing nothing on the day of a big feast and is available and willing to hear complaints about an obscure Jewish preacher who, despite supposedly causing all this ruckus and trouble, Pilate has never heard of. But Luke's account cannot possibly be true because there is too much going on for it to happen in so short a period of time. Jesus could not have gone before the priests and elders and then before Pilate and then before Herod Antipas and then before Pilate again and then before a crowd and then to his crucifixion in a single day.
Percy writes:
But I didn't inquire about any denial of Jesus. I asked about your claims about the apostles reaction to the crucifixion. I said I wasn't aware that the crucifixion caused the apostles to consider Jesus a failed messiah. I *have* read the gospels, and that the crucifixion caused them to consider Jesus a failed messiah doesn't sound familiar. I'd be ever so grateful if you could save me the trouble of reading the end portion of all the gospels and tell me where they say this.
It isn’t in the Gospels.
So we're talking about the gospels, and then suddenly you're not. Why am I not surprised?
It is from the fact that when the leaders of the other messianic movements were put to death the movement died and for lack of a better term they would have been considered failed messiahs. As I have quoted elsewhere the disciples out of fear of the Jewish leaders were in a locked room. The disciples even after the resurrection were still thinking that Jesus was somehow going to lead them against the Romans. (Acts 1). There is no reason to consider the movement at that point anything but dead and no reason to carry it on. There was no army or anyone else with influence or power to carry it on.
The question in Acts 1:6 is not asking Jesus to lead an army to expel the Romans. It's about whether Jesus will employ his divine and miraculous powers to restore the kingdom of Israel.
Percy writes:
Locking the doors is equivalent to hiding out? I guess I hide out every night. Isn't this a bit of a stretch as a reference to hiding out? Or are we "interpreting" again?
They were in a locked room out of fear of the Jewish leaders. I’d say that they were hiding out.
You say a lot of things the text doesn't support.
Percy writes:
The main thing is that you've provided no support for your statement, "When Jesus was crucified, the leaders knew Jesus to be another failed messiah, denied Him and went into hiding not wanting to suffer the same fate." This isn't a big deal, I'm just curious where it says this in the gospels, because I hadn't heard this before.
It comes from the Gospel narrative without being implicitly spelled out as well as a very basic understanding of the factions in Jerusalem at that time.
Ah, I see, we're "interpreting" again. John 20:19 says nothing about hiding out. There are only locked doors.
And about considering Jesus a failed messiah, you haven't provided a shred of support. In fact, John 19:32-37 speaks of prophecy being fulfilled, something bound to encourage the apostles.
Percy writes:
Before I read on I have to again ask, then why are we having this discussion?
Because the Bible is not a single book with a single author. It is written over hundreds of years, under different circumstances and with different motivations. So yes, we should reject some things and accept others. There is no absolute certainty in our understandings. I have explained how I have to my conclusions about how I understand the Bible.
What you call explanations are not really explanations. What you say usually only raises questions or objections, to which you often merely reply, "I've already explained," forcing people to repeat themselves (another thing that makes messages longer). If you truly believe that all religion is man-made, that the Bible is not literally inerrant, and that it's okay to make your own subjective Biblical interpretations, then you've opened up a Pandora's box where every view is equal. If you're free to say that some passage has "this meaning," then someone else is free to say it has "that meaning." If you're free to say that "this much" of the Bible is open to interpretation, then someone else is free to say it's "that much." I think we're all still wondering why you seem blind to the obvious implications of your approach to making interpretations.
Percy writes:
Since we don't have absolute knowledge, or where religion is concerned even any knowledge, how do you know there was ever any command from God to love? Or even that there's a God?
I do keep covering the same ground. The idea that we are the result of a myriad number of natural processes from the mindless particles of the BB to the world we live in today requires a way more faith than I can come up with.
Maybe if you just stuck with the evidence.
As far as the command to love is concerned it is pretty obvious that the more we apply that in our cultures that better off everyone is.
Hey, agreement again, but where is the connection to God?
Once again, as I am convinced that the resurrection is historical I take on faith that God wants us to live our lives based on that command spoken or unspoken.
It isn't what you're convinced of that matters, but what you can support with evidence and explanation. Don't just endlessly repeat what you believe - actually argue it.
GDR writes:
It would turn the understanding of the Bible into a Pharisaical style of belief that if we follow this set of instructions God will reward us.
Percy writes:
That pretty much describes Christianity, what with the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule and all that. Do you realize how far outside the mainstream of Christianity you are? You seem much more like a skeptic, which makes it very difficult to understand why you're defending your Biblical interpretations so fiercely.
I am certainly outside fundamentalism but I’m by and large fairly consistent with most of Anglicanism.
I know nothing of Anglicanism, but given your cavalier attitudes about which parts of the Bible are true or false, or how various parts should be interpreted, I very much doubt you're a traditional Anglican. For example, both Old and New Testament are considered the primary authority of Anglicanism (I'm just Googling around), while you see the Old Testament as suspect because in your view its authors were subject to coercion and desire for approval. I also didn't see anything about Anglicanism considering religion man-made, or picking and choosing among Bible passages.
My main influence with my theological beliefs is NT Wright who Newsweek called the world’s leading New Testament scholar.
I've never heard of N. T. Wright, but I bet his views align with your own as much as Anglicanism does, that if I studied him that I'd see very little resemblance to the things you've said in this thread.
Percy writes:
You're not Jesus. You're not eternal and one of the three persons of God. As a follower of Jesus it is not for you to pick and choose scripture to construct your own spiritual world. Are you sure you're a Christian rather than just someone who really knows his Bible and likes parts of it a great deal?
I’m a follower of an inerrant Jesus and not an inerrant Bible. The two aren’t compatible.
Can you really know that you follow an inerrant Jesus? Your information about Jesus can only come from a single source, the New Testament, and if you don't listen to that then your inerrant Jesus is just someone you made up.
Percy writes:
GDR writes:
Yes, we should read the Scriptures critically.
Matthew 18:3:
quote:
And he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."
Of course there are Biblical passages for all occasions, but this one is definitely not encouraging you to read your scriptures critically.
The Kingdom of Heaven is not about personal salvation. It also isn’t about reading the Scriptures. It is about having hearts that love others as we love ourselves. The Kingdom of Heaven is about those who listen to that still small voice that calls us to love and act on it. It is a Kingdom as talked about in Daniel 7 and is for the here and now and on into eternity.
I can't see how this is related to my response to your comment, "Yes, we should read the Scriptures critically." You're not Jesus. You're not eternal and one of the three persons of God. As a follower of Jesus it is not for you to pick and choose scripture to construct your own spiritual world. Are you sure you're a Christian rather than just someone who really knows his Bible and likes parts of it a great deal? (if you're not going to answer 'em I'm just gonna repeat 'em)
GDR writes:
I read the Scriptures with the understanding that in order to understand Jesus, a first century Jew steeped in the Hebrew Scriptures, who was forever quoting those Scriptures, then I need to have knowledge of the OT. However, to understand the OT I need to do it through the lens of Jesus. When I read Jesus saying that we are to love our enemies, turn the other cheek, that we are forgiven as we forgive and that those who live by the sword die by the sword it is very clear that God would not have ordered genocide or public stoning.
Percy writes:
And yet he apparently did. It's all there in black and white.
Sure and an inerrantist would say that it must be true and then somehow try to square it up with loving your enemy. It can’t be done. It is one or the other and I’m going with what The Gospels say that Jesus said, rather than accepting the word of some scribe centuries earlier.
There you go denigrating the OT again. Is that really Anglicanism? Between you and Faith there is some real strange theology going on here. The OT's God is vengeful and deadly, but Faith says that if God does it then it's good and whoever got it had it coming, while you say the OT is suspect. So you put greater credibility on the NT but insist on picking and choosing, like you reject the Ananias/Sapphira story.
Maybe, but if Christianity is about getting rewarded with eternal life then it becomes again all about the self. If people become Christian for that reason then I question whether they really understand the faith.
Certainly they don't understand it the same way you do.
I realize I’m being judgmental here but it is how I understand Christianity rightly or wrongly. IMHO I have a God that gave me life, gave me intelligence and an understanding of right and wrong and only asks in return that I reflect the love that He has given me into the world.
But where is this God? He exists only as a character in the Bible (and in the books of other religions, but I'm sticking to Christianity), but you hold much of it in such low esteem that you cull out those portions you find unpalatable. You don't really believe in any God of the Bible. You believe in a God of your own making, which makes perfect sense since as you said, all religion is man-made. You're brewing your own.
As I have said numerous times salvation is not about our doctrines but about the heart. As a Christian I pray that God will give me a heart that loves the way that He desires. (He still has a lot of work to do. ) See psalm 37:4.
Take delight in a pretend being?
Also salvation is for all creation and how that plays out in the end is up to God and not me, and frankly I don’t concern myself as to who is in and who is out.
Me either, since there's nowhere to be in or out of.
As far as I’m concerned if asked about hell I pretty much go along with CS Lewis and the metaphors that he uses. He also says that those who are in hell are those who choose it.
Typical religious hooey.
Percy writes:
Why would he have thought it necessary to interrupt his story, to step outside his story, to mention something already familiar to his community? Why would he have been so intimately familiar with the Temple that he knew about the western wall (a retaining wall) and the state the Romans left it in? Or maybe he considered the Temple to be strictly the Temple portion only, and not the entire complex. There are many possible explanations, not just yours. The advantage of any interpretations I make is that they don't require that someone have the ability to foretell the future.
Well, I still maintain that if the destruction had already taken place the Gospel would read differently.
You keep replying with statements of belief instead of evidence and supporting arguments.
My understanding does not require anyone to have specific knowledge about the future, but it requires someone with knowledge of the circumstances to use that knowledge and predict what will happen.
This is still absurd. No one can make detailed and accurate predictions of events 35 years off. Mark is writing after the destruction of the Temple.
Try this exercise. Pick a gospel, any gospel, and scan through it asking yourself how the information came to the author. The impossibility of much of it being available to anyone is obvious. For instance Matthew 1:18. How did Matthew know that Mary was with child of the Holy Spirit?
Percy writes:
Now you're playing both sides of the fence. You can't argue that Mark wrote about the destruction of the Temple because eyewitnesses were dying off - the event hadn't happened yet. You could only make that argument if Mark wrote after the destruction of the Temple.
My comment wasn’t about the Temple but Mark’s motivation for compiling the book at all.
But we were discussing Mark's having Jesus prophesize the destruction of the Temple - why wouldn't you stay on topic and respond about the destruction of the Temple? Can you comment now?
Percy writes:
What Luke explains in his Gospel is about *his* gospel, not the Gospel of Mark.
Yes, but all the synoptics overlap to varying degrees so I think that it is safe to assume that they used much of the same source material. I know many people say that Matthew and John used Mark as source material but personally I disagree.
Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. John possibly used Mark in very minor ways. Your beliefs are way outside the mainstream.
Percy writes:
We agree. Hey, twice in one message, a record.
One of us must be learning something. I think that I’ll go with the idea that it’s you.
I'm learning a lot, including that many of your views are not widely held.
Percy writes:
But your earlier argument, that the presence of the resurrection in the story is convincing evidence that the story is true, is bollocks. It's an old plotline used over and over.
I don’t think I said that.
I don't think you did either, sorry about that. You actually said it about the crucifixion, not the resurrection. You argued that any 1st century Jew making up a believable story would not include something as unbelievable and unacceptable as a crucified messiah, therefore the gospels are not made up. I argue that an idea that catches on, wherever it came from and whether it's true or not, will be exploited and promoted. We see this all the time. For instance, a third of the country has enthusiastically taken up the notion that Trump tells the truth, is an honest businessman, is a great president, and is being unfairly attacked in the press. Inconceivable I know, but the idea caught on and took off like wildfire.
Concerning the resurrection, "Oh no, he's dead, sadness and weeping" followed by "Wonder of wonders, he's alive, cheering and celebration" is a very old and much used plotline. There's nothing particularly inconceivable about a plot where crucifixion is followed by resurrection.
My point is that the accounts are written in a way that it is clear that the Gospel accounts were written by people who believed them to be true.
I think tons of people possess the talent to write fiction as if it were true. Memoirs of a Geisha, written like an autobiography, is one example that comes to mind.
That is not conclusive evidence as they may have been wrong. Also, it isn’t something that they would have come up with. It is completely outside what Jews at the time believed about a messiah. (Maybe the plot lines came from copying the Gospels.)
What makes you keep saying this? Do you never read fiction that has amazing twists? The Jews tried a couple hundred years of messiahs that didn't work out because they kept getting themselves killed, then the Jews finally hit upon the idea of a dead messiah that miraculously returned to life and then immediately disappeared, er, I mean ascended to heaven. But trust us, thousands of witnesses saw him before his departure, cross our hearts.
PS. Can we stick to one post at a time instead of sending another one prior to me replying to one you’ve already sent. As I said this becomes a full time unpaid position.
I'll see what I can do. Maybe we can get you an internship that pays a little - can you code?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1069 by GDR, posted 11-29-2018 9:24 PM GDR has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1079 of 1677 (844484)
11-30-2018 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1070 by Phat
11-30-2018 6:47 AM


Re: Persuading The Peanut Gallery
Phat writes:
percy writes:
I'm not an atheist. I believe in God, but I also believe that no religion has the correct story.
Integrity counts here. How persuasive is the storyteller?
How persuasive? You're reducing truth to rhetorical skills? Is that what you base your decisions on? Boy, I'd love to be a glad handing, fast talking salesman when you walk onto my used car lot. Or maybe you want to buy a bridge?
Not all stories can be corroborated through evidence and in these cases, the persuasiveness of the authors and characters go a long way in carrying forth the belief throughout the culture.
In the absence of evidence you've got nothing on which to base a decision. Seeking out other qualities like "persuasiveness" will get you nowhere but cheated. Can I sell you some Dutch tulip futures?
Here at EvC, we have touched on many of the issues regarding a need for belief...
If you want to talk about a need for belief than you're on your own.
...balanced against the duty of skepticism and demand for evidence.
Skepticism and evidence - now you're talking!
Percy writes:
My God gives purpose to the universe, a purpose unknown to us. Our role, if any, if we're not some side effect or unintended consequence, is miniscule. We have not as yet uncovered or encountered any evidence of God, so people who believe he exists do so solely on a foundation of faith.
Perhaps GDR believes that our role is based on the persuasion of scripture and its authors. Did Jesus really say what it was written that He said? If so, He counts as a persuasive individual in regards to current belief. As does Paul. If, on the other hand, the authors are not known, the persuasion factor drops by quite a bit. The belief then becomes empty.
All belief not underpinned by evidence is empty. The main difference between my and GDR's spiritual beliefs is that I know mine have no evidence.
percy writes:
My mind is open concerning how much the gospel writers believed what they wrote, but what difference does it make? Just believing something true doesn't make it so.
GDR seems persuasive. So does PaulK. Consider what each of them is attempting to persuade the peanut gallery to conclude.
It doesn't matter what they're attempting to persuade people of. It isn't the what that matters, it's how you get to the what. If the how doesn't include evidence then the what is worthless.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1070 by Phat, posted 11-30-2018 6:47 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1081 of 1677 (844573)
12-02-2018 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1080 by GDR
12-01-2018 3:32 AM


Re: Giving It All Up and Urging Everyone To Do Likewise
GDR writes:
Percy writes:
Yeah, bad ones. Your version has it that Jesus was an astute political forecaster who could see 30 years into the future for information irrelevant both to the people he was talking to (the forecasted events were too far in the future) and to the people in the future (who by that time would be Christians and wouldn't care about the Temple).
I don’t think he even had to be that astute in regards to the likelihood and the outcome of the revolution.
I was confused at first, but now I see that you're replying to my Message 1067, not Message 1068.
There was no unusual Jewish unrest anywhere near the time of Jesus. He'd have to be beyond astute and well into the prophetic to see that 30 or 40 years on there would be a Roman/Jewish war.
There was a strong revolutionary movement...
Around Jesus's time? What makes you think so? I could unearth no historical evidence of a Jewish revolutionary movement during this period. The gospels were written after the first Jewish/Roman war, and they obviously projected the unrest of that period backward in time to what they thought was the time of Jesus. That they got this so wrong is more evidence that they got much else wrong, too.
He was predicting the outcome and that Yahweh would not be bailing them out as the revolutionaries hoped.
The apostles were not revolutionaries. Can you find anyplace in the gospels or the epistles where Jesus preached revolution against the Romans? He preached the opposite. For example, his admonition to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's is a clear indication that he cared not what king ruled on earth.
His message again was that if you fight evil with evil, evil always wins. Likely the war happened later than Jesus thought it would, but that is just a guess on my part.
If Jesus is one of the three persons of God, as you believe, then he would not have gotten the time of the first Jewish/Roman war wrong.
They would still care about the Temple. They were Jews who believed that Jesus was the hoped for messiah even though He wasn’t what they had anticipated. He was about defeating the Romans by changing their hearts and rebuilding the Temple in the hearts of those that followed His message of love. The Temple was still a place of worship and would have been meaningful to them.
So from context it seems by "they" you mean the people Jesus was talking to (as opposed to the people 30-40 years on who would have been Christians). Of course they would care about the Temple. I never said otherwise. What I did say is that the destruction of the Temple would be irrelevant to Christians 30-40 years on who wouldn't care about the Temple.
Percy writes:
Accounts that differ on some points cannot both be right.
They can’t both be right about the details where they differ but they can both be right on the main event. It is like witnesses to a car accident. They might differ on the details but the accident did happen.
Or it's like one guy claiming there was a spectacular car accident that never happened, but people believed him and passed the story on, elaborating variously on the details.
Percy writes:
I think your familiarity with the Bible gets you in trouble. You frequently connect unrelated Biblical passages as if they supported your claims when they don't. Ephesians 6:12 is from a letter that was once thought Pauline but is now believed otherwise about the struggle being spiritual rather than physical. Mark 13:1-2 is Jesus talking about the destruction of the Temple, a very physical event.
The connection is that Jesus is talking about the physical destruction of the Temple...
Ephesians 6 and Marc 13 are not connected by "physical destruction of the Temple." Ephesians 6 doesn't even mention the Temple or the destruction of anything.
Percy writes:
And you once said religion should not be reduced to a set of rules that one follows in order to receive some reward, but what is Ephesians if not a lengthy set of rules?
Ephesians isn’t a set of rules but it talks about what Jesus’ command of loving our neighbours looks like when it is implemented.
If Ephesians 6 isn't a set of rules then what is it? Here's the beginning:
quote:
Ephesians 6 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2Honor your father and motherwhich is the first commandment with a promise 3so that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth. 4Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.
etc...etc...etc...
See, rule after rule after rule.
Percy writes:
Not in Ephesians 6:12 he's not. It's not even Jesus talking, it's just the writings of someone once thought to be Paul. And if you meant Mark 13 then Mark doesn't say anything about God not intervening to prevent a Jewish defeat. He does say this, though:
quote:
Mark 13 30"Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."
This is Mark having Jesus say roughly when the Temple will be destroyed, more evidence that Mark wrote after the destruction of the Temple.
Again, if Mark was writing this after the war you are basing it on the idea that Mark is doing that to prove Jesus was correct in what He had predicted. I just don’t see that. In the first place we are looking at an event about 38 years after Jesus would have said this. I rather think that that would be seen as being outside the boundaries of this generation. If Mark was trying to fabricate something I doubt that he would have used that to establish a time frame.
I didn't say Mark was fabricating anything. Maybe he believed what he wrote ("compiled," as you like to say), maybe he didn't. Who knows?
And Mark absolutely *was* establishing a timeframe. He wanted his audience to know how long ago Jesus had foretold the destruction of the Temple that lay in their recent past. We don't know when Jesus lived or died or if he was even real. Maybe it was 38 years between Mark 13 and 70 CE, maybe it was something else. But if you believe Mark 13 then you have to believe that when Jesus says that "this generation will certainly not pass away before all these things have happened" he means that at least some of the current generation will still be alive to witness the destruction of the Temple. Mark was setting a timeframe for Jesus's ministry, that it was one to three generations ago. He was understandably vague since he didn't really know how long ago Jesus lived.
IMHO Jesus predicted the destruction but that it didn’t happen as soon as He thought it would.
You do realize you're saying that one of the three persons of God got something wrong.
However, the point was that this is what would happen if they went ahead with a revolution.
Again (and again), it makes no sense to tell people not to revolt 30 or 40 years before the revolt.
This would vindicate His message of non-violent revolution and they would then understand that Daniel’s prophecy was fulfilled in Him.
I assume you're referring to Daniel 9. People can, and have, claimed Daniel means anything they need it to mean. This is from Wikipedia:
quote:
The prophecy has proved notoriously difficult for interpreters, leading to its reputation as the "dismal swamp" of critical exegesis.
They would understand that Jesus was the Son of Man referred to in Daniel’s dream.
I assume you're referring to Daniel 2. Why would Mark 13 cause the apostles to realize that Jesus is the Son of Man from Daniel's dream? Who even cares that he's the Son of Man? The NT writers just co-opted that term from the OT and declared it meant part of the godhead and was prophecy fulfilled in the NT, but it doesn't mean that. The interpretation is invented, something you're familiar with.
This then along with the fact that Jesus had been resurrected which established Him as the one who had been given dominion over the Kingdom of those who followed His message of sacrificial love.
Are you still talking about Mark 13? Because in Mark 13 Jesus's resurrection still lies in the future, so you can't refer to it as a past event.
In light of this I can’t see it having been written after the war for several reasons. Firstly it doesn’t make sense that Mark would say that this generation shall not pass away until all these things take place. It did happen 38 years later making his predicting it happening in this generation something of a stretch. There is nothing saying that he is using this to confirm a prophecy. He just isn’t making an issue of it. It is one line in 2 of the Gospels. Thirdly, as has been pointed out some of the Temple did remain standing to this day.
You're repeating the same problematical statements here that I rebutted above. The 38 years isn't gospel - Mark had no idea how long ago Jesus's ministry was. He thought roughly a generation or two. And of course it's a prophecy. And Mark is a normal person who has, like all of us, imperfect knowledge and so didn't know that some of the Temple complex remained standing. Or maybe he meant only the Temple itself, not the whole complex. But one thing's for sure - he couldn't write about events until after they happened.
Percy writes:
You mean there *was* an "abomination" in the Temple? God *did* intervene to save the Jews from defeat? Angels *did* come to gather the elect? I don't think so.
The abomination in the Temple refers back to the desolation of the city and the sanctuary in Daniel 9;27 and Daniel 11:31 which says
quote:
31 His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation.
It is about the destruction of the Temple.
Daniel is a quagmire that can mean anything you want it mean. Using it just makes your claims more suspect.
Jesus’ message was that God wouldn’t intervene to save the Jews from defeat. They were going the way of the pagan nations in responding to the Romans with an armed revolution.
Where does any gospel say the apostles were planning armed revolution?
The angels would be to point out the establishment of the Kingdom for all nations,
I can't guess what passage you're referring to now, and you ended this sentence with a comma - did something get chopped?
GDR writes:
I agree that they are plain and you have plain got it wrong.
Percy writes:
I can't see why you're saying this to PaulK. I can't see where he got anything wrong or you got anything right.
He kept insisting that it was about end times and clearly is about Jesus talking about what would happen if they engaged in violent revolution with the Romans.
You have an active imagination. Assuming you're back to Mark 13, Jesus never mentions the Romans.
Percy writes:
Your views seem way out there for a Christian. You must get into some interesting discussions with your fellow parishioners.
Actually I’m pretty middle of the road Anglican. The more liberal ones consider me conservative and the more conservative ones consider me liberal.
I doubt that very much. You're well outside the traditional bounds of liberal Anglicanism.
Percy writes:
And if you replied to all my messages instead of just half you'd have to work double shifts!
I haven’t had much time today but it’s now midnight and I’m trying to get through 2 of your replies.
I was just kidding. Take your time. I'll note that you've now moved on to my Message 1068.
Percy writes:
So the OT authors were just schmucks working under threat or a need for approval - no "inspired by God" there.
You are using a fundamentalist view of inspiration. I believe that God inspired people to write down their story which does not mean He dictated it. The stories are there with human weakness and bias. Like I said earlier I believe that the accounts of genocide and stoning were accurate but their statement that it was God who commanded it is there out bias, fear, justification or some other human failing.
What are you talking about? All I did was repeat your claim that the OT authors were compelled by rulers or driven by a need for approval and were not inspired by God, and now you're contradicting yourself and saying they *were* inspired by God, just not the fundamentalist version of inspiration where the content is dictated (I'm not sure that's really the fundamentalist view of inspired writing, but for now we'll just go with what you say it is), but a different view where they were only inspired to write stuff down, and what they wrote was constrained by their own limitations as human beings. What happened to the source of their supposed "inspiration" being compellment by rulers and a need for approval?
Percy writes:
But the NT authors were recounting what they believed to be actual historical events - no "inspired by God" there, either.
Interesting that you're passing up on the "inspired by God" claim.
You make an overly broad claim about the historicity claims of the gospel writers. Only Luke claimed his account historical.
As I said I believe they were inspired to write their accounts to the best of their ability and knowledge, but again, it wasn’t dictated to them by God. I do believe though that God speaks or reached out to us through the Scriptures,...
And you know this how?
...I think it is pretty clear that the other accounts, like Luke, are meant to be taken historically.
So you're just going to take Luke's word on his say so?
Percy writes:
Put in other terms, you denigrate the OT authors because their accounts are not consistent with a loving God, and you elevate the NT authors because theirs are. Or are they? This is Jesus, one of the three persons of God, encouraging violence against slaves:
quote:
Luke 12:47 "The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows."
This is a parable or metaphor that fits in with the world of Jesus’ day.
Yes, it fits very well. Jesus is not part of God transcending this world with a message of love. He's merely part of this world where beating servants and slaves is just fine because it was standard practice at the time.
The point was that if we live a life that is the opposite of the golden rule as commanded by Jesus then, as we see in CS Lewis’ book the Great Divorce, we lead ourselves to our own destruction. Jesus is certainly not advocating flogging.
It's kinda hard to avoid the fact that Jesus is advocating flogging. Would a loving God really say that if a servant or slave screws up that he should be beaten? You're just rationalizing your unsupported assertions that the OT authors are suspect the NT authors aren't. The fact of the matter is that that's just something you happen to believe, not something you can show is likely true.
GDR writes:
No, I'm following the God whose nature was perfectly embodied by Jesus as told in the NT. For that matter, everyone follows a god that is palatable to them. That god might be a religion, or it might be any number of earthly things such as money, power or love of others. Everyone bases their life on something.
Percy writes:
Once again you're conceding what everyone has been saying. But in your next message you'll continue on as if you didn't realize you'd already conceded.
No. I am following God as I truly believe Him to be. I agree that if He wasn’t palatable to me I wouldn’t follow Him. As I’ve said before that if I really believed that God commanded genocide and public stoning, or for that matter wanted me to kill infidels, then I might believe in that God but I wouldn’t follow Him.
Again, you're just brewing your own. You take what you feel comfortable with and discard the rest.
I have done my best to show that God as I follow Him is consistent with the 3 pillars of Anglican Christianity which are Scripture.
The God you follow is not consistent in any way with "3 pillars of Anglican Christianity which are Scripture," because you pick and choose according to what best comports with your sensibilities.
I’m not saying that I have everything right but I have done my best through prayer and study to answer Pilate’s question of what is truth
When it comes to religious beliefs, everyone who believes they have anything specific right is wrong. The only reason we're having this discussion is that you think your religious beliefs are the result of rational analysis when they definitely are not.
Well, there are 2 of your posts answered with one to go. It’s after midnight and I’m going to bed.
G'nite.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1080 by GDR, posted 12-01-2018 3:32 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1082 by Phat, posted 12-02-2018 10:34 AM Percy has replied
 Message 1085 by GDR, posted 12-02-2018 10:58 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 1084 of 1677 (844608)
12-02-2018 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1082 by Phat
12-02-2018 10:34 AM


Re: Bringing Philosophy To The Table
Phat writes:
Percy writes:
All belief not underpinned by evidence is empty. The main difference between my and GDR's spiritual beliefs is that I know mine have no evidence.
I disagree. Imagination is not worthless if well thought out.
You have to know how you know things. If you don't know how you know something then you don't really know it. Say there's something you think you know, like that Safeway has more supermarkets in Denver than any other chain. How do you know this? How do you know it's not Shop 'n Save or King Soopers? Your imagination is not going to help you, not in this or in knowing anything at all.
Imagination is one of the tools you can employ to interpret evidence, but by itself it is useless. Without evidence you've got nothing. If you don't believe this then use your imagination (not the Internet) to tell me what a cacomistle or a fylfot is.
If I were arguing with a 14 year old troll about God, the argument may well likely be worthless, but if I were arguing with the late Stan Lee, for example, the discussion would likely become quite philosophical and entertaining.
And if it were underpinned by evidence the discussion might actual include things that are true.
In essence, I am throwing my hat in the ring with the idea that we all make up the God that we want (or stand on lack of evidence for such a critter)
What most people who sincerely hold some sort of spiritual beliefs have in common is that they want to employ unsound methods of knowing things, like using persuasiveness as criteria.
It isn't the what that matters, it's how you get to the what. If the how doesn't include evidence then the what is worthless.
What sort of evidence can one provide apart from methodical reasoning and creativity?
You can reason creatively about evidence, but if you have no evidence then no amount of reasoning or creativity will arrive at anything true about the real world..
Jesus, being the first (and the last) human to exhibit this nature,...
Assuming that by "this nature" you mean reasoning and creativity, why would you say something like that? What about ancient scientists like Archimedes, Aristotle and Pythagoras, to name just three before Jesus. And what about Galileo, Newton and Einstein, to name three scientists exhibiting "this nature" after Jesus. See, you just said something you thought true but had no evidence for, and I proved you wrong with evidence.
The rest of what you say is so far off my map that I won't comment. I'll just repeat that to know something true about the real world requires evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1082 by Phat, posted 12-02-2018 10:34 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1096 of 1677 (844666)
12-03-2018 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1085 by GDR
12-02-2018 10:58 PM


Re: Giving It All Up and Urging Everyone To Do Likewise
I'd like to start with what you say at the end:
GDR writes:
There I’m caught up with you. If you reply can you please edit things down a bit.
I think you've mentioned the messages being two long a few times now, and I've resisted responding frankly, but I will now. Of course I reply to anything that seems wrong or raises questions, but I also reply to anything dismissive or evasive or that misinterprets, in which case I repeat or restate what I said. This is why our messages are unnecessarily long and accumulating a backlog of issues. For example, from your message (which begins by replying to my Message 1078 - there's a [msg] dBCode, by the way):
Percy writes:
Out of fear of what? Arrest? Peter was present when the guards showed up to make tt the arrest, and they only arrested Jesus, which was what they had been instructed to do. Once the guards were gone what did Peter have to be afraid of? He already knew they had no interest in arresting him, so he couldn't have been afraid of being reported of being an associate of Jesus and being arrested because just minutes before he had been right there beside Jesus when Jesus was arrested and he was not. Though fear makes sense, the gospel stories, which seem nearly identical about this, don't even make clear why Peter denied Jesus. This is a part of the Jesus story you should discard. It probably got included in all three synoptics because it shows Jesus foretelling the future again, and because of the drama that it caused Peter such pain.
You’re right that it wasn’t fear of the Roman guards that was the problem. It wasn’t like Jesus had a military following that would concern the Romans. However, as the text said they were afraid of the Jewish leaders., who would have considered them guilty of heresy.
I never said Roman guards, just "guards," meaning the armed people sent by the chief priests and elders to arrest Jesus. That I knew the guards (or whatever term you prefer) were sent by the chief priests and elders is clear in the very next paragraph where, in the things I list that Jesus did that day, his appearance before the chief priests and elders is listed first.
Repeating my point, why would Peter fear arrest, since just minutes before he had been right there beside Jesus when Jesus was arrested and he was not. Though fear makes sense, the gospel stories, which seem nearly identical about this, don't even make clear why Peter denied Jesus. This is a part of the Jesus story you should discard. It probably got included in all three synoptics because it shows Jesus foretelling the future again, and because of the drama that it caused Peter such pain.
Returning to the original point, my messages would be shorter if I didn't have to repeat myself so often and if we could resolve some issues. For example, "agree to disagree" seems like a way to avoid addressing a point, so I would likely try again to get an answer.
Percy writes:
Am I really splitting hairs? Or are you conflating events. Was it the crucifixion that sent the apostles into depression and hiding, or the arrest? Make up your mind.
Once the arrest was made Peter would know that it wouldn’t go well.
Why do you say this, since I had just finished saying that when Jesus was arrested Peter was right there with him and was not arrested. Why would Peter fear it wouldn't go well? Because it fits well with the rest of the narrative you've invented? Or do you have an actual reason?
Percy writes:
Peter's denial marks the beginning of the story of Jesus's last day on Earth, about which the synoptic accounts differ. Matthew's and Mark's accounts could possibly fit in a single day if Pilate is just sitting around doing nothing on the day of a big feast and is available and willing to hear complaints about an obscure Jewish preacher who, despite supposedly causing all this ruckus and trouble, Pilate has never heard of. But Luke's account cannot possibly be true because there is too much going on for it to happen in so short a period of time. Jesus could not have gone before the priests and elders and then before Pilate and then before Herod Antipas and then before Pilate again and then before a crowd and then to his crucifixion in a single day.
He was arrested at night, everything was close together and none of the so called trials would last long. It could easily have been done in that time frame.
I just explained why it couldn't "easily have been done in that time frame." Declaring that it could so be "done in that time frame" is not really a response.
Percy writes:
But I didn't inquire about any denial of Jesus. I asked about your claims about the apostles reaction to the crucifixion. I said I wasn't aware that the crucifixion caused the apostles to consider Jesus a failed messiah. I *have* read the gospels, and that the crucifixion caused them to consider Jesus a failed messiah doesn't sound familiar. I'd be ever so grateful if you could save me the trouble of reading the end portion of all the gospels and tell me where they say this.
It is because as we can see in Josephus that when the other messianic leaders were put to death their movements ended and their mission failed. I’ve called them failed messiahs, but you can use whatever term you want.
This isn't really something I can respond to. It seems like you're giving up on contesting that there's nothing in the gospels that says the apostles considered Jesus a failed messiah, but without saying so. The apostles witnessed Jesus perform a miracle right at his arrest (restoring the severed ear). Even the Roman guard at the crucifixion commented that Jesus was truly the son of God. Everything in the gospels is positive, because they're foreshadowing the miracle that is to come, the resurrection. The apostles did not consider Jesus a failed messiah.
Percy writes:
The question in Acts 1:6 is not asking Jesus to lead an army to expel the Romans. It's about whether Jesus will employ his divine and miraculous powers to restore the kingdom of Israel.
They are still thinking that Jesus as messiah will somehow lead them in the defeat of the Romans, to get rid of them and restore the Kingdom of Israel.
This idea seems out of the blue. Nothing in Acts says anything like this. The apostles merely ask Jesus if he will restore the kingdom of Israel. There's nothing about defeating the Romans or anything military at all, and Jesus's ministry was never about that. Your claim that the apostles somehow thought that Jesus's ministry was about a military campaign to expel the Romans from Israel is made up out of whole cloth.
I have no idea if they were thinking of a military victory or something else,...
This seems inconsistent from one sentence to the next. You just finished saying that the apostles would "lead them in defeat of the Romans," and now you're saying you have no idea if it would be military or not.
...but they were still thinking that the messiah would get rid of the Romans and put them back in power.
Yes, precisely, on this we agree.
Percy writes:
Ah, I see, we're "interpreting" again. John 20:19 says nothing about hiding out. There are only locked doors.
C’mon, it does say that they feared the Jewish authorities behind locked doors.
Yes, that's exactly what it says, and nowhere does it say anything about hiding out. Further, the gospel stories have significant internal inconsistencies. The apostles supposedly fear the Jewish authorities yet a short time later walk freely about Jerusalem. And the doors aren't even necessarily locked. John 20:19 in the NIV has the doors locked for fear of Jewish leaders, while RSV only has them shut for fear of the Jews. Actually, the doors being shut rather than locked would make hiding make a lot more sense - they didn't want passing Jews to look in and see that they were there. Locked doors just make it seem like they were pretty sure the Jewish leaders knew where they were but wanted to prevent their entry. Maybe your impressions of what this passage means come from the RSV or similar translation.
This is John writing well after the resurrection. He isn’t saying that somebody said this at the time.
I don't think you're talking about John 20:19 anymore. Though you don't say, my best guess is that you're referring to John 19:32-37, a passage that I mentioned in my message but that you didn't quote. But if I'm guessing correctly then what you say still makes little sense. Why do you say, "He isn’t saying that somebody said this at the time"? The passage doesn't appear to have anybody saying anything, and I didn't say that it did. Here's what I said from my Message 1078 that you didn't quote:
Percy in Message 1078 writes:
And about considering Jesus a failed messiah, you haven't provided a shred of support. In fact, John 19:32-37 speaks of prophecy being fulfilled, something bound to encourage the apostles.
You go on to say:
These are John’s words using the Scriptures to make his point.
That's exactly what I said, though in different words: "John 19:32-37 speaks of prophecy being fulfilled."
A crucified messiah is a messiah who was put to death and had failed to do what they believed a messiah was supposed to do.
Where do you see anything in John:32-37 even remotely touching on this claim? Did I guess wrong about what passage you're talking about? If I did then please clarify. But whether I did or not, it would make discussion less confusing if you could be explicit about which passage you're talking about instead of just saying "John" or "Daniel's dream" and so forth. Remember, I'm not even a Christian (I began as a Unitarian, a true one, not one of those Unitarian/Universalist milquetoasts, but have moved on). Though I've read the Bible, I'm not steeped in it and don't have anything close to your familiarity.
Percy writes:
What you call explanations are not really explanations. What you say usually only raises questions or objections, to which you often merely reply, "I've already explained," forcing people to repeat themselves (another thing that makes messages longer). If you truly believe that all religion is man-made, that the Bible is not literally inerrant, and that it's okay to make your own subjective Biblical interpretations, then you've opened up a Pandora's box where every view is equal. If you're free to say that some passage has "this meaning," then someone else is free to say it has "that meaning." If you're free to say that "this much" of the Bible is open to interpretation, then someone else is free to say it's "that much." I think we're all still wondering why you seem blind to the obvious implications of your approach to making interpretations.
I seem to have to answer this about every third post.
I'm guessing there's general agreement (if I'm wrong about this then people should let me know) that while it is apparent that you think you're answering this, you're really not. There are lots of words, but in the end it appears that you alternate between two positions: a) that what you believe is true and supported by evidence (like that everything that happened after Jesus's arrest could have happened in a single day); and b) that it's just belief.
It isn’t absolute knowledge. We all have to work it out for ourselves. The Bible is a library of 66 books with hundreds of authors with different agendas, motivations and literary skills. You can I suppose, but it doesn’t make sense, read them all with the same understanding. If you want to insist that to believe the resurrection accounts you have to believe that Yahweh commanded genocide and public stoning then so be it.
No one's questioning whether you have to believe it or not. We're questioning your justification for believing "NT good, OT speak with forked tongue."
GDR writes:
As far as the command to love is concerned it is pretty obvious that the more we apply that in our cultures that better off everyone is.
Percy writes:
Hey, agreement again, but where is the connection to God?
If God exists then if we go in the direction He wants us to go then the world should go better. We can see that the world that is driven by love is a better place so I see that as evidence of the fact that that is how He wants us to live our lives.
How do you know that love is the direction God wants you to go. Just because that's more palatable to you? That's fine if that's how you want to go, but that leaves you bereft of any way to persuade people who have grown attached to evidence leading the way toward what is true about the real world. The fact of the matter is that love (which doesn't completely capture what we really mean, but it's concise and will serve for now) will make the world a better place whether that's what God wants or not, or whether God exists or not.
Percy writes:
I know nothing of Anglicanism, but given your cavalier attitudes about which parts of the Bible are true or false, or how various parts should be interpreted, I very much doubt you're a traditional Anglican. For example, both Old and New Testament are considered the primary authority of Anglicanism (I'm just Googling around), while you see the Old Testament as suspect because in your view its authors were subject to coercion and desire for approval. I also didn't see anything about Anglicanism considering religion man-made, or picking and choosing among Bible passages.
The majority of the quotes that we have from Jesus in the Gospels refer directly to or indirectly to the OT. If we want to understand what Jesus is about we need the OT. I’m not diminishing the OT...
You sure are "diminishing the OT." This is why the messages are getting increasingly long, because you keep denying what you are most definitely doing. When you say that the OT was just written by scribes who were coerced by their leaders and/or were seeking approval, you are definitely "diminishing the OT." You have to get straight about what your words actually mean before we can have a constructive discussion where actual communication is taking place, because if you're not "diminishing the OT" then your words have no meaning.
...but when we look at the passages that say that Yahweh commanded genocide and public stoning and compare that to Jesus’ message such as love your enemy, we have to either go with Jesus or a scribe centuries earlier. I choose Jesus. I know some try but you can’t have it both ways. They are incompatible.
Yes, you are correct, they are incompatible. And so you feel forced into a choice, and you have chosen to favor the NT and denigrate the OT. If you can't admit the meaning of your own words then what's the point of this?
Percy writes:
I've never heard of N. T. Wright, but I bet his views align with your own as much as Anglicanism does, that if I studied him that I'd see very little resemblance to the things you've said in this thread.
You might be surprised. An easy place to start with Wright is this book.Simply Good News
I'm not buying a book to verify your veracity. I know nothing about N. T. Wright, but assuming you've cited him because he's Anglican and reflects Anglican beliefs perhaps you can just quote where N. T. Wright says religion is man-made, advises picking and choosing among Bible passages, and expresses a preference for the NT over OT with regard to trustworthiness?
Percy writes:
Can you really know that you follow an inerrant Jesus? Your information about Jesus can only come from a single source, the New Testament, and if you don't listen to that then your inerrant Jesus is just someone you made up.
Of course I can’t know, It is a faith, but if God resurrected Jesus, (which I believe on the evidence of the Gospels as well as personal experience), then I can take that as a starting point for an inerrant Jesus and go with that. The important part is that we are commanded to love and that is the essence of my faith. The rest is theology which, if we choose to study it, we form our own beliefs. I realize that isn’t at all a conclusive argument, but there is no conclusive argument for any position including atheism.
In case you're implying I'm an atheist, I said earlier that I am not.
I'm not looking for conclusive arguments. I'm just looking for any evidence at all for what you believe. So far we've heard zero evidence for the existence of God, Jesus and the truth of the confabulous parts of the Bible, and you've agreed that it's fine to reject parts of the Bible. I don't see how that's a basis for knowing anything. It's just a basis for arriving at what you already feel comfortable with.
Percy writes:
I can't see how this is related to my response to your comment, "Yes, we should read the Scriptures critically." You're not Jesus. You're not eternal and one of the three persons of God. As a follower of Jesus it is not for you to pick and choose scripture to construct your own spiritual world. Are you sure you're a Christian rather than just someone who really knows his Bible and likes parts of it a great deal? (if you're not going to answer 'em I'm just gonna repeat 'em)
I am a Christian in that I believe that Jesus died on the cross, that God resurrected Him and gave Him dominion over the Kingdom of those who believe in His message of love, and have a heartfelt desire to live out that message of love in their lives. I believe that Jesus is the climax of the Israel story which records the progressive revelation of God to the Jews in the OT and that He inspired individuals to record their histories, their ambitions and dreams, their understandings of the divine in the various literary forms that are used. That does not mean that the Bible was dictated by God, and as a result it does contain contradictions that come from human biases, fears and errors. Just as the writers had their faults, we have ours and we won’t always understand the Bible perfectly. We are just called to understand with the God given gift of wisdom and with prayer.
If the Bible was not dictated by God or at least written by men inspired by God to write what truly happened, then you really have no evidence for anything you believe, except the trivial stuff like Jerusalem is a real place and so forth. Which is fine, except that when that notion is presented to you then you deny it, insisting that the Bible serves as a reliable basis upon which to build a body of belief. The inerrantists have a much, much stronger position than you.
Actually as far as the eternal part goes we should remember that Jesus had an actual day on which He was born.
Everybody that exists or has existed had an actual day on which they were born. You have no evidence Jesus even existed.
John 1 tells us that it was the Word, (or logos) of God that existed from the beginning, and that Jesus embodied that Word so that we would understand the true nature of God. Yes, Jesus was resurrected into a new physicality that was able to move between God’s heavenly universe and the universe that we perceive, but as resurrection and new life is for all creation we do share our timelessness with Jesus.
To me that reads like a bunch of religious mumbo jumbo full of nonsense and meaning nothing. During this exchange I've sometimes been struck by the notion that to you this may not be so much a discussion as an opportunity for you to preach your beliefs.
Hopefully that answers your question.
No, it doesn't answer the question.
Percy writes:
There you go denigrating the OT again. Is that really Anglicanism? Between you and Faith there is some real strange theology going on here. The OT's God is vengeful and deadly, but Faith says that if God does it then it's good and whoever got it had it coming, while you say the OT is suspect. So you put greater credibility on the NT but insist on picking and choosing, like you reject the Ananias/Sapphira story.
Actually Jesus’ message of love is there in the OT as well. This is from Leviticus 19.
quote:
15 ‘Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly. 16 ‘Do not go about spreading slander among your people. ‘Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor’s life. I am the LORD. 17 ‘Do not hate a fellow Israelite in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in their guilt. 18 ‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.
So no one in the couple thousand years before Jesus in the OT actually expressed their own message of love? They're all Jesus's message of love? How did you arrive at that?
Granted that this refers to their neighbour as their fellow Israelites but like I said earlier, it is a progressive revelation.
"Progressive revelation?" As in God revealed part of his true nature in the OT and some more in the NT?
However Leviticus later in the same chapter says this which takes what was said earlier a bit further.
quote:
33 ‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
Same reaction as to your previous Bible quote.
As we get further into the OT we find this verse in Proverbs 25.
quote:
21If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.
Jesus with His profound knowledge of the OT made clear that our understanding of neighbour was to include people of all nations.
Same reaction.
Percy writes:
But where is this God? He exists only as a character in the Bible (and in the books of other religions, but I'm sticking to Christianity), but you hold much of it in such low esteem that you cull out those portions you find unpalatable. You don't really believe in any God of the Bible. You believe in a God of your own making, which makes perfect sense since as you said, all religion is man-made. You're brewing your own.
I don’t actually cull them out. When the Bible tells us that God commanded the genocide of the Canaanites I reject that He did that at all because it is completely inconsistent with the Word of God embodied by Jesus.
You're objecting on the basis of vocabulary? Really? You didn't "actually cull them out", you just "reject" them, and that's a different thing? You should spend some time thinking about why what you're saying is pressing the "I'm speaking sensibly" button in your head.
However, I don’t reject the idea that there was a war, but, I do contend they either believed that God told them to slaughter the Canaanites or they used that as justification. If we look at the results we can see that they were unsuccessful and in over the long term they continued to wind up in slavery to their pagan neighbours. Even though they claim that God told them to go to war we should see them being victorious but it didn’t really work out that way. I’d say that God can speak to us through that and tell us that we should be very discerning when someone tells us that God told them to do something, especially when we hear someone telling us that we should go to war with our neighbours.
So for you that's a good reason for "diminishing" the OT, but when Jesus doesn't return even after 2000 years despite very clearly saying that he'd be back soon, in other words when the guy you consider inerrant makes a major mistake, that's not a good reason for "diminishing" the NT?
Percy writes:
This is still absurd. No one can make detailed and accurate predictions of events 35 years off. Mark is writing after the destruction of the Temple.
I completely disagree. There were a large group of zealots at that time. There was a revolt put down by the Romans in 6AD led by Judas the Galilean who was executing by the Romans ending that revolt. There was another revolt around 46AD led by Judas of Galilee’s sons who also were executed thus ending that revolt. Ultimately Jesus is saying that this will wind up with the Romans destroying Jerusalem and the Temple. That is how Romans responded to rebellion. It wouldn’t be that hard to predict, but it would be a very unpopular message.
So as I said, there's nothing going on around the time of Jesus's ministry. The most recent rebellion was 25 years in the past. That's more than the time between WWI and WWII. People forget wars fast.
Percy writes:
Concerning the resurrection, "Oh no, he's dead, sadness and weeping" followed by "Wonder of wonders, he's alive, cheering and celebration" is a very old and much used plotline. There's nothing particularly inconceivable about a plot where crucifixion is followed by resurrection.
I understand where you are coming from but if they were going to make something up I contend that this isn’t at all what they would come up with. Look at the Gospel story of the Transfiguration. If they were going to make up a story to indicate that Jesus was still alive somehow they would have had Him glowing in a cloud or something along that line. They aren’t going to come up with Him eating fish on the shore. The whole story is not something a small group made up of lower class Jews would come up with and there is no discernible, IMHO, motivation for them to do it anyway.
How do you know the Jesus stories originated with "lower class Jews?" How do you know that "they would have had Him glowing in a cloud or something?" You're professing knowledge you couldn't possibly have, that no one could possibly have, and without an iota of evidence.
OK. Still trying to catch up here. I’ll start responding to your last post to me as well.
I'll note that it is my Message 1081 that you're moving on to.
Percy writes:
Around Jesus's time? What makes you think so? I could unearth no historical evidence of a Jewish revolutionary movement during this period. The gospels were written after the first Jewish/Roman war, and they obviously projected the unrest of that period backward in time to what they thought was the time of Jesus. That they got this so wrong is more evidence that they got much else wrong, too.
OK. I searched about and here is a wiki site. Zealots There is a theory which I’m inclined to believe that Judas was a zealot which would explain his betrayal of Jesus. It would make sense in that Jesus was going around saying that they should play nice with the Romans.
It would also make sense, for the same reason, that the character of Judas the apostle was conflated with Judas of Galilee, the possible founder of the Zealot movement. But there's no way to know. And as I said, there's no record of any strong revolutionary movement around the time of Jesus's ministry.
Percy writes:
The apostles were not revolutionaries. Can you find anyplace in the gospels or the epistles where Jesus preached revolution against the Romans? He preached the opposite. For example, his admonition to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's is a clear indication that he cared not what king ruled on earth.
I didn’t say that the apostles were revolutionaries. Jesus however was preaching an anti-revolutionary message and would expect that his apostles would take that message to the revolutionaries.
Huh? His message consisted of stuff like "you'll be beaten in the synagogues" and so forth. It was definitely a message targeted to his followers, not to the revolutionaries who were devout Jews and definitely would not be beaten in the synagogues.
Jesus was saying that Caesar is an earthly king but that the real King is the one He called Father.
Of course. Jesus plainly says that. I've said he said that. I only question when you fill in the blanks with stuff you for some reason think must be true but has no evidence or rationale.
Percy writes:
If Jesus is one of the three persons of God, as you believe, then he would not have gotten the time of the first Jewish/Roman war wrong.
I know that a lot if not most Christians believe that God knows the future such as what I’ll have for lunch next Thursday. I just don’t see that as part that means the future is closed. (I’ve heard the arguments why that isn’t the case.) I was convinced of this by the writing of John Polkinghorne.
It doesn't matter what is believed about God knowing the future - one of the godhead would not speak falsely, right? He wouldn't speak as if he knew something he actually didn't know.
I read some of Polkinghorne's stuff a long time ago, all I recall now is that it didn't appeal to me.
Percy writes:
So from context it seems by "they" you mean the people Jesus was talking to (as opposed to the people 30-40 years on who would have been Christians). Of course they would care about the Temple. I never said otherwise. What I did say is that the destruction of the Temple would be irrelevant to Christians 30-40 years on who wouldn't care about the Temple.
The first Jewish Christians would still have worshipped in the Temple. I think that it is fairly clear that Jesus meant to reform Judaism and that it wasn’t His intent that He would found a different religion. Mind you, Christianity can be thought of as a Jewish sect.
Sure he meant to reform Judaism, if he was real. But his attempted reform was co-opted by Paul, who I believe stole the idea of Jesus from Peter's community. Peter and Paul are why there are two different theologies in the NT. It's possible that both movements grew at the same time, with Peter's community hewing much closer to Judaism and remaining in Jerusalem since the Temple was still important to them. The documents underpinning the gospels came from this community. After the Roman destruction of the Temple and of Jerusalem the movement there was cast adrift and merged with the churches Paul founded and from which the gospels emerged. Just a possibility. There's no way to know now.
Percy writes:
Ephesians 6 and Mark 13 are not connected by "physical destruction of the Temple." Ephesians 6 doesn't even mention the Temple or the destruction of anything.
It is connected indirectly.
You said, "The connection is that Jesus is talking about the physical destruction of the Temple." I said there's no such connection. You now go on to argue that the connection is something different:
Ephesians is again making the argument that it isn’t the Romans that are the enemy but that the enemy is evil itself. Ephesians 6 tells us this.
quote:
10Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. 12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
This again is the anti-revolutionary message that Jesus preached. The enemy isn’t an enemy of flesh and blood but against the spiritual forces of evil.
I agree they're connected in the way you now describe here. But they are not connected by the destruction of the Temple, as you claimed in your previous message and which was the point I was making.
Percy writes:
If Ephesians 6 isn't a set of rules then what is it? Here's the beginning:
quote:
Ephesians 6 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2Honor your father and motherwhich is the first commandment with a promise 3so that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth. 4Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.
etc...etc...etc...
See, rule after rule after rule.
These are rules based on Jesus’ command to love. They are not rules such as don’t eat pork or don’t do any work on the Sabbath. They are rules of the heart which is a very different thing. It is giving practical suggestions of how it looks when we love our parents or our children.
Interesting but irrelevant distinction that you didn't see fit to mention until now, as if you're objecting to the characterization of Ephesians being full of rules just for the sake of objecting.
Percy writes:
I didn't say Mark was fabricating anything. Maybe he believed what he wrote ("compiled," as you like to say), maybe he didn't. Who knows?
And Mark absolutely *was* establishing a timeframe. He wanted his audience to know how long ago Jesus had foretold the destruction of the Temple that lay in their recent past. We don't know when Jesus lived or died or if he was even real. Maybe it was 38 years between Mark 13 and 70 CE, maybe it was something else. But if you believe Mark 13 then you have to believe that when Jesus says that "this generation will certainly not pass away before all these things have happened" he means that at least some of the current generation will still be alive to witness the destruction of the Temple. Mark was setting a timeframe for Jesus's ministry, that it was one to three generations ago. He was understandably vague since he didn't really know how long ago Jesus lived.
I can agree with that although I don’t get your point in the very last sentence. His readers at the time would know how long ago Jesus lived and Mark certainly would have.
What makes you think Mark's readers would know when Jesus lived? How would anyone back then know anything about Jesus? I thought that was the whole point of evangelizing, to bring the good news that Christ is risen and that people's sins are forgiven. If the whole Jesus story was common knowledge where would be the need for evangelists?
And what makes you think Mark knew when Jesus lived? His information came from other sources that he believed.
GDR writes:
IMHO Jesus predicted the destruction but that it didn’t happen as soon as He thought it would.
Percy writes:
You do realize you're saying that one of the three persons of God got something wrong.
As I said earlier I believe that the future is open and as a result the future is unknowable even to God. I’m saying that Jesus understood the political climate and predicted how things were going to go. There was a smaller revolt about 15 years after Jesus’ crucifixion that didn’t result in the destruction. It took the 66-70AD war to do that.
So, as I asked earlier, why would a member of the godhead say something he didn't know was true?
Percy writes:
I assume you're referring to Daniel 9. People can, and have, claimed Daniel means anything they need it to mean.
I didn’t phrase my point at all well. The point that I wanted to make was that Daniel 9, said this:
quote:
And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.
which showed that what Jesus was saying was a physical event concerning the Temple and not about end times.
Now you're picking and choosing Bible passages again. Why don't you quote all the "sevens" stuff, too? Daniel has a lot of inscrutable babble.
Percy writes:
I assume you're referring to Daniel 2. Why would Mark 13 cause the apostles to realize that Jesus is the Son of Man from Daniel's dream? Who even cares that he's the Son of Man? The NT writers just co-opted that term from the OT and declared it meant part of the godhead and was prophecy fulfilled in the NT, but it doesn't mean that. The interpretation is invented, something you're familiar with.
Actually it is Daniel 7 and a first century Jew would have very much understood what He meant. Compare these passages. Mark 13
quote:
26At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.
and Daniel 7
quote:
13In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
It would have been very clear to His Jewish audience.
But "son of man" doesn't have the same meaning in Mark and Daniel. In Daniel "son of man" seems like something supernatural, maybe an angel, while in Mark and the other gospels "Son of Man" is just a person. If they made a connection it was for the same reason you do, out of wishful thinking that there is a connection, that Daniel was prophesying the coming of Jesus. Wouldn't it be wonderful if there was such a thing as prophecy.
GDR writes:
This then along with the fact that Jesus had been resurrected which established Him as the one who had been given dominion over the Kingdom of those who followed His message of sacrificial love.
Percy writes:
Are you still talking about Mark 13? Because in Mark 13 Jesus's resurrection still lies in the future, so you can't refer to it as a past event.
This isn’t about the resurrection.
Say what? You just finished connecting Daniel 7 and Mark 13 through the "son of man" reference, and then you say they're also connected through the resurrection, but in Mark 13 Jesus's resurrection lies still in the future, so you can't connect those passages through the resurrection.
Percy writes:
You're repeating the same problematical statements here that I rebutted above. The 38 years isn't gospel - Mark had no idea how long ago Jesus's ministry was. He thought roughly a generation or two. And of course it's a prophecy. And Mark is a normal person who has, like all of us, imperfect knowledge and so didn't know that some of the Temple complex remained standing. Or maybe he meant only the Temple itself, not the whole complex. But one thing's for sure - he couldn't write about events until after they happened.
We are just going to have to agree to disagree. I really don’t have anything to add that I haven’t already said. Frankly it is a matter of interest but not a matter that affects my theological beliefs.
In other words, you're out of ammo.
Percy writes:
Where does any gospel say the apostles were planning armed revolution?
There was no plan but they obviously believed that somehow Jesus was going to overthrow the Romans. They only method they would know of would be armed rebellion. There are the arguments about sitting on His right and left which would be about when He achieved earthly power for example.
That's ridiculous. They only asked about reestablishing the kingdom of Israel, not how to expel the Romans. And after all the miracles they've witnessed they would easily be able to imagine methods other than armed rebellion.
Percy writes:
I doubt that very much. You're well outside the traditional bounds of liberal Anglicanism.
Actually I don’t consider myself a liberal Anglican but I may lean a little in that direction. Have you ever read Borg or Crossan? Those are the Liberal ones.
Looking at my bookshelf I see I've read three books by Crossan, but long enough ago that I don't recall a thing: The Essential Jesus; Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography; Who Killed Jesus. You'll have to remind me what he thinks.
GDR writes:
As I said I believe they were inspired to write their accounts to the best of their ability and knowledge, but again, it wasn’t dictated to them by God. I do believe though that God speaks or reached out to us through the Scriptures,...
Percy writes:
And you know this how?
To the best of my ability I am using the three legs of Anglicanism which are Scripture, tradition and reason. I would also add personal life experience but that I know that won’t carry any weight with anyone except myself.
So there's nothing you can say that would tell me why you think God inspired the scripture writers "to write their accounts to the best of their ability and knowledge, but again, it wasn't dictated to them by God." If I wanted to argue that position myself, there's no ammunition you could provide me.
Percy writes:
So you're just going to take Luke's word on his say so?
Yes
If Luke's a historian then I'm an evangelical.
Percy writes:
Yes, it fits very well. Jesus is not part of God transcending this world with a message of love. He's merely part of this world where beating servants and slaves is just fine because it was standard practice at the time. It's kinda hard to avoid the fact that Jesus is advocating flogging. Would a loving God really say that if a servant or slave screws up that he should be beaten? You're just rationalizing your unsupported assertions that the OT authors are suspect, the NT authors aren't. The fact of the matter is that that's just something you happen to believe, not something you can show is likely true.
The Jews were always being enslaved, so they would understand the reference. This is a parable or a metaphor. However, I agree that the passage is problematic but it is clear in reading through the NT that Jesus is not in favour of beating servants or slaves, whether it is specifically referred to or not. We can see in Paul’s book called Philimon that He is calling for better treatment of slaves and that would come from his understanding of what Jesus taught.
Well sure it's a metaphor, but if we switch to that context then we've got a vengeful God, just like in the OT.
Percy writes:
When it comes to religious beliefs, everyone who believes they have anything specific right is wrong. The only reason we're having this discussion is that you think your religious beliefs are the result of rational analysis when they definitely are not.
Well I guess that is your specific belief and again we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
If your beliefs had a sound basis then you'd be able to arm me with evidence and rationale that I could argue with others with a straight face.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Fix the definitions of "son of man" that were reversed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1085 by GDR, posted 12-02-2018 10:58 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1097 by PaulK, posted 12-03-2018 4:32 PM Percy has replied
 Message 1100 by GDR, posted 12-03-2018 6:48 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1099 of 1677 (844673)
12-03-2018 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1097 by PaulK
12-03-2018 4:32 PM


Re: Giving It All Up and Urging Everyone To Do Likewise
PaulK writes:
While GDR is definitely misrepresenting Daniel (Daniel IS End Times prophecy so how can citing it be nothing to do with the End Times?) you’re wrong about the Son of Man.
I was going by my recollection from reading the Wikipedia article on the Son of man from a few days ago, and it looked like I recollected it backwards. It says what you say about its use in Daniel, but that it's use in the gospels is "an emphatic equivalent of the first-person pronoun, I/me/my."
Thanks for the tip, I'll fix my post.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1097 by PaulK, posted 12-03-2018 4:32 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1105 of 1677 (844743)
12-04-2018 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1100 by GDR
12-03-2018 6:48 PM


Re: Giving It All Up and Urging Everyone To Do Likewise
GDR writes:
Percy writes:
Why do you say this, since I had just finished saying that when Jesus was arrested Peter was right there with him and was not arrested. Why would Peter fear it wouldn't go well? Because it fits well with the rest of the narrative you've invented? Or do you have an actual reason?
At the time of the actual arrest Peter obviously still had it in his head that the messiah would lead them against the Romans.
Why do you think this? What did Jesus do or say during his ministry to even hint at this? How could Jesus preach a spiritual kingdom while the apostles, despite all evidence to the contrary, thought Jesus preached a material kingdom?
His response initially was to get out his sword and start the battle.
You don't say, so I'll assume you mean the battle to reestablish Israel. Are you actually claiming that the apostles thought that battling the priest's guards was the beginning of the battle with Rome? If you are then that's ludicrous, laughable, ridiculous and nonsense. Where would the apostles get the idea that Jesus planned to do battle with Rome, and why would they attack Jewish guards to begin that battle?
About Peter pulling out a sword, only John, the last and most absurd gospel, says this. By the way, John is also the account that mentions soldiers, captains and officers, which is why I earlier referred to Jesus's arrest as being carried out by guards. Looking at all the accounts, people are free to believe Peter did or didn't pull out a sword in these fictional accounts, but looking at the gospels as a whole, nothing in them hints at armed apostles, at least not until the arrest.
More importantly, the basic story (the various gospel accounts of the arrest are minor variations around a basic story), wherever it came from, is inconsistent with everything that came before. Up to this point in Jesus's ministry there has been no violence by apostles, then at Jesus's arrest the apostles suddenly have swords? That's silly. One apostle is so skillful that he slices off an ear of one of the guards (which Jesus miraculously restores in Luke only, casting further doubt on the story).
The entire Jesus tale related in the gospels is just a collection of vignettes that someone wove together into a narrative.
Once Jesus was hauled away it was clear to him that there would be no battle and that it was over. Jesus’ resurrection of course changed all that.
Again, the apostles never believed that Jesus intended to lead a war against the Romans. And you've managed to avoid addressing the question about why Peter would fear being arrested after he was already ignored by those doing the arresting.
Percy writes:
I just explained why it couldn't "easily have been done in that time frame." Declaring that it could so be "done in that time frame" is not really a response.
The arrest happened at night. The priests were anxious to get it done that way as they didn’t want the crucifixion done on Passover. When it was day the council of elders including the chief priests that had arrested him held a consultation and took Him to Pilate. (As Mark says this was early in the morning.) This consultation is described in Luke and takes up 4 verses. It would have been very brief.
The gospels only say the priests wanted to put Jesus to death, not have him crucified.
Luke tells of a brief hearing with Pilate who then says essentially that it is a Jewish issue and tells them to go see Herod who was in Jerusalem.
All the gospels except John relate a brief hearing before Pilate (who had to attend a festival later that day).
John has Pilate talking to the Jews, then going in to talk to Jesus, then going out to talk to the Jews, then going in to talk to Jesus, then going back out to talk to the Jews. Which gospel is correct, if any? By what means did this sequence of events, witnessed by no followers of Jesus, become known to John decades later?
And on what was to be a busy day why would Pilate be available early in the morning for a hearing of a man he never heard of? Was Pilate at the beck and call of the Jewish priests? Not likely.
They spent time with Herod who did spend more time with Him...
Yes, Herod did spend some time with Jesus, Luke saying that Herod "questioned him at some length." Was Herod Antipas, too, just available at a moment's notice? Nothing on the schedule that day? Just happened to be in Jerusalem with no meetings with the local priests and rabbis planned?
...and once more sent Him back to Pilate. Up to this point it could be easily done by noon and probably earlier.
I'm going to ask you if you want to buy a bridge in a second.
There is one more hearing with Pilate who finally acquiesced and Jesus was led away to be crucified. The distances in Jerusalem aren’t great.
Yes, the old city is small, but I never cited walking time as an issue.
This could all have easily been done by early afternoon, particularly remembering that the Jewish priests were in a hurry to get this done as they wanted it over with as long as possible before Passover when there would be even more of a crowd in Jerusalem than there was then.
Huh? Why would there be a big crowd for Passover on the day before Passover? There was a festival planned for that day, which is why Jesus appeared before a large crowd.
Percy writes:
This idea seems out of the blue. Nothing in Acts says anything like this. The apostles merely ask Jesus if he will restore the kingdom of Israel. There's nothing about defeating the Romans or anything military at all, and Jesus's ministry was never about that. Your claim that the apostles somehow thought that Jesus's ministry was about a military campaign to expel the Romans from Israel is made up out of whole cloth.
Here was Jesus back again and they still thought that now was the time He would restore the Kingdom to Israel.
Yes, they obviously did. There's no hint that they believed that Jesus planned to achieve this by leading an army to expel the Romans.
This meant getting the Romans out and having a Jewish theocracy established presumably by military means but they may well have thought that Jesus had something else in mind. However it still would have meant getting rid of the Romans.
Where in the gospels or Acts does Jesus say his movement was intended to expel the Romans from Israel? He seems quite happy for the Romans to occupy Israel and for the Jews to pay taxes to Rome.
Percy writes:
Yes, that's exactly what it says, and nowhere does it say anything about hiding out. Further, the gospel stories have significant internal inconsistencies. The apostles supposedly fear the Jewish authorities yet a short time later walk freely about Jerusalem. And the doors aren't even necessarily locked. John 20:19 in the NIV has the doors locked for fear of Jewish leaders, while RSV only has them shut for fear of the Jews. Actually, the doors being shut rather than locked would make hiding make a lot more sense - they didn't want passing Jews to look in and see that they were there. Locked doors just make it seem like they were pretty sure the Jewish leaders knew where they were but wanted to prevent their entry. Maybe your impressions of what this passage means come from the RSV or similar translation.
Well maybe, but Peter was fearful enough that He denied being a follower of Jesus several times.
Sure, that's what the gospels say, which makes no sense, so why do you believe the gospels?
However as Jesus had no military...
A brief aside. Why did you earlier state that the apostles thought the arrest at the Last Supper was the beginning of the battle with Rome if they knew "Jesus had no military"?
...there wasn’t much to fear from the Romans and as Jesus had been put to death they were leaderless so the Jewish authorities wouldn’t have been as concerned but still they would want to lay low for a while.
Makes sense. But there's still nothing in the gospels saying that, and in short order the apostles were evangelizing freely around Jerusalem.
The Jewish leaders would not want to see someone else take up leadership and continue the movement. After the resurrection the Jewish leaders would have been more concerned about squashing the stories of the resurrected Jesus than they would have anything else.
If they weren't concerned then it goes without mention in the gospels, and I guess we should include Acts. There are many things you're claiming that have no Biblical support.
Percy writes:
I'm guessing there's general agreement (if I'm wrong about this then people should let me know) that while it is apparent that you think you're answering this, you're really not. There are lots of words, but in the end it appears that you alternate between two positions: a) that what you believe is true and supported by evidence (like that everything that happened after Jesus's arrest could have happened in a single day); and b) that it's just belief.
I’ve said several times it is belief.
Then if it's just belief, why are you arguing for any particular viewpoint? Why can't anyone choose the Biblical passages they like (or none at all) and develop their own set of beliefs, just as valid as your own, and using the same approach that you've used. Do you think people should only use your approach if they accept that they must arrive at the same conclusions you did?
However these accounts are written and we make up our minds one way or another of what we believe and what we reject. I have a hunch that if you read an account of the Viet Nam war in a library in the US it won’t read the same as one in Hanoi.
Books about the Vietnam (one word) war are a poor analog - it happened in recent memory, there is copious hard evidence, and nobody's book, neither in the US or Hanoi, would recount any walking on water or returning from the dead or other miracles because the accounts would not be religious books and so would not be full of confabulous claims.
People will believe what they are going to believe.
In the absence of evidence some people will, as you say, believe what they are going to believe. Other people, in the absence of evidence, will suspend judgment until such time as there is evidence. And many people will consider the source and think, "Well, religions tend to make these kinds of fantastical claims, and none of them should be given much if any credence (except for the claims of my religion)."
Yes, I read the Gospels to tell of the resurrection of Jesus even though some details don’t line up. (Actually, if everything did line up perfectly I think it would be good reason to be more suspicious.) I do discount the claims that God ordered genocide and public stoning, not that the events didn’t occur but the idea that God commanded it. Do I have absolute knowledge of any of this, absolutely not. It is faith, but I also believe that there is good reason for my faith. It is something that I am prepared to base my life on.
Nothing wrong with faith, but if your beliefs are formed in the way you describe, why do you argue that they're the right ones instead of just encouraging people to use your approach.
Percy writes:
How do you know that love is the direction God wants you to go? Just because that's more palatable to you? That's fine if that's how you want to go, but that leaves you bereft of any way to persuade people who have grown attached to evidence leading the way toward what is true about the real world. The fact of the matter is that love (which doesn't completely capture what we really mean, but it's concise and will serve for now) will make the world a better place whether that's what God wants or not, or whether God exists or not.
Fine, but then you are left with a belief that love exists from a chance combination of mindless particles and a myriad of mindless processes resulting in love.
At least there is hard evidence supporting that view (e.g., this non-technical article: What Is Love? MRI Scan Reveals What Stages Of Romantic Love You're In Via Brain Map).
I can’t muster up enough faith to hold a belief like that.
But you don't have to muster any faith. There's evidence, which must be combined with replication and tentativity and so forth.
I know you believe that God exists so if God is able to create life then I don’t see why it is necessary to reject the idea that He resurrected Jesus. It would be easy in comparison I would think.
I do believe in God, but not the Christian God nor the God of any religion. I don't know anything about this God, but the belief that springs forth within me unorigined and unevidenced is that he gives purpose to the universe, though I have no idea what that purpose might be or whether it involves us at all. He isn't a God who listens to prayers or creates life (abiogenesis is a natural process anyway) or intervenes to create religions or intervenes on Earth at all.
Percy writes:
Yes, you are correct, they are incompatible. And so you feel forced into a choice, and you have chosen to favor the NT and denigrate the OT. If you can't admit the meaning of your own words then what's the point of this?
As I’ve said before Jesus constantly refers to the OT in delivering His message.
More accurately, the people who wrote about Jesus constantly refer and have him refer to the OT in delivering their message.
I’ve also said that you can draw a loving God out of the OT.
And you can draw a vengeful God out of the NT.
I’ve also said that IMHO it is a progressive revelation of God through the narrative that is the Scriptures.
I looked up "progressive revelation." It's apparently a common Christian belief.
Yes I do believe that many OT writers did deliver the wisdom of God to the Jewish people. Again though, I use the teaching of Jesus to sort it out as best I can.
Yes, you give priority to Jesus and the NT over the OT because the OT writers were coerced by their leaders and were driven by the need for approval. This isn't based upon any evidence - you've just decided to denigrate without evidence the OT because you prefer Jesus's message in the NT.
Percy writes:
I'm not looking for conclusive arguments. I'm just looking for any evidence at all for what you believe. So far we've heard zero evidence for the existence of God, Jesus and the truth of the confabulous parts of the Bible, and you've agreed that it's fine to reject parts of the Bible. I don't see how that's a basis for knowing anything. It's just a basis for arriving at what you already feel comfortable with.
I’ve given many times what I consider to be evidence.
And they've been challenged every time.
The evidence is the Gospel stories and I have given reasons why I believe that they can be essentially believed.
But you've been given even more evidence for why the gospel stories (and much in the Bible) can't be trusted.
I have read a considerable amount about 1st century Jewish history including Josephus.
Josephus provides no evidence of Jesus.
I have read multiple theologians with a wide variety of views.
Theologians have no better evidence than you do.
I have a particular interest in people like John Polkinghorne, John Lennox and Alister McGrath who combine their scientific and mathematical knowledge with their theology.
And yet their scientific training did not enable them produce any actual evidence for religious beliefs. And certainly they wouldn't endorse picking and choosing among Bible passages according to personal preference, or denigrating the OT as less reliable than the NT.
I have had to pick and choose between these various authors as to the conclusions I have come to, and I have had to have done the same thing with the Bible. I have no doubt that I am wrong on any number of things but like you I’m simply doing the best that I can to discern what I believe is the truth of all of this.
You can't compare yourself to me because you take far more specific positions than I do. Also, I concede I have no evidence for my spiritual beliefs while you think your religious beliefs are supported by evidence.
Yes, I’m comfortable with a God of love, but I’ve heard people like Dawkins say that they are comfortable with their atheism and really uncomfortable with the notion of there being a god and doesn’t want there to be one. I’m sure that you are comfortable with what you believe.
I suppose it's generally true that people tend toward beliefs they feel comfortable with (I say "generally true" because there are notable exception, such as LBGT's who remain in the Catholic or evangelical church - why they stay members of a church that tortures them psychologically is beyond me), but some people, like yourself, believe hugely more very specific unsupported and unsupportable things than others of us.
Percy writes:
If the Bible was not dictated by God or at least written by men inspired by God to write what truly happened, then you really have no evidence for anything you believe, except the trivial stuff like Jerusalem is a real place and so forth. Which is fine, except that when that notion is presented to you then you deny it, insisting that the Bible serves as a reliable basis upon which to build a body of belief. The inerrantists have a much, much stronger position than you.
They do if you are looking for absolute answers.
You can claim that you're not looking for absolute answers, but the determination with which you defend your beliefs belies that.
If you believe that the Bible is inerrant then you can pick out a verse and that is the end of the argument. If however you accept that the Biblical writers don’t always get it right then we have to sort out what it is that we believe. I’m ok with that. I can’t give you absolute answers.
Repeating what I've said before, you alternate. You say you just have belief until someone challenges it, then you steadfastly defend the Bible passages you've chosen and the specifics of what you believe, then you switch back again to say it's just belief.
Put a different way, do you think that other people using your approach could legitimately arrive at different beliefs than you, or do you think you've got the right beliefs and that other beliefs are wrong? You seem to think both at the same time.
Again I am content to have as unprovable absolutes that God is a god of love and that He resurrected Jesus and go from there.
"Unprovable abolutes?" Is this how Polkinghorne, Lennox and McGrath inform their theology with science?
Again, though I reject the idea that there is no basis for what I believe and I have gone over them numerous times on this forum.
You keep reminding me how many times you've supported your beliefs or already explained something, so I'll just keep reminding you that you were probably challenged on most of those occasions. Did you prevail every time?
Percy writes:
Everybody that exists or has existed had an actual day on which they were born. You have no evidence Jesus even existed.
I have the NT, I have Tacitus and the Babylonian Talmud. You reject all of these as being insufficient but they are evidence.
The NT is religious writings - how is that evidence? Tacitus's information is merely what any Christian would have told him about Christianity. And you're claiming the Talmud is evidence for Jesus? Really?
Percy writes:
To me that reads like a bunch of religious mumbo jumbo full of nonsense and meaning nothing. During this exchange I've sometimes been struck by the notion that to you this may not be so much a discussion as an opportunity for you to preach your beliefs.
...and you’re not I suppose.
I'm seeking the evidence you claim to have that supports your beliefs. My beliefs are far too sparse for preaching them to be possible, and it wouldn't occur to me to do that anyway. My beliefs don't make any sense to me, why would I think they'd make sense to anyone else?
I didn’t intend to get dragged into this but I find that when you post one thing on here it leads into something else. I did not intend to get into this discussion and if you believe it is simply about me preaching then let’s end it.
Of course it isn't simply about you preaching. But when you do preach at me it *is* jarring. I am not preaching my spiritual beliefs at you, and indeed that would barely be possible since I believe so little.
It often does seem to be something of a norm here to insult people’s views and motivations.
You said, "Jesus was resurrected into a new physicality that was able to move between God’s heavenly universe and the universe that we perceive, but as resurrection and new life is for all creation we do share our timelessness with Jesus." I don't mean to insult you, but to me this is just a bunch of nonsense. Step outside your Christianity a little bit and try to see your statement as a non-Christian might experience it.
I have to go out, delivering a sewing machine to a Syrian refugee family that our church sponsored and...
I assume you were just raptured in mid sentence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1100 by GDR, posted 12-03-2018 6:48 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1106 by GDR, posted 12-04-2018 11:39 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1110 of 1677 (844796)
12-05-2018 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1106 by GDR
12-04-2018 11:39 PM


GDR writes:
Percy writes:
Why do you think this? What did Jesus do or say during his ministry to even hint at this? How could Jesus preach a spiritual kingdom while the apostles, despite all evidence to the contrary, thought Jesus preached a material kingdom?
I’ve wondered that myself. They do seem slow on the uptake. My only suggestion is this. It was firmly planted in their mind that a messiah’s job was, as I’ve said before, to defeat their enemies and rebuild the Temple. They couldn’t seem to get this out of their head.
Possibly when the Gospels were compiled they wanted to be accurate, so they maintained the failure of the disciples to understand , and emphasized Jesus’ Kingdom message of peaceful revolution. It is clear though that the disciples didn’t get it until later, and even in Acts 1 they seemed to think that now that Jesus was resurrected that He was there to either lead them in battle, or possibly do something miraculous to rid them of the Romans. That’s all I’ve got.
I think we understand each other's position now.
Percy writes:
You don't say, so I'll assume you mean the battle to reestablish Israel. Are you actually claiming that the apostles thought that battling the priest's guards was the beginning of the battle with Rome? If you are then that's ludicrous, laughable, ridiculous and nonsense. Where would the apostles get the idea that Jesus planned to do battle with Rome, and why would they attack Jewish guards to begin that battle?
About Peter pulling out a sword, only John, the last and most absurd gospel, says this. By the way, John is also the account that mentions soldiers, captains and officers, which is why I earlier referred to Jesus's arrest as being carried out by guards. Looking at all the accounts, people are free to believe Peter did or didn't pull out a sword in these fictional accounts, but looking at the gospels as a whole, nothing in them hints at armed apostles, at least not until the arrest.
They are good points and I wish I had a really good answer. I have covered it to a degree above. Jesus had been performing miracles, (although I’d say more accurately that God through Jesus performed the miracles), and so Peter being the loyal soldier immediately leapt to His defence. I suppose that with Peter’s confidence in Jesus’ miraculous capabilities, he might have imagined this as a start of the battle thinking that others would join in but that is a stretch.
I can't argue with this because it includes what seems like an appropriate degree of tentativity.
Percy writes:
More importantly, the basic story (the various gospel accounts of the arrest are minor variations around a basic story), wherever it came from, is inconsistent with everything that came before. Up to this point in Jesus's ministry there has been no violence by apostles, then at Jesus's arrest the apostles suddenly have swords? That's silly. One apostle is so skillful that he slices off an ear of one of the guards (which Jesus miraculously restores in Luke only, casting further doubt on the story).
This is getting tougher and if I had a clever answer I’d give it to you. I will say this though. As I’ve said the Gospel accounts are compilations of earlier material. The central theme of the whole NT is the resurrection, and what that means theologically and what it means to our lives. With something as unexpected and miraculous as the resurrection it would not be surprising if legends had formed around the person of Jesus. Possibly this is a case of that.
I also think that when we read the epistles they almost exclusively focus is on understanding and building the Jesus movement based on His life and teaching. They don’t seem to attach any importance to the details of Jesus’ life and experience. It is all pretty exegetical.
The interesting thing about mythmaking is that the details increase over time. You should include in your exegesis that the earliest Christian writings, the genuine epistles, have much less detail about Jesus's life than the later ones, the gospels.
Percy writes:
The entire Jesus tale related in the gospels is just a collection of vignettes that someone wove together into a narrative.
Yes, from earlier material including eye witnesses.
If we assume the gospels are true and that eyewitnesses were the source of the information, how did they witness all these events (there must have been many eyewitnesses), and how was that information transmitted faithfully to the gospel writers? What about other source of information? For example, was it really proper to classify the Gospel of Peter as apocrypha, or does it tell us something important about a battle of ideas in the early church, with the idea winning out that it was the Romans carrying out the crucifixion rather the Jews under Herod Antipas's orders. John's mention of Herod Antipas where the other gospels do not is probably a nod toward the Gospel of Peter which must have had its advocates.
Percy writes:
Again, the apostles never believed that Jesus intended to lead a war against the Romans. And you've managed to avoid addressing the question about why Peter would fear being arrested after he was already ignored by those doing the arresting.
I think that they did. There was throughout their Scriptures the idea that God would come and lead them in battle, and there were those who believed that it would be through a messiah.
If they believed in a messiah that would lead them in battle then they would have followed some other messiah, not Jesus. The power of Jesus's message was that he was leading them down a different more spiritual path, one with a greater chance of success than the combat-focused failures of the past.
It seems to me that it is quite conceivable that even though Jesus wasn’t building up an army that somehow they believed that Yahweh was going to make it happen. Even in Acts 1 they asked the question of when was God going to restore the kingdom to Israel. Earlier they wanted to sit on His right and left with Jesus on the throne.
Yes, "restore the kingdom to Israel," not "expel the Romans by force."
Percy writes:
The gospels only say the priests wanted to put Jesus to death, not have him crucified.
Yes, but they wanted the Romans to do it which meant crucifixion.
Crucifixion was just one method employed by the Romans to carry out executions. Other methods were beheading, strangling, being cast from a great height, being buried alive, drowning and death by beast. Why would the priests assume that Pilate would choose crucifixion for a Jew preaching Jewish blasphemy who had committed no offense against the Romans? The gospels have the crowd choosing Jesus's method of punishment as they shouted "Crucify him." Would Pilate, the Roman prefect for Judea, really let the crowd dictate this?
Also crucifixion would emphasize the point that Jesus was not the messiah.
That's all part of the drama of another aspect of this very common plotline, that God could overcome even the most demeaning method of execution.
Percy writes:
All the gospels except John relate a brief hearing before Pilate (who had to attend a festival later that day). John has Pilate talking to the Jews, then going in to talk to Jesus, then going out to talk to the Jews, then going in to talk to Jesus, then going back out to talk to the Jews. Which gospel is correct, if any? By what means did this sequence of events, witnessed by no followers of Jesus, become known to John decades later?
And on what was to be a busy day why would Pilate be available early in the morning for a hearing of a man he never heard of? Was Pilate at the beck and call of the Jewish priests? Not likely.
I don’t know which Gospel is correct. It is one of the contradictions in the accounts. I’m not bothered by the contradictions, and actually I contend that it confirms that there was no collusion.
It also confirms that the gospel writers all felt free to include, omit or make up material as they saw fit.
Obviously they used much of the same material although my personal opinion is that the book of Mark wasn’t one of the sources.
Regardless of the specifics of who you think copied from who, the large number of identical passages means there was a common source. If you grab a gospel synopsis and do a little logical connecting the dots you'll see that Mark had to have been a source for both Matthew and Luke, as well as some other document designated Q. Some Biblical scholars get their knickers all tied in a knot arguing about the remaining problems, but cross pollination also occurred between the gospels after they'd been written. What has come down to us as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are not their original forms. They existed as independent documents for only a short while (maybe 30-50 years) before the various communities shared their versions with each other, and then there was considerable leakage between them before the final forms we have today emerged.
The simplistic view that "this gospel was written first, and then these other gospels were written next drawing upon the first, and so forth" is popular because it gives the illusion that the evolution of the final versions can be traced backward in time in detail, that we can know the origin of each phrase, even each word, but that's just not true. Unless we discover a lot more very ancient variants of the gospels, we'll just never know.
The important part for me is that they all agree that Jesus was resurrected. We don’t know how privy Jesus’ followers were to what was going on, and there were a variety of post resurrection experiences so I would expect variations in the accounts.
But for you the origin of the accounts is eyewitnesses. If the gospel authors were willing to alter eyewitness accounts then how can they be trusted at all? And if they'd alter eyewitness accounts then what greater freedoms might they have taken on 2nd and 3rd hand accounts?
Percy writes:
Yes, Herod did spend some time with Jesus, Luke saying that Herod "questioned him at some length." Was Herod Antipas, too, just available at a moment's notice? Nothing on the schedule that day? Just happened to be in Jerusalem with no meetings with the local priests and rabbis planned?
Well the accounts say that Herod had heard about Jesus and was interested. He also would be very keen to squelch any problems prior to the Passover and not on it.
Like what problems? The vast majority of Jews were not Jesus fans, since later that day the crowd shouted, "Crucify him." The gospels are telling the Jesus story from the point of view of believers and with the aim of promoting their new religion. They're going to tell the story in a way that makes it seem like Jesus was having a significant impact and was a significant problem for the local priests, but he really was only a minor, minor figure, so minor he completely escaped any contemporary historical mention and may not have existed at all.
Percy writes:
Huh? Why would there be a big crowd for Passover on the day before Passover? There was a festival planned for that day, which is why Jesus appeared before a large crowd.
Well, I wasn’t there but I’m sure that amongst the population that lived in Jerusalem they could draw a crowd, but on Passover the next day there would be a much larger crowd. They would not want Jesus’ crucifixion to be a distraction and possible source of problems on the Passover itself.
Interesting. Josephus says Passover drew large crowds into Jerusalem. It must have been observed differently than it is today.
Percy writes:
A brief aside. Why did you earlier state that the apostles thought the arrest at the Last Supper was the beginning of the battle with Rome if they knew "Jesus had no military"?
I probably could have phrased that better. They believed Jesus to be the Messiah, the anointed one of God. They had expectations of what a messiah was supposed to do, and part of that again was expelling the Romans. They see Him being arrested and I suppose that they might consider that in leaping to His defence Jesus would perform a miracle and they would all be out of the situation. If Jesus was the messiah it would be pretty much inconceivable to them that He would be arrested.
The gospels portray Jesus unambiguously teaching peace and sharing and community and just general good will toward men.
Percy writes:
Makes sense. But there's still nothing in the gospels saying that, and in short order the apostles were evangelizing freely around Jerusalem.
Actually the Gospels don’t really give us much of a time frame but I would imagine that the meeting with Jesus followers in Acts 2 would have been early on but how quickly things spread after that is not indicated.
Granted that Acts 2 isn't clear about how much time has passed.
Percy writes:
If they weren't concerned then it goes without mention in the gospels, and I guess we should include Acts. There are many things you're claiming that have no Biblical support.
I agree, but I have read a reasonable amount about the world that Jesus ministered in, as well as reading writers who have studied that 1st century world. I think that by putting 2 and 2 together in the Gospels we can come up with some fairly well formed conclusions.
It is also possible that confirmation bias is leading you to put greater weight on the passages and the writers that best confirm what you already believe or most feel comfortable with. Trump's followers are taking him at his word and also putting 2 and 2 together, the same process you claim you're following, but what they're doing is just GIGO. In other words, the conclusions you reach are only as good as the evidence you've allowed to pass through your filters.
Percy writes:
Then if it's just belief, why are you arguing for any particular viewpoint? Why can't anyone choose the Biblical passages they like (or none at all) and develop their own set of beliefs, just as valid as your own, and using the same approach that you've used. Do you think people should only use your approach if they accept that they must arrive at the same conclusions you did?
People will come to their own conclusions. As I continue to read I find myself disagreeing with positions that I held earlier. To be honest, discussions like this force me to rethink my position on various things.
I'm the exact opposite. Discussions like this convince me that forming firm conclusions in the absence of hard evidence is a mistake.
I may argue for a particular viewpoint, not to try to validate my Christian beliefs but the discussion can be interesting. You may have noticed by the way this discussion has gone that I’m easily drawn down various rabbit trails...
I think we all are. I can't even remember my original goal from when we began this dialogue.
...and away from the basic topic. For example our discussion on when Mark was written. I have my viewpoint as it is a point of interest, but neither view validates or refutes my Christian beliefs.
This sounds like a belief that comes from within, which, at least to me in the case of unsupported beliefs, is the most legitimate kind of belief. Belief needs no justification, no post-facto evidence search.
GDR writes:
Yes, I read the Gospels to tell of the resurrection of Jesus even though some details don’t line up. (Actually, if everything did line up perfectly I think it would be good reason to be more suspicious.) I do discount the claims that God ordered genocide and public stoning, not that the events didn’t occur but the idea that God commanded it. Do I have absolute knowledge of any of this, absolutely not. It is faith, but I also believe that there is good reason for my faith. It is something that I am prepared to base my life on.
Percy writes:
Nothing wrong with faith, but if your beliefs are formed in the way you describe, why do you argue that they're the right ones instead of just encouraging people to use your approach?
You’re right of course, although I see it as defending my beliefs more than trying to convince people to move to my position.
Your beliefs don't need defending if they just are. They only need defending when you claim they're anchored in evidence, because people will examine the evidence you cite and try to follow your reasoning from that evidence, which inevitably leads to questions, especially when whether what you cite is really evidence is one of the questions.
As I have said several times my belief is based on believing in a good and loving God and that God resurrected Jesus. That is my starting point...
But it can be your ending point, too. What you just stated seems more than sufficient.
Percy writes:
At least there is hard evidence supporting that view (e.g., this non-technical article: What Is Love? MRI Scan Reveals What Stages Of Romantic Love You're In Via Brain Map).
That however isn’t what love is. It is love’s effect on the brain.
The article describes research showing that love is a result of brain activity.
Percy writes:
I do believe in God, but not the Christian God nor the God of any religion. I don't know anything about this God, but the belief that springs forth within me unorigined and unevidenced is that he gives purpose to the universe, though I have no idea what that purpose might be or whether it involves us at all. He isn't a God who listens to prayers or creates life (abiogenesis is a natural process anyway) or intervenes to create religions or intervenes on Earth at all.
Wouldn’t that make you a deist?
Yes, I'm a deist. Despite that my beliefs originated from within me and not from any outside theological input, they are not original.
I would ask you though, how reasonable is it to believe that a god would bring about life as we know it in our world and then just ignore it.
But I don't believe God created life, so I'm not ignoring it. I believe abiogenesis is a natural process, which you address next:
What evidence is there that abiogenesis is a natural process,...
That abiogenesis is a natural process is just how science approaches the study of our universe. Science considers everything a natural process.
...and if it is then I would ask; where did that natural process come from.
That's a philosophical question, similar to, "Why something instead of nothing?"
Percy writes:
And you can draw a vengeful God out of the NT.
Absolutely, you can understand God to be loving or vengeful or both. I’d say that inerrantists would go with both, but I would argue that it has to be one or the other. In the NT however, with few exceptions God is pictured as loving, forgiving, merciful and just.
I'd quibble about the "few exceptions" part, but I agree that the OT God is far less lovable than the NT God.
Percy writes:
Josephus provides no evidence of Jesus.
He talks about Jesus twice although I accept that there is a reasonable possibility that one of the instances was revised later.
If you dig out what Josephus says about Jesus you'll see that one is a brief reference to Christians who follow Christ, and the other is an obvious later insertion by Christian scribes.
Percy writes:
You can't compare yourself to me because you take far more specific positions than I do. Also, I concede I have no evidence for my spiritual beliefs while you think your religious beliefs are supported by evidence.
Presumably your beliefs are supported by experience, knowledge of the world, learning from others etc.
Not as far as I can tell. My beliefs just are.
I have all of those but I do have the Bible which is evidence that you reject.
It wouldn't be accurate to say I reject the evidence of the Bible. It's more that I know what true evidence looks like, and I know that it is common in man's search for purpose in life to build religions that often include confabulous stories, and I know that all the world's religions can't be right and am certain that their widely variant tenets mean that they were not arrived at by evidence, and I know that the innate need to defend one's beliefs means that a post-facto search for evidence will invent it.
I'm in a much stronger position than you. If anyone were to say to me, "Your beliefs can't possibly be true because they are completely unsupported by evidence and you don't even have any scriptures," then I would freely concede all this and go on believing anyway because for me true belief comes from within, not from a book.
Percy writes:
You can claim that you're not looking for absolute answers, but the determination with which you defend your beliefs belies that.
I don’t see where I defend my beliefs more than anyone else including yourself.
I'm defending my views of your religious beliefs. I'm not defending my own spiritual beliefs because they're not defensible.
I have also said several times that I have no doubt that some of my beliefs are erroneous. Trouble is, I don’t know which ones.
Do your spiritual beliefs really require evidence? Wouldn't it be much more freeing to just believe?
Percy writes:
You said, "Jesus was resurrected into a new physicality that was able to move between God’s heavenly universe and the universe that we perceive, but as resurrection and new life is for all creation we do share our timelessness with Jesus." I don't mean to insult you, but to me this is just a bunch of nonsense. Step outside your Christianity a little bit and try to see your statement as a non-Christian might experience it.
I know I get that. Maybe I can of off topic a little on this.
I have a book I read a few years back by Brian Greene called The Hidden Reality. He was out here giving a lecture so I actually have an autographed copy.
You are very fortunate.
It seems to be ok for science to talk about a co-existing universe but not for Christianity. I realize that we that we come at it from different perspectives. If God’s heavenly universe is parallel to ours then the idea of Jesus moving between these universes isn’t quite so fantastic.
If that's something you want to believe then I'm fine with it. If it's something you claim is in the Bible then I'd have to see the evidence and argument for it.
Ultimately the Christian message seems to be that we are an emergent property of a greater reality and that ultimately our two universes become one, in an act of re-creation. I agree that it’s pretty esoteric but so is a lot of science. Maybe some day science will discover heaven. Maybe we just need an even bigger collider.
This seems pretty far out there as Christianity or Anglicanism. I still don't think your beliefs that religion is man-made and all the rest are Anglican.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar, tiny edits.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1106 by GDR, posted 12-04-2018 11:39 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1115 by GDR, posted 12-06-2018 2:00 PM Percy has replied
 Message 1182 by GDR, posted 12-13-2018 5:18 PM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024