Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1119 of 1677 (844884)
12-07-2018 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1117 by Percy
12-06-2018 4:45 PM


Percy writes:
That's one definition, but that definition isn't a good fit for me because I don't know if any of those things are true. I don't know if God is uncaused or if He was the first to cause anything or if He created the universe. Those things aren't part of my beliefs, and I don't believe anything one way or the other about them. The only part that fits me is that I don't believe He interferes in the affairs of man, though I'm contradictory on this point because I also believe that he does. This doesn't make any sense, of course.
I've been mulling over your post. In the end it seems to me that you have come to your beliefs, not by arriving at a conclusion of what it is you believe but by eliminating what you don't believe.
I kinda get you saying that you don't think He interferes but that He does. You can look at the world and see the evil that people are capable of but then you can also see the tremendous good that people can do as well.
Obviously I believe that He does intervene but normally not directly. I see Him working through the hearts of people who have the free will to accept or reject that heart input. In my mind that makes more sense as I'm inclined to think that purely evolutionary forces would have been more likely to produce a more monolithic human nature. However that is just an observation and hardly conclusive.
Percy writes:
I only call myself a deist because I believe in a deity. If you think I'm being misleading to call myself a deist then some other label would probably suit. Maybe just call me spiritual.
Maybe an agnostic deist just to try and cover all the bases.
Percy writes:
No, that wouldn't be correct. I don't know if God is uncaused or if the universe had a first cause.
I know that I argue for a universe that exists because of God and also for an eternal God but when you get right down to it doesn't really matter from a Christian perspective. All that matters really is to say that God is responsible for life, that He cares for that life and desires that we have hearts that care for all life and not just for ourselves. Maybe as an agnostic deist that is something that you could concur with.
Percy writes:
This isn't something I believe, but if you're wondering whether I consider my beliefs rational then the answer is no, of course not. I didn't arrive at my beliefs through rational thought and study. They just happened. They just are.
Why must there be a reason? As far as I can tell my beliefs just happened. As a child attending Sunday School I wondered where the information in the Bible came from. In particular I wondered how anyone knew that in the beginning the Earth was without form and void, and I thought that maybe God just told people later. But I was never one to think about God much, and at some point I became aware that I believed what I believe now, but that was a long time ago.
Maybe that's a bit of a cop out. You attended church when you were young and rejected it. You had a belief that it wasn't correct. You seem to reject atheism which is another belief. So, it seems to me that your belief is a kind of default position that just happened as a result of eliminating the other possibilities.
Percy writes:
As I said in Message 1054, "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." And in Message 1100 I said, "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."
It seems to me though that as you believe that there is a purpose that it would somehow play a part in how you live your life. I would suggest that your moral beliefs and how they apply to your life would have to be a general indication of what that purpose might be.
Percy writes:
How could I possibly know? As I touched on a couple times, we may have no role at all, in which case when the world ends our time on the stage will have signified nothing.
It isn't a case of knowing at all. Of course we can't know. However, it seems to me that although we can squelch it we have to some degree or another intuit that life does have meaning. I know that atheists can find meaning in all sorts of things including love of family, friends, vocations etc but I think that most people are like yourself in that although they don't know what it is, but that there is an ultimate purpose.
Percy writes:
Why do you think one needs a reason for what one believes? Why can't you just believe? It's much more freeing. And from where I sit that appears to be exactly what you're doing, but with the additional belief that you have evidence.
I suppose, but I have to admit that I do look for a reason for what I believe. I wonder why the world is as it is. Certainly as a Christian I have to ask why the suffering. It is a difficult question, but then I also have to ask why people respond lovingly to the suffering of others. I ask why people wrote what they di in the Bible or other holy books for that matter. I'm glad the people in science weren't content to just believe but asked why and looked for answers.
I'm afraid that I just don't accept that believing something without reason is freeing. I contend that it is just the opposite. If you believe something without reason then it doesn't leave you free to see a reason why you should believe that your beliefs should be adjusted. For example, my Christian beliefs have changed considerably over the years as a result of listening to the reasoning of others.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1117 by Percy, posted 12-06-2018 4:45 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1120 by Percy, posted 12-07-2018 6:57 PM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1182 of 1677 (845246)
12-13-2018 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1110 by Percy
12-05-2018 1:02 PM


Sorry to be so slow getting back to you. Better late than never eh. 
Percy writes:
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.
If the second part of your statement is correct then the first part is wrong and the details didn’t increase over time. I’d also add that I don’t concede that the epistles were the earliest Christian writings. Yes, they were written prior to the Gospels being compiled, but the Gospels were compiled from earlier material, Q or not, that would have been written prior to the epistles.
Percy writes:
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.
I agree that there would be multiple eye witnesses and that the accounts would have been both through the oral tradition and through written material. Luke puts it this way.
quote:
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
As Luke says many have written up accounts and different individuals would have been privy to some information but not all of it. The different Gospel writers obviously used much of the same information and not others. Through all this we would expect there to be differences in the accounts, which again shows there isn’t collusion involved.
John then ends his Gospel with this:
quote:
24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. 25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
He is making a claim about its fundamental accuracy and also that there was considerable information available indicating that his compilation consisted what he considered to be the highlights.
Percy writes:
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.
The Gospel of Peter is interesting as it is a Gospel that is clearly written from a docetic POV and disregards Jesus’ humanity. It clearly is written with an agenda that Jesus is God and is actually much more in line with how a 1st century Jew would fabricate the story of Jesus.
Peter does have Pilate involved but it has the final decision being made by Herod. However it is pretty consistent with this account in Matthew 27. I also agree that there were numerous disagreements in the early church which primarily centred around, not the crucifixion and resurrection accounts, but on how to deal with the Jewish laws for Gentiles. Of course the major issue was circumcision.
Percy writes:
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.
I don’t think so. Here was this messianic claimant who was performing miracles. They couldn’t let go of their beliefs that the messiah would lead them against the Romans, and a miracle working leader might just do the trick. Also as far as we know Jesus was the only messianic claimant that had members of the under classes and even outcasts as followers. Here were these tax collectors and fisherman etc that saw themselves being elevated to princely positions. Their belief would be that the Romans would be overthrown, quite possibly by an act of God with possibly no military intervention even necessary.
When Jesus was crucified that dream ended but with the resurrection that hope was initially resurrected, (pun intended). After that they finally accepted the idea of the peaceful revolution against evil itself. Their weapon was God’s gift of love and not the sword or direct divine intervention by God as a means of eliminating Roman domination.
Percy writes:
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?
Firstly it was the Jews crying for crucifixion and Pilate would acquiesce for a couple of reasons. Crucifixion wasn’t simply a means of torture and death. It was so much more. It was making a statement that the person being crucified was beyond worthless and virtually sub human. A Roman citizen could not be crucified. The Jews were anxious to have Jesus completely discredited and crucifixion would fit the bill nicely. As Luke tells us in chap 19 the Jews also put pressure on Pilate by saying that Jesus’ claimed to be the Son of God. This was a term used by Roman emperors for themselves. They were saying that Jesus claimed to hold this position and not Caesar. Pilate would see this as a reason for crucifixion even if just for the idea he wouldn’t want it to get back to Caesar that he hadn’t taken firm action.
BTW, I keep using the term Jew. It is short hand for the group of Jews who essentially held power. Jesus was a Jew and all of his first followers were Jewish so I do not mean to disrespect Jewish people then or now in any way.
Percy writes:
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.
So what? That doesn’t tell us anything about the historical nature of the event.
Percy writes:
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.
That is all pretty much conjecture and people then and today usually have agendas, regardless of which side of the issue they are on. My own belief is that the gospels were written separately but, at least in the case of the Synoptics, from largely the same original material.
Percy writes:
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?
I don’t think that they did alter the eyewitness accounts except to highlight certain things and likely embellish things a bit. I’d say that it is much more likely that there were relatively minor differences in the account just as there are in witnesses in an automobile accident. Just as investigators work to get at what actually happened, the first Christians did their best to provide accurate accounts, and then to understand what it all meant. We carry on that work today.
GDR writes:
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...
Percy writes:
But it can be your ending point, too. What you just stated seems more than sufficient.
Absolutely and for most Christians that is enough. If God resurrected Jesus then Jesus command to love our neigbour is complete for Christian belief. I just find theology to be fascinating, and so I find it stimulating to deep deeper into the theology of Christianity but I agree with you it isn’t necessary.
Percy writes:
Science considers everything a natural process.
Which it should. However ultimately you wind up requiring an infinite string of processes to bring about existence as we know it. (Turtles all the way down.) However, as a deist that isn’t your problem
Percy writes:
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.
Yes I agree that all belief comes from within but that doesn’t mean that belief can’t be informed by a book. I’d even say in my case that my belief came from the philosophical ideas of CS Lewis and then became more focused as I read the Bible and other writers.
Percy writes:
his 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.
Anglicanism like all religion is mankind’s attempt to understand the nature of God and what that should mean to our lives, and Anglicanism itself continues to hammer differences in belief.
Incidentally I’d forgotten about Matthew 26:56 concerning the accounts of the disciples deserting Him,where it reads Then all the disciples left Him and fled.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1110 by Percy, posted 12-05-2018 1:02 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1185 by Straggler, posted 12-14-2018 1:02 AM GDR has replied
 Message 1204 by Percy, posted 12-21-2018 7:34 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1186 of 1677 (845295)
12-14-2018 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1185 by Straggler
12-14-2018 1:02 AM


Re: Ascension
Straggler writes:
I wondered what you make of the ascension? Do you believe Jesus resurrected physical body actually rose up to heaven on a cloud?
Firstly it wouldn't be meant or understood by a 1st century Jew as a literal cloud. In Exodus when God spoke to the Israelites He spoke to them from a cloud. They were led by a pillar of cloud. In Daniel 7 the Son of Man comes with the clouds of heaven. "Incidentally Acts doesn't say that He rose on a cloud it says He rose into a cloud." This would be understood as Jesus being lifted into the presence of God.
As to whether He rose vertically or not I have no idea nor does it matter. Heaven was always envisioned as being up so it makes sense they would say that He was "lifted up" into God's heavenly space.
Straggler writes:
Do similar accounts of Augustus doing similar hold any water in your view?
You have me there. I am totally unfamiliar with your reference even after googling around.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1185 by Straggler, posted 12-14-2018 1:02 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1187 by Straggler, posted 12-14-2018 3:00 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1188 of 1677 (845397)
12-15-2018 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1187 by Straggler
12-14-2018 3:00 AM


Re: Ascension
Straggler writes:
So what do you believe witnesses to the ascension did actually see?
It is interesting that in Luke’s Gospel it simply says that Jesus departed and was carried up to heaven. In Acts he talks about going up into a cloud. Mark says that He was received up in heaven. Matthew and John don’t have an account of the ascension.
Actually the accounts are all pretty much the same. The account in Acts about ascending into a cloud is simply Luke’s way of saying that Jesus went into the presence of God. In the Exodus story there are several occasions where it records Yahweh speaking to them from a cloud. There is also the account of them being led by Yahweh in a pillar of cloud. Again, it wouldn’t have been meant as a physical cloud, but meant metaphorically as the presence of God.
As far as being carried up is concerned people have always imagined God’s heavenly dimension as being up. In the end my best guess as to what they saw was that they saw Him simply disappear leaving our Earthly universe behind and returning to God’s heavenly universe.
Straggler writes:
Simply from the wiki entry on the ascension of Jesus.
Thanks for the link. It was interesting and informative. I don’t see a link however between the other ascension accounts and Luke’s. I see the ascension accounts in the Bible to being in reference again to Daniel 7, where the Son of Man is presented to the Ancient of Days and given dominion over the Kingdom. Another Jewish way of saying this was that He would be seated at God’s right hand.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1187 by Straggler, posted 12-14-2018 3:00 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1189 by Straggler, posted 12-15-2018 2:54 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1190 of 1677 (845467)
12-16-2018 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1189 by Straggler
12-15-2018 2:54 PM


Re: Ascension
Straggler writes:
So your interpretation, based on what’s in the bible, of what witnesses to Jesus’s ascension actually saw is that Jesus’s physical body just vanished in front of them. Is that correct?
Maybe that is the case. The ascension accounts really just say that Jesus "ascended into God's presence. The book of Daniel and particularly Daniel 7 was a book that was clearly a major part of Jesus' self awareness. We know this as He very often refers to Himself as the "Son of Man". I don't see any of the Biblical references necessarily being about one particular instance.
Here is the Daniel 7 passage.
quote:
13 In 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. 14 He 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.
No doubt there had to be a last time that anybody witnessed the resurrected Jesus, (it might have been Paul), but I don't think that the various accounts of resurrection refer to one particular instance. They are all however saying that Jesus went into the presence of the "Ancient of Days" or the presence of God.
Straggler writes:
I don’t understand your reasoning here. The accounts and graphical depictions of the various ascensions are all pretty similar with the person in question being bodily elevated into the sky towards heaven to sit with the gods (or God in the case of Jesus’s ascension and presumably Mary’s ascension too).
What’s the difference between the notion that Jesus ascended to join the Christian God and the notion that Augustus or Heracles ascended to heaven to sit with Jupiter or Zeus? I’m not seeing any great distinction.
They may have borrowed some of the language used, but the difference is that people experienced the resurrected Jesus prior to His ascension. If there is no resurrection there is no ascension, and for that matter no Christianity.
Edited by GDR, : Forgot to end the quote

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1189 by Straggler, posted 12-15-2018 2:54 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1193 by Straggler, posted 12-16-2018 5:26 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1194 of 1677 (845528)
12-16-2018 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1193 by Straggler
12-16-2018 5:26 PM


Re: Ascension
Straggler writes:
I can't find anywhere that agrees with your interpretation of Jesus just vanishing. As far as I can tell you just invented that. Do you have a link or other source that comes to that same interpretation?
Wiki in general supports my view. Here is a quote from it.
quote:
The common thread linking all the New Testament ascension references, reflected in the major Christian creeds and confessional statements, is the exaltation of Jesus, meaning that through his ascension Jesus took his seat at the right hand of God in Heaven:[3] "He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty." (Apostles' Creed) It implies the human Jesus being taken into Heaven and marks the beginning of Christ's heavenly rule, and its hold on the Christian imagination is evidenced by its importance in Christian art through the centuries.
Here's the link The Ascension of Jesus
Straggler writes:
Who are the two robed men in your view?
I'm not going to pretend to know. They aren't mentioned anywhere else including Luke's Gospel. It could be two of Jesus' followers who understood Jesus' message and announced their beliefs.
Straggler writes:
This sounds more like Jesus bodily rising upwards than just vanishing - No?
Sure if you read it like we read 21st century accounts in a western culture. I contend that a 1st century Jew would understand it differently. If there was more than one account of this I would maybe understand it in a more literally way but it reads to me like the typical hyperbole of that culture.
Straggler writes:
But the ascension stories relating to Heracles and Romulus predate Christ and Augustus dies in 14AD so his probably does too. So I'm still lost as to the distinction you are making about the different ascension stories. If anything it seems that Christianity borrowed the idea of ascension from the Greeks and Romans.
It is possible that they used the language of ascension to make the statement that Jesus was King and Caesar wasn't. We aren't going to know for sure but it is strange that Luke only gives that account in Acts and not in his Gospel.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1193 by Straggler, posted 12-16-2018 5:26 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1195 by Straggler, posted 12-16-2018 7:19 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1196 of 1677 (845536)
12-16-2018 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1195 by Straggler
12-16-2018 7:19 PM


Re: Ascension
Straggler writes:
I’m talking about what the witnesses of the acension actually observed. Because you (and others) have been talking about eyewitness accounts in this thread. And about how convincing they are to you. So I’m trying to get your thinking on the eyewitness account of the ascension rather than speculation about where Jesus ended up at the end of it all.
There are accounts of the resurrected Jesus appearing and disappearing in the Gospels. However, the point of the ascension accounts is that Jesus was exalted by the Father. I'm content to say that this is what is understood, and that the accounts are likely to covey that message metaphorically.
They may or may not have known that it was the final appearance, but the point is that it really isn't important. At some point He departed our Earthly dimension for God's heavenly dimension however it looked.
Straggler writes:
On the other hand pretty much every depiction of the ascension (which generally predate depictions of the crucifixion btw) shows Christ rising up into the sky. A lot of them also show the two figures in white, as angels.
Sure and we see lots of paintings of animals go 2 by 2 into the ark. So what? We see pictures depicting the parable of the Good Samaritan.
Straggler writes:
Are you suggesting that the description above and the overwhelming majority of pictorial depictions going back millenia are unreliable and unconvincing as to what actually occurred....?
I'd say that the are likely visual depictions of a metaphor.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1195 by Straggler, posted 12-16-2018 7:19 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1197 by Straggler, posted 12-16-2018 10:08 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1198 of 1677 (845544)
12-17-2018 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1197 by Straggler
12-16-2018 10:08 PM


Re: Ascension
Straggler writes:
I’d suggest that whatever motivated the ascension metaphor/hyperbole/fabrication may well of been at play in other areas that you are prepared to take as fact...
There is only one account that says more than just that He ascended . It even is inconsistent with his own previous account. Jesus' resurrection is consistent through all the writers in the NT.
Possibly it did happen in roughly the way that is described in Acts 1, but frankly it only matters if you want to be a literalist. You get lots of cheers from Faith anyway.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1197 by Straggler, posted 12-16-2018 10:08 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1199 by Straggler, posted 12-17-2018 3:32 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1200 of 1677 (845565)
12-17-2018 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1199 by Straggler
12-17-2018 3:32 AM


Re: Ascension
Straggler writes:
Googling ‘resurrection inconsistencies’ suggests that the various accounts differ pretty significantly.
I looked over the site you linked and some of the contradictions are valid. The point though is that by the time the Gospel compilations were put together there were differences in the accounts. The point is that they all agree that Jesus was resurrected and in a way that would not have been fabricated by 1st century Jews.
Again, it is like witnesses to a car accident but not just a few hours later but in cases where the Gospels were compiled using the oral tradition decades later. Again however they consistently agree that Jesus was resurrected.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1199 by Straggler, posted 12-17-2018 3:32 AM Straggler has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 1202 of 1677 (845576)
12-17-2018 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1199 by Straggler
12-17-2018 3:32 AM


Re: Ascension
Straggler writes:
Googling ‘resurrection inconsistencies’ suggests that the various accounts differ pretty significantly.
I just wanted to add one more thing in addition to what I said earlier. Just as accounts of witnesses to a car accident differ they all agree that an accident happened, and the point is that their statements only exist because an accident happened.
If the resurrection hadn't happened there wouldn't be any accounts to differ.
London is a great place around Christmas time. I remember standing looking down Oxford Street one time, at all the activity and crowds, and just getting the sense of everyone is "I". In a very real way we all have our own little universe.
Merry Christmas

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1199 by Straggler, posted 12-17-2018 3:32 AM Straggler has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1203 of 1677 (845616)
12-17-2018 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1199 by Straggler
12-17-2018 3:32 AM


Re: Ascension
Hi Straggler
I decided today to read Josephus again as it has been a long time since I read his material. The whole book is long and tedious so along with the whole book I bought Josephus — The Essential Works.
In the introduction I came across this.
quote:
Another fault in Josephus (besides his biases) is one he shares with most of the ancient historians: a propensity to exaggerate, particularly with numbers. Casualty lists after some of the battles are so impossibly high that even to note such overstatements would clutter too many pages in the text. The reader must also discount such hyperboles as, for example, the claim that so much blood was shed in Jerusalem during its conquest that streams of gore extinguished fires there. Exaggeration, however, was so common a conceit among most of the ancient sources that if a Herodotus could claim Xeres invaded Greece with a total force of 5,283,220, Josephus may have felt it unwise to provide accurate figures if such inflation was common fare at the time.
I think that we should accept the authors claim that ancient historians had a propensity to exaggerate and to have their biases. As is also pointed out in the introduction, biases need not connote falsehood.
I suggest that in our reading of the Scriptures that we do allow for human bias and exaggerations that were normal for ancient historians. In addition when we read the scriptures with have to look for confirmation, by the fact that it is recorded by more than one author, and for its consistency with the whole narrative.
The details of the ascension account in Act2 are only recorded that one time and are not repeated either in the gospels or the Epistles. The account that Jesus was bodily resurrected is in all the Gospels and Epistles.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1199 by Straggler, posted 12-17-2018 3:32 AM Straggler has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 1205 of 1677 (845901)
12-21-2018 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1204 by Percy
12-21-2018 7:34 AM


Percy writes:
The "eyewitness" accounts and so forth included walking on water, raising from the dead, turning water to wine, feeding thousands with a few baskets of food, etc. Completely unreliable.
That is your conclusion based on your life and understanding of things. It is also inconsistent with my own life, but I am prepared to accept that the God who is responsible for life, is capable of doing things that are outside of what we call the natural laws, and doing it through the one who was anointed to perfectly image His nature.
Percy writes:
Why do you think John any more trustworthy than Luke? You're already picking and choosing. So am I, but what I pick and choose amounts to far less than you.
You severely twisted the point. I did not suggest that John is more trustworthy that Luke. I only quoted John in reference to my point.
Percy writes:
Every book of the Bible was written with an agenda.
Sure, but that doesn’t make them wrong.
Percy writes:
Only after the last supper are there occasional hints, if one's mind is already so inclined, of the apostles believing anything like this. Most of the gospels carry the spiritual message.
Ya, but it seems the disciples never seemed to get it until some time after the resurrection.
Percy writes:
Princely positions? Is that eye of the needle stuff one of the parts you chose to leave behind?
As I said, they didn’t get it. A Kingdom message meant to them Israel in their lifetimes.
Percy writes:
Or they got together and said, "Okay, Jesus is gone, but we've got a good thing going here, so here's what we do..."
That’s more than a tad bizarre. Just what good thing did they have going for them? They had no visible means of support and their leader was put to death for the cause.
Percy writes:
Your so called histories include miracles.
Yes.
Percy writes:
Right, as do you and I, except yours isn't reality based.
.with your understanding of reality. The fact that we exist is a miracle. Who are you to say as someone who believes that there is a God can say conclusively that God couldn’t temporarily change the way things normally happen.
GDR writes:
I’d say that it is much more likely that there were relatively minor differences in the account just as there are in witnesses in an automobile accident.
Percy writes:
A few minutes or hours afterward, sure. A few decades 3rd hand? No way.
The point was that it is more likely to have variations in the accounts years later than if it is only hours later. In both cases though the main event still was the point of it all.
GDR writes:
Just as investigators work to get at what actually happened, the first Christians did their best to provide accurate accounts, and then to understand what it all meant.
Percy writes:
Christians today can't even keep themselves from getting swindled right and left by preachers or keep their children from being sexually abused. You think early Christians were a lot more savvy then? Please.
Those 2 things are totally unconnected.
GDR writes:
Which it should. However ultimately you wind up requiring an infinite string of processes to bring about existence as we know it. (Turtles all the way down.)
Percy writes:
*You* might believe that, but that isn't something science currently thinks it knows.
Well what does science know then? We can study evolution but what process kicked it off and so on back to the BB, and then you need a process to start that as well.
Percy writes:
Once you have decided that your belief will be anchored in reality then it should be informed by what can be shown true, not by books by CS Lewis or by ancient anonymous authors like the Bible.
I haven’t claimed absolute knowledge. It is belief and faith in that belief.
Percy writes:
But you're not really an Anglican - that was just your starting point. At best you're a cafeteria Anglican. Have you also forgotten about Matthew 26:52:
quote:
52Put your sword back in its place, Jesus said to him, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?
No swords, therefore no armies. Just angels. A spiritual rebirth on Earth.
I’m afraid your point here has gone over my head. I agree that it isn’t about the sword, and that it is about a spiritual rebirth that changes heart to hearts that find joy in love and peace.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1204 by Percy, posted 12-21-2018 7:34 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1206 by Percy, posted 12-22-2018 4:52 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1207 of 1677 (845960)
12-23-2018 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1206 by Percy
12-22-2018 4:52 PM


Percy writes:
Your life is just like mine in that you have not experienced a single verifiable miracle. No one has. Ever.
and you know that how? I’d suggest that there are all sorts of truths neither of us have experienced.
Percy writes:
You quoted Luke and then you quoted John saying how trustworthy they were. They expressed themselves very nicely, at least in translation, but in essence they were saying, "Hey, trust me." Believing all the miracles is part of your picking and choosing, but there's no support for any of it, no matter how earnestly Luke and John declare their trustworthiness.
My purpose isn’t to prove their trustworthiness, but just to say that they are claiming that the accounts are trustworthy and not fabricated. We the decide ourselves whether they got it wrong, fabricated the accounts or made it all up. For me the historical context amongst other things convinces me of the fundamental correctness of the accounts. Obviously you disagree.
Percy writes:
You keep saying this, but there's no support for it. It's exactly as I just said. Both before the last supper and after the resurrection it's all a spiritual message. Only in between are there occasional hints, and hints only if your mind is so inclined, that the apostles expected Jesus to lead an army against the Romans. It makes a nice story that the apostles were these dunderheaded idiots who couldn't grasp the spiritual nature of Christ's mission despite everything he said and despite witnessing his miracles right and left, but it's just a story.
I’d say that there are a lot more than hints and in addition it is consistent of what we know of the culture, particularly as told by Josephus.
Percy writes:
Now you're just making stuff up. Jesus made no promises of "princely positions" for his followers, the opposite in fact. Jesus did not promise a kingdom on Earth or the restoration of Israel. You, like many Christians, are taking OT promises and pretending Jesus made them.
Absolutely Jesus did not make princely promises. Just the opposite in fact as you say. The disciples, because of their understanding of what they hoped for from a messiah, asked for positions of honour and were rebuked for it. Jesus’ talk was for a Kingdom on this Earth but not one with geographic boundaries, including Israel. It was for the whole world and made up of those who followed His message of love, peace, forgiveness and mercy. I Have never claimed that Jesus made OT prophesies, nor do I believe that. I do believe that Jesus read and understood OT prophesies and worked out how they applied to His specific vocation. A simple one is the prophesy of riding a donkey into Jerusalem from Jeremiah . Jesus felt called to make a messianic claim so He arranged for a donkey.
Percy writes:
The apostles found themselves at the top of a significant religious movement that had lost its leader. What better way to keep things going than to claim the leader had returned to life. In reply to habeas corpus demands they answered that he had ascended to heaven to be with his Father, but he'll be back, there'll be a second coming, any day now, just be patient.
But none of that makes any sense. They had hoped that Jesus, in whatever manner, was going to lead them against their enemies. The enemy had just crucified Him. They had lost, and the hopes were dashed. Even if they believed He was coming back, you really have to take a leap of faith to think that they could sell a crucified messiah based on that claim. The only thing that makes sense is that Jesus really had returned and now they had reason to carry on, however, with a mission that was quite different than what they had imagined.
Percy writes:
There's no such thing as miracles. True histories don't include miracles. Miracles is what you find in religious texts. You have to put the Bible in the context of all the religious texts of all the religions of the world throughout history, back through Assyria and Babylonia and ancient Egypt and whatever was before that. They all have their confabulous tales, all untrue. The Bible is no different.
Says you. I’d suggest again that the fact that you and I exist, regardless of how it was done, is a miracle. Sentient life with a sense of morality from non-dimensional mindless particles sure sounds like a miracle to me. Healing a leper is pretty small potatoes.
Percy writes:
And also with *your* understanding of reality. Your mind is hooked on a religious belief and can't free itself. You think miracles are real, but only Christian miracles. Your reject Buddhist and Hindu and probably especially Norse and Roman and Greek and Babylonian and ancient Egyptian religious miracles. To you those were just credulous ancient peoples, not at all like the savvy, intelligent Christians of the first century.
You make claims about what I believe that I have never claimed. Frankly I would think that there have been other miracles other than Christian miracles. God is God of all.
Percy writes:
Existence is a miracle. Got it. Whose God is responsible for existence? Can I guess that your answer is your God?
He isn’t my god in the way that you seem to mean it. I have a belief that God is loving, forgiving and just, and is represented by what we see in the life of Jesus. A few years back I read much of the book of Buddha. The Buddha who live about 700 years before Jesus had essentially the same message that we get from following Jesus. Yes, I think that He was inspired by with that message. Mahatma Ghandi was, I believe, inspired with the same message. Most religions worship a deity. It isn’t a question of which deity that we worship but about the attributes of our deity. If we are worshipping a deity who is again, loving, kind, merciful, forgiving etc then it doesn’t matter what we call that deity.
However, Christianity is different because the resurrection affirms Jesus’ life and message by the deity.
Percy writes:
I couldn't make the grammar work for me on this one, but I think I get the idea. You don't have to trust what I say about God interfering in the universe. Just ask yourself where is the evidence of God changing just one thing one time from the way it would normally happen.
You can’t prove a miracle. Stuff happens for better or for worse. The Gospels are evidence that Jesus was resurrected. We can read the accounts and accept or reject them. There is no knockdown scientific proof either way. A miracle is something that is one time and cannot be reproduced so science can only say that it cannot happen in the laws of nature as we understand them.
Percy writes:
Good questions. I think there is so much we don't know that scientists will never have to worry about running out of things to learn. But your statement that science knows that the answer requires "an infinite string of processes" is baldly wrong.
Science has given us an understanding of the process of evolution. What is the process that got evolution started. If science ultimately is able to explain that process then what is the process that got that started. It keeps going back to the BB and then we ask what is the process that kicked that off, and then the process that brought that into existence and so on and so on..
Percy writes:
The point is that it contradicts your claim that even after he was arrested the apostles thought Jesus had come to lead an army against the Romans, because Matthew 26:52 quotes Jesus after his arrest telling the apostles that it isn't about swords but angels.
Actually I’m more inclined to think that isn’t the case although I can’t rule it out either. Jesus was performing all of these miracles and I’m more inclined to think that they believed that somehow, as He had this miraculous capability from God that He would use that capability to overcome the enemy. Jesus message that they didn’t really understand until later was that the enemy wasn’t the Romans but the evil that the Romans represented. The weapon against evil is love. Paul goes into the details of the weapons of love in Ephesians 6.
quote:
10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. 12 For 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. 13 Therefore 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. 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 18 And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord’s people.
Percy writes:
I see a number of problems with your position. One is that you give your trust to accounts that haven't earned it, indeed are confabulous. Another is that the accounts have a number of internal and external problems. Another is that there is no evidence Jesus ever existed, with the gospel stories relating such huge unrest that Jesus could not possibly have escaped the notice of history.
Jesus came from the peasant class and from an outpost in Jewish society. His followers were mostly from the peasant class. They don’t chronicle stories about peasants normally. Jesus’ political impact was well after His death. If you look at the times there is real no reason to expect there to be accounts of Jesus until Christianity had spread many decades later beyond what we have. Josephus who wasn’t born until 3 years after Jesus’ death mentions Him but not much more than that. It was a movement that grew from the lower classes and didn’t have a political impact in the history of the area until much later. The major event in the 1st century from a the view point of the Jews was the 66-70 AD war and Christianity didn’t really play any part of that.
Percy writes:
Another is that you're picking and choosing which parts of inherently unreliable accounts you're going to retain.
You can call it picking and choosing if you like but I am simply using Jesus as the lens in the way that I understand what is of God and what isn’t while acknowledging that there are grey areas.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1206 by Percy, posted 12-22-2018 4:52 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1210 by Percy, posted 12-24-2018 1:11 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1215 of 1677 (845998)
12-25-2018 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1210 by Percy
12-24-2018 1:11 PM


Hi Percy. Merry Christmas.
I don’t have time to respond on a point by point basis so I’m just going to respond in a more general sense.
It is difficult to have a discussion as you categorically reject the possibility of miracles which includes the resurrection of course. The resurrection was a one time event 2000 years ago so there is of course no proof. As evidence we have the NT. There is however no other physical evidence of the resurrection of Jesus. I believe that the resurrection of Jesus is historical where you categorically reject the possibility of it being historical and go so far as to ridicule the possibility. This kinda leaves us no middle ground to start a discussion.
Anyway, just a couple of points.
First off the disciples believed that a messiah, however it was done, was to establish Israel to be the number one power in the area. He was to defeat the enemy and rebuild the Temple. They saw Jesus performing miracles and failed to grasp His fundamental message of defeating the evil embodied by the Romans by loving them and turning the other cheek etc.
Jesus was leading a kingdom message but it wasn’t just for Israel it was for the world. Jesus often referred to Himself as Son of Man’ which is an obvious reference to Daniel 7:14 where the Son of Man is given dominion over a kingdom of all people, nations and men of every language might serve Him in an eternal kingdom. The Gospels constantly talk about the Kingdom of God as do the epistles. It is clearly a kingdom for the here and now but extending beyond time. Jesus even told us to pray for the Kingdom to come on Earth as in Heaven.
You ask for my proof that the Fairy tales I believe are true. We both know I don’t have proof. You either believe the Gospels that the resurrection is historical or you don’t.
I don’t claim that other religions or other forms of Christianity for that matter are all wrong. I think that God is God of all regardless of what name we put to it. Again, what the main thing that differentiates Christianity from other religions is the resurrection. No resurrection and you are essentially left with secular humanism or possibly Judaism or some form of Buddhism.
Again, have a very merry New England Christmas

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1210 by Percy, posted 12-24-2018 1:11 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1216 by AZPaul3, posted 12-25-2018 6:15 PM GDR has replied
 Message 1220 by Percy, posted 12-26-2018 5:15 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1217 of 1677 (846001)
12-26-2018 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1216 by AZPaul3
12-25-2018 6:15 PM


Well that is all very flattering and thank you very much. It is obviously the spirit of Christmas in you.
I have done a lot of reading on this subject and in the end frankly I find that it is much harder to not believe than it is to believe. However I’d like to point out a couple of things.
Firstly there are some people who really do have brilliant minds who are firmly committed to their Christian faith. Look at Francis Collins who headed up the Human Genome project. He wrote, and I read, his book The Language of God where he views DNA and evolutionary biology as God’s fingerprints in our world. One of my favourite authors, and I’ve read several of his books, is John Polkinghorne. He was a highly awarded physicist in the last century who became an Anglican minister in the Church of England in his 40’s. He was part of the team that discovered the quark.
I am not saying that this proves anything about Christianity, but it does prove that you can be a particularly brilliant individual and be a Christian.
Another field I find fascinating but in which I have zero background is the world of physics. I’ve read Brian Greene and found the concepts fascinating but the conceptual level is as far as I can go. This forum has been very educational. I bring this up though to make a point.
When we look at the world of relativity and quantum mechanics we find that our world is far more non-intuitive than even Christianity. We all experience time differently. Particles pop in and out of existence. Make a change in a particle here and somehow information passed at infinite speed to a paired particle light years away and makes a change to that particle.
Just look at Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Look at particles themselves. It seems that are dimensionless bits of information and/or energy that make up everything. In the end, everything appears to be nothing. It seems to me that the one thing that is fundamental is consciousness that causes us to perceive a particular form of reality.
I mentioned earlier that I see the narrative in the Bible that describes a progressive revelation in our understanding of the nature of God. I contend that we continue to learn although that progression is certainly not linear.
I realize that my specific belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ sounds strange to you, Percy and others. However if someone were to describe modern physics to Newton he would have said they were nuts. The progressive revelation in the field of physics has led us to understand the world that is far weirder than we could ever have imagined, and in fact far weirder than the idea that Jesus after death was resurrected.
Physicists talk about other dimensions and other universes. They talk about an infinite number of universes and parallel universes. We are told that our perceived universe is only 4.5% of what exists. It seems that we are an emergent part of a greater reality. Why then is it so hard to believe that there is another dimension/universe that Jesus, somewhat particle like, could physically move from another dimension to our own and back again. Does that really sound any stranger than the quantum world?
Have a great 2019
Edited by GDR, : typos
Edited by Admin, : Fix Collins link.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1216 by AZPaul3, posted 12-25-2018 6:15 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1218 by Phat, posted 12-26-2018 2:22 PM GDR has replied
 Message 1219 by Tangle, posted 12-26-2018 3:50 PM GDR has replied
 Message 1221 by Percy, posted 12-26-2018 5:41 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 1244 by AZPaul3, posted 12-29-2018 6:49 AM GDR 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