|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Bible: Is the Author God, Man or Both? | |||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
PaulK writes: Jesus being executed went beyond their previous expectation, yet I doubt that you would say that they had no basis for believing that it had happened. Hardly, it had happened to every other messianic claimant in that era.
PaulK writes: Of course, in none of these cases is there a very strong religious commitment to that person ful filling prophecies, that had not yet come to pass. Once again, there were all the other messianic movements including the Maccabees.
PaulK writes: But didn't you claim that the Maccabees were expecting an immediate physical resurrection to go on with their fight? No. The Maccabees anticipated their resurrection without specifying a time but in this quote it obviously implies that it would be at the end of time along with all Israel. This is statement on resurrection in Macc. 2:7-13.quote:There is no claim of immediate resurrection and we can see that he is referring to an ultimate time frame when he tells the king that he will be unable to anticipate a resurrection for himself. My point was simply that after they died nobody went around suggesting that they had seen the brothers resurrected.
PaulK writes: As you know perfectly well the Biblical accounts attribute Paul's conversion to a visionary experience. And he says so little about the resurrection event itself that we certainly cannot assume that the people he talked to gave him the stories we see in the Gospels. Sure he had a visionary experience initially but he then went around preaching a risen Jesus. He obviously would have had considerable contact with the disciples before he took his show on the road. This is from 1 Corinthians. quote: That sounds pretty clear to me.
PaulK writes: Mark was supposedly based on stories told by Peter, but written years after Peter's death and likely without any direct input from any eye-witnesses. Luke and Matthew use Mark as a major source. Q is still hypothetical, although if it existed, it was written in G reek, which suggests that it is not that early. On what do you base your statement that there was likely no input from eye-witnesses? I’d say that it would highly unlikely that there wouldn’t be input from eye-witnesses. As I pointed out earlier Luke starts off by saying that he used earlier documents. Greek was in common usage at the time so that suggests absolutely nothing.
Paulk writes: The point was simply that if their beliefs were a result of cognitive dissonance then their beliefs would have been based on something that fit their understanding of what they might have anticipated.
I'd say that prior expectation is an extreme exaggeration. And if you made an argument for it, then I'd like to know which post. PaulK writes: I find it interesting that your quote from N T Wright not only omits the 2 Maccabees reference, it also omits the belief - quite widespread among the Jews of Jesus' time - that there would be a general resurrection in the End Times. IIRC at least one Epistle suggests that Jesus' Resurrection was the "first fruits" of that general resurrection. Wright often writes about Maccabees 2. It just wasn’t included in that particular quote. He writes about Maccabees here. The Resurrection of Resurrection. Wright has written extensively on the resurrection including this book, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 3) which I’m currently reading and is over 700 pages. Please take my word for it that he mentions the fact that there was a belief amongst of some first century Jews of a general resurrection eschatologically.
PaulK writes: As for his claim that "a Crucified Messiah is a failed Messiah" this simply illustrates that the situation of the Disciples immediately following the execution WAS likely to provoke cognitive dissonance! I agree that this situation could provoke cognitive dissonance, (except again I would point out that it didn’t in the case of any other messianic movement), but my point, which you don’t accept, that the form the accounts took are not plausibly the result of cognitive dissonance. Also it is frankly IMHO inconceivable that a movement based on the story of someone rising from the dead is going to have any traction when it starts in a community where many would know the truth of what happened or didn’t happen.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Good, at lest you now concede that beliefs don't have to be based on previous expectations.
quote: To the best of my knowledge the Maccabees didn't have a particular messianic claimant. And you haven't really produced anything about others, other than we don't really know what happened to their followers.
quote: If you were being honest you should have mentioned that back when you raised the point. Instead of waiting until it contradicted another point you were trying to make.
quote: And if they weren't to be resurrected until the end of time, in a general resurrection, nobody would expect to. So you are admitting to an attempt to mislead by omitting relevant information.
quote: Let us be clear. If Paul's conversion was due to a visionary experience, it was NOT due to talking with witnesses of the post-resurrection appearances (there were no witnesses to the actual resurrection event, if there was one). Anyway, DID Paul go off and have detailed discussions with the Disciples after his conversion and before he started preaching ? Acts 9 states that he started preaching in Damascus, only days after his experience. Then, when he went to Jerusalem, the Christians there wouldn't speak to him at first. And he seems to have started preaching immediately, and gone on until the threats against him grew so severe that the Jerusalem church had to pack him off to Tarsus.
quote: Yes, Paul links the resurrection of Jesus to the general resurrection that was widely believed among Jews. So the whole idea that resurrection wasn't part of Jewish belief is wrong. We have a simple extension of an existing belief, not something completely new.
quote: There is certainly no suggestion that there was any input from eyewitnesses. Papias claimed that Mark got the events in the wrong order, and there are geographical problems which support this. Eyewitness input would likely have been able to correct these problems.
quote: Then perhaps you should have mentioned that there was a Jewish belief in resurrection. And Wright should have chosen to deal with that point rather than talking about dying and rising Gods which are more the province of the mythicists (who naturally don't claim that there was any cognitive dissonance involved!)
quote: That is not a defensible or even rational claim. Of course there would be die-hards who had problems accepting that their "Messiah" was dead. We just don't hear much about them.
quote: I don't accept your point as relevant because as you know perfectly well I don't claim that the form that the post-resurrection accounts take is due to cognitive dissonance...
quote: It is very unlikely that anyone would be in a position to KNOW that there had been no resurrection. So far as I an see the general population would have been in the same situation whether the resurrection were real or not - it's not as if Jesus put in any big public appearances after his death. And, of course, the vast majority of the people in Jerusalem and Galilee or wherever you think that the post-resurrection appearances took place DIDN'T believe it. So I struggle to see how you an possibly believe that you have a valid point there. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
PaulK writes: Good, at lest you now concede that beliefs don't have to be based on previous expectations. You are making a ridiculous connection where there is none.
PaulK writes: To the best of my knowledge the Maccabees didn't have a particular messianic claimant. And you haven't really produced anything about others, other than we don't really know what happened to their followers. One of the brothers claimed that they would be resurrected and that the king wouldn’t be. Once they were dead there is no record of any followers because the movement which had been successful ended.
PaulK writes: If you were being honest you should have mentioned that back when you raised the point. Instead of waiting until it contradicted another point you were trying to make.And if they weren't to be resurrected until the end of time, in a general resurrection, nobody would expect to. So you are admitting to an attempt to mislead by omitting relevant information. Nonsense. Here is what I said.
GDR writes: There were other messianic movements that had a much greater impact on the society such as the Maccabean revolt, or the bar Kohkba rebellion etc. The Maccabes even said that they would be resurrected but after their death.... nothing. The point was that this was a situation where cognitive dissonance would have been much more likely to occur but it didn’t. The Maccabean revolt had been highly successful as they had defeated the Syrians, established the Hasmonean dynasty which had ruled Judea for 100 years and died heroic deaths.
PaulK writes: Let us be clear. If Paul's conversion was due to a visionary experience, it was NOT due to talking with witnesses of the post-resurrection appearances (there were no witnesses to the actual resurrection event, if there was one). Paul’s conversion was due to a visionary experience his theology was gained from his Pharisaic background and discussions with the disciples.
PaulK writes: Anyway, DID Paul go off and have detailed discussions with the Disciples after his conversion ? Acts 9 states that he started preaching in Damascus, only days after his experience. Then when he went to Jerusalem the Christians there wouldn't speak to him, and weren't convinced until the threats against him grew so sever that they had to pack him off to Tarsus. Let’s just compare this ridiculous statement with what Acts 9 actually says.
quote: Did you actually read Acts 9? Let’s break down parts of what you said.
PaulK writes: Anyway, DID Paul go off and have detailed discussions with the Disciples after his conversion? Acts 9 states that he started preaching in Damascus, only days after his experience. Acts 9 from the above quote says, Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. I doubt they spent a great deal of time discussing the weather. For that matter as he had been persecuting members of the movement he would have already had knowledge of what they were claiming.
PaulK writes: Then when he went to Jerusalem the Christians there wouldn't speak to him, and weren't convinced until the threats against him grew so sever that they had to pack him off to Tarsus. From Acts 9.
quote: That speaks for itself and your argument.
PaulK writes: Yes, Paul links the resurrection of Jesus to the general resurrection that was widely believed among Jews. So the whole idea that resurrection wasn't part of Jewis h belief is wrong. We have a simple extension of an existing belief, not something completely new. Yes there was a belief that there would be a general resurrection but there is no record of any expectation that an individual would be resurrected ahead of the general resurrection. That has been my point all along and you keep misrepresenting what I’ve written.
PaulK writes:
Read Josephus, there is a fair bit known about them. They may have had problems accepting that their messiah was dead but they didn’t claim resurrection for them.
That is not a defensible or even rational claim. Of course there would be die-hards who had problems accepting that their "Messiah" was dead. We just don't hear much about them. PaulK writes: I don't accept your point as relevant because as you know perfectly well I don't claim that the form that the post-resurrection ac counts take is due to cognitive dissonance... Well you claim that they had some sort of visionary experience but it would take cognitive dissonance to get from that to what they preached.
PaulK writes: It is very unlikely that anyone would be in a position to KNOW that there had been no resurrection All it would have taken is for one person to display the body and there was no shortage of people who would have wanted to do that.
PaulK writes: . So far as I an see the general population would have been in the same situation whether the resurrection were real or not - it's not as if Jesus put in any big public appearances after his death. And, of course, the vast majority of the people in Jerusalem and Galilee or wherever you think that the post-resurrection appearances took place DIDN'T believe it. So I struggle to see how you an possibly believe that you have a valid point there. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:quote: That should be clear enough for you but likely not. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: It's a ridiculous argument but you use it, even in this very post.
quote: And, according to your last post that resurrection was not to be until the end times. Until you can actually show where the cognitive dissonance comes in you don't even have a weak argument.
quote: If what I said was nonsense can you point to the part where you mentioned that the Maccabee's resurrection was not supposed to occur until the end times ?No? How can the truth be nonsense? quote: WHY would it have been more likely - in fact HOW can it be more likely than a virtual certainty?
quote: Thank you for admitting that you were in error.
quote: Congratulations on being fast enough to copy the pre-edit version, given a window of less than 4 minutes. But I'd rather you used the version current at the time of your reply, not a version that briefly existed more than 2 days earlier.
quote: But it DOESN'T say that we talked with any of the Twelve Disciples, only unnamed "disciples" in Damascus - who may well have not seen any of the post-Resurrection appearances. My point stands. The rest is also dealt with in the corrected version, issued within minutes of the original posting as indicated by the timestamps.
quote: And here you are arguing that a belief must be based on previous expectation, according to you even a quite simple extension of an existing belief should be ruled out.
quote: The question is whether they experienced cognitive dissonance, not whether they resolved it in exactly the same way as the early Christians....
quote: My claims have been rather more detailed than that, as you ought to know by now... The only role of cognitive dissonance in my explanation is in the disciples coming to believe that Jesus was alive and in formulating the doctrine of the Second Coming.
quote: Actually we don't know if there were many, or have any idea if they could have had access to a recognisable body by the time they would have wanted it. There are plenty of mundane reasons why they might not.
quote: I suppose that you mean the alleged 500 witnesses. An event that is absent from the Gospels and Acts, and reported without any of the details that would allow even the Corinthians to check it. Given these facts, I am inclined to regard it as a vision, perhaps something like those of Fatima, at most - maybe nothing more than an "urban legend". It's hard to imagine it being left out of all the Gospels and Acts unless there was something a little suspect about it, even to the believers who authored those works.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
Sorry once again for the late reply. Life is ever busy.
I have found that this understanding of the Scriptures, along with my Christian faith has given me a sense of the world that is highly consistent with my own life experience, human history and also with my very limited understanding of science and the natural world. That is a very long answer to one short paragraph.
Bravo! I understand where you are coming from especially when you say that you root your understanding in your belief of the resurrection. I am okay with that. That doesn't bother me. But I don't think starting there rescues the situation. The gospels could be an accurate reflection of the life of Jesus and his resurrection and the Paulian tangle of pseudo-scripture could be wrong ... independently.
My point was more geared toward speculating what Christianity may have been like without the pastorals, without the addition of 1 Corinthians 14:34, without Hebrews, without the gospel of John, without Revelations. You could build a rather egalitarian faith with the real Paul's branch of theology. I think that this just reinforces my point. If we read the Bible the way I believe that we should, and read those passages in context, then it is all meaningful. I am beginning to understand what you mean when you say the word 'context' and I don't think we are using it the same way. You are using it in the sense of some kind of "contextual inerrancy". What I mean is that rather than let the books themselves set the context, you provide the context based on your foundation as you described in the lengthy part at the top of your reply. Paul talking about parousia in Thessalonians does not violate the context of the book, the time frame, the other information we know about Paul and early Christianity, etc. But it apparently DOES violate the context with which you have formed your belief. You have not yet showed me WHY it does, I don't know why the truth of the resurrection is in any way offended by Paul being wrong and his successors being forgers. It seems like you should be perfectly capable of maintaining the essence of the belief you described above without the strange contortions such as claiming that Paul in 2 Thes. isn't talking about the return of Christ despite how explicit it is. I cannot fathom how you are able to make this single and very straightforward verse so obscure. You say:
Absolutely. He is saying that the revolt in spite of what they might have heard had not begun. If the "Day of the Lord" was referring to the parousia they wouldn't require a letter to advise them of it. Then why does he start the sentence with, "Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him"? You keep repeating this line from NT Wright that it would be somehow absurd for the Thessalonians to believe that they were living in the kingdom of god. That it is absurd to think that they would spiritualize the original message from Paul after waiting so many years for the "end of the space-time universe" IF THAT IS EVEN WHAT THEY BELIEVED! Not only does your explanation make a mess of the meaning of that single sentence, your entire ability to create such a distortion rests on an unknown assumption of the particular faith of the Thessalonians. You speak so highly of context but you are not just ignoring the context of the book and the body of work attributed to Paul, you are ignoring the context of the single sentence. ... Even IF you assume authorship, the interpretation that Paul was simply disabusing the Thessalonians of the notion of a non-physical kingdom of god is far more straightforward AND does not conflict with your previously stated beliefs! So why go down this road? The only reason I could possibly see would be to rescue Paul from himself ..... and to rescue the legacy of a faith build on forgery. Why not just dismiss the forgery? There is plenty left as you even state yourself that the foundation is in the gospels and the resurrection.BUT if objects for gratitude and admiration are our desire, do they not present themselves every hour to our eyes? Do we not see a fair creation prepared to receive us the instant we are born --a world furnished to our hands, that cost us nothing? Is it we that light up the sun; that pour down the rain; and fill the earth with abundance? Whether we sleep or wake, the vast machinery of the universe still goes on. Are these things, and the blessings they indicate in future, nothing to, us? Can our gross feelings be excited by no other subjects than tragedy and suicide? Or is the gloomy pride of man become so intolerable, that nothing can flatter it but a sacrifice of the Creator? --Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Jazzns writes: Bravo! I understand where you are coming from especially when you say that you root your understanding in your belief of the resurrection. I am okay with that. That doesn't bother me. But I don't think starting there rescues the situation. The gospels could be an accurate reflection of the life of Jesus and his resurrection and the Paulian tangle of pseudo-scripture could be wrong ... independently. OK, except I don’t accept that description of what Paul wrote. Paul was a Pharisee and IMHO a brilliant theologian. He is writing from a different perspective than the writers of the Gospels. The Gospels are essentially the narrative of the ministry of Jesus whereas the Pauline epistles are Paul's understanding of how the Gospel narrative applies to the lives of Jesus' followers. In addition Paul is also writing to establish, build-up and inform the early Christian communities. Of course Paul could have it wrong but IMHO his writings are an accurate reflection of the Gospels and of course he is also utilizing the same Hebrew Scriptures that Jesus used. Obviously we only have a very small part of what Jesus said and did and so it is obvious that in some cases Paul would be referencing something Jesus said of which we have no record.
Jazzns writes: I am beginning to understand what you mean when you say the word 'context' and I don't think we are using it the same way. You are using it in the sense of some kind of "contextual inerrancy". What I mean is that rather than let the books themselves set the context, you provide the context based on your foundation as you described in the lengthy part at the top of your reply. Paul talking about parousia in Thessalonians does not violate the context of the book, the time frame, the other information we know about Paul and early Christianity, etc. But it apparently DOES violate the context with which you have formed your belief. I agree completely that Paul; could be wrong in 2 Thessalonians and the "context of the book" would not be violated. I think that maybe you are under a misconception. I am discussing what Paul meant as a separate discussion. You seem to be tying the metanarrative in with the discussion on Thessalonions. I see the issues separately. From the point of view of my Christian faith, I'm ok no matter which one of us is right. You seem to think that I have set the context, (the context being the total narrative of the what God has done, what He is doing and to a lesser degree what He will do), but that understanding has largely come from the books themselves which in turn have been confirmed through other sources.
Jazzns writes: You have not yet showed me WHY it does, I don't know why the truth of the resurrection is in any way offended by Paul being wrong and his successors being forgers. It seems like you should be perfectly capable of maintaining the essence of the belief you described above without the strange contortions such as claiming that Paul in 2 Thes. isn't talking about the return of Christ despite how explicit it is. I absolutely agree that I can maintain my beliefs if your interpretation is correct. I just think my interpretation of that passage and its authorship happens to be the right one.
Jazzns writes: Then why does he start the sentence with, "Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him"? I see it this way. Jesus brought a spiritual message but He also brought a political message. His spiritual message was that there would be a day when our world in time as we know it would end and that there would be a general judgement upon the world. His political message was that militant revolution was not the way to go in spite of the Roman atrocities. He promoted the doctrine of "loving one's enemies" with the idea that the only way to win the battle was to change hearts. His political message then was that if their militancy continued that Jerusalem and the Temple itself would be destroyed. I think that Paul is tying Jesus' spiritual message and His political message together. I believe that Paul sees the resurrection as vindicating Jesus' spiritual message and I see the destruction of the Temple as vindicating His political message. I think Paul ties them together by saying that Christ's return isn't going to happen until the destruction of the Temple occurs and that won't happen until the rebellion is started. I do want to emphasize again though that this view is taken in isolation to the metanarrative and if I was convinced that I was mistaken it wouldn't impact my overall beliefs.
Jazzns writes: Even IF you assume authorship, the interpretation that Paul was simply disabusing the Thessalonians of the notion of a non-physical kingdom of god is far more straightforward AND does not conflict with your previously stated beliefs! So why go down this road? The only reason I could possibly see would be to rescue Paul from himself ..... and to rescue the legacy of a faith build on forgery. Paul may well have thought that it was likely that Christ would return in his life time. I think that it would be part of human nature as we still see today. People have always thought that they were in end times and there is a very good possibility and some scriptural indications that this was the case for Paul. Actually my understanding of this passage doesn't even preclude the idea that Paul may have thought that way. Paul could easily have believed that the rebellion, the destruction of the Temple and the return of Christ would all happen in his life time. It is interesting to try and sort that out but I'm happy with either conclusion. We are only discussing what it was that Paul was referring to in these passages in Thessalonians.
Jazzns writes: Why not just dismiss the forgery? There is plenty left as you even state yourself that the foundation is in the gospels and the resurrection. If the author isn't Paul then so be it. That would be fine with me. I just happen to believe it is. However, in that era it was common for people to write what they believed would reflect the views of someone else. (It is unlikely that Matthew wrote the book of Matthew for example.) So even if Paul didn't write it doesn't necessarily make it a forgery. Obviously if the Thessalonians received the letters a couple of decades after Paul's death they just might figure out that it wasn't Paul who wrote it, but someone who was attempting to use Paul's teaching to apply it to their current situation. So even if Paul didn't write it I don't see that it should be considered a forgery. We should then judge the writer's views on their own merits.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
jar writes: Shouldn't we also consider the possibility that Reverend Dodgson was influenced by God in what he wrote, or Mark Twain, or Kipling or Dawkins? Why does God connecting directly to us involve anything to do with the authorship of any of the various Biblical and extra-Biblical stories? I would question the motive behind the writings. If a piece of writing is inspired..this..to me..means that the only motivation of the author is to instruct, edify, and encourage readers to reflect,behave,and take to heart what is written. Any motive that would help a human cause leads me to conclude that the writing is not inspired from God...unless of course God also wanted to help that human cause.(unlikely) Edited by Phat, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You still haven't read the Bible, have you?
What causes other than human causes could there be?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
im never gonna read the Bible in a scholarly way...im not out to learn about the culture of that time so much as to find inspiration in order to navigate the culture i live in.
What causes other than human causes could there be? God Himself speaking to me. Its not impossible, you know. Though I am but an ant, He will find a way that I can understand, in my belief.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But the question is "What causes other than human causes could there be?"
You did not answer that and actually simply pointed to a human cause, making Phat feel warm and fuzzy,Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
why cant the words simply be God speaking to humanity?(Using our language)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Why can't the words that Mark Twain or Rev Dodgson or Kipling or Dawkins wrote be God speaking to humanity?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
They could.
The message needs to be tested using what we know or think we know about what God would say. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Then why did you say:
Phat writes: I would question the motive behind the writings. If a piece of writing is inspired..this..to me..means that the only motivation of the author is to instruct, edify, and encourage readers to reflect,behave,and take to heart what is written. Any motive that would help a human cause leads me to conclude that the writing is not inspired from God...unless of course God also wanted to help that human cause.(unlikely)Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
perhaps I have not thought deeply enough on my belief. Of course, you would correctly argue that the God whom I want is not likely the One whom actually may exist.
And that bursts my bubble.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024