Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,651 Year: 4,908/9,624 Month: 256/427 Week: 2/64 Day: 2/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Matthew 28 versus John 20.
subbie
Member (Idle past 1342 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 31 of 89 (595680)
12-09-2010 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by arachnophilia
12-09-2010 8:18 PM


critically thinking about the bible is the way of the devil, you know.
Near as I can tell, among the inerrantist crowd, critically thinking about anything is the way of the devil.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by arachnophilia, posted 12-09-2010 8:18 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6203
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 32 of 89 (595681)
12-09-2010 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Theodoric
12-09-2010 2:37 PM


Re: Any evidence?
I know that there is nothing conclusive on the dates but I'm inclined to accept the earlier dates as there is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
N T Dates

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Theodoric, posted 12-09-2010 2:37 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by PaulK, posted 12-10-2010 1:37 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6203
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 33 of 89 (595683)
12-09-2010 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by nwr
12-09-2010 12:15 PM


nwr writes:
it seems to me that the OP is posing the topic as a potential problem for inerrantists.
That's the problem with that view. When people try and make the Bible it was something it was never intended to be, then the faith isn't logically sustainable and as a result people throw the baby out with the bath water.
The Christian faith is not supposed to be a faith that makes an idol out of the Bible. We are God worshippers and not Bible worshippers and God is not dependent on an inerrant Bible.
All that being said I do see the Bible as holy and blessed by God. Through it come the great truths of the universe.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by nwr, posted 12-09-2010 12:15 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6203
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 34 of 89 (595685)
12-09-2010 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by jar
12-09-2010 11:58 AM


Re: The topic
jar writes:
But it is irrelevant to the topic and honestly, pretty irrelevant to Jesus message IMHO as well.
I see it as being completely relevant to the topic as I assume the question concerns how we can reconcile the accounts and presumably how can we as Christians reconcile the differences to the Christian faith.
Also if the resurrection didn't occur then Jesus was just another in a long line of failed messiahs and his message is no more important than the message of anyone else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 12-09-2010 11:58 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by jar, posted 12-09-2010 9:31 PM GDR has replied
 Message 70 by rstrats, posted 12-13-2010 7:41 AM GDR has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34064
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 35 of 89 (595687)
12-09-2010 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by GDR
12-09-2010 9:19 PM


Re: The topic
That implies that the source of a message is more important than the content.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by GDR, posted 12-09-2010 9:19 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by GDR, posted 12-09-2010 9:41 PM jar has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6203
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 36 of 89 (595688)
12-09-2010 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by jar
12-09-2010 9:31 PM


Re: The topic
jar writes:
That implies that the source of a message is more important than the content.
Not at all. It is a question of the credibility of the message. If someone who through the resurrection is confirmed as messiah, the annointed one of God, then we are obviously more inclined to accept the message than if someone like me was going around talking about what God wants of us.
If there is no resurrection then why is his message any more important than anyone else?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by jar, posted 12-09-2010 9:31 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by subbie, posted 12-09-2010 9:47 PM GDR has replied
 Message 38 by jar, posted 12-09-2010 9:55 PM GDR has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1342 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 37 of 89 (595689)
12-09-2010 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by GDR
12-09-2010 9:41 PM


Re: The topic
Not at all. It is a question of the credibility of the message. If someone who through the resurrection is confirmed as messiah, the annointed one of God, then we are obviously more inclined to accept the message than if someone like me was going around talking about what God wants of us.
If there is no resurrection then why is his message any more important than anyone else?
I critically evaluate every important message upon which I will base significant life decision, regardless of the source. Who says something isn't nearly as important to me as what they say. If his message is more important, it's because of what he said.
Blindly trusting something someone says because of who they are leads to disaster.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by GDR, posted 12-09-2010 9:41 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by GDR, posted 12-09-2010 11:25 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34064
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 38 of 89 (595690)
12-09-2010 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by GDR
12-09-2010 9:41 PM


Re: The topic
It depends on the message.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by GDR, posted 12-09-2010 9:41 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by GDR, posted 12-09-2010 11:28 PM jar has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6203
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 39 of 89 (595698)
12-09-2010 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by subbie
12-09-2010 9:47 PM


Re: The topic
subbie writes:
Blindly trusting something someone says because of who they are leads to disaster.
I was not talking about blindly following somebody because of who they are. For instance, say I was having a disagreement with cavediver concerning cosmology. (Which incidentally I wouldn't be stupid enough to do. ) Who do you think has the most credibility? Will it be cavediver who has spent his years studying and teaching it, or will it be me based on the fact that I read a Brian Greene book.
If Jesus wasn't resurrected then there is really no reason to give him him any more credibilty than anyone other failed messiah, or anybody else for that matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by subbie, posted 12-09-2010 9:47 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6203
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 40 of 89 (595699)
12-09-2010 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by jar
12-09-2010 9:55 PM


Re: The topic
jar writes:
It depends on the message.
What you are saying then is that the validity of the message depends on whether you agree with it or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by jar, posted 12-09-2010 9:55 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by jar, posted 12-10-2010 8:38 AM GDR has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 41 of 89 (595708)
12-10-2010 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by GDR
12-09-2010 9:02 PM


Re: Any evidence?
quote:
I know that there is nothing conclusive on the dates but I'm inclined to accept the earlier dates as there is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
I consider the rewrite of the Olivet Discourse in Luke pretty good evidence that the author DID know of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. And I very much doubt that you'd consider Paul's failure to say much of anything about Jesus' life or teachings as a reason to think that those stories weren't known in Paul's lifetime - but it's much the same argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by GDR, posted 12-09-2010 9:02 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by GDR, posted 12-10-2010 2:23 AM PaulK has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6203
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 42 of 89 (595710)
12-10-2010 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by PaulK
12-10-2010 1:37 AM


Re: Any evidence?
PaulK writes:
I consider the rewrite of the Olivet Discourse in Luke pretty good evidence that the author DID know of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
That's been a contentious passage but in my view it is about Jesus saying to the Jews that if they attempt to defeat the Romans militarily is that the temple will be destroyed, but not that it had already happened. His message was that they should love their enemies, (the Romans), turn the other cheek and go the extra mile.
PaulK writes:
And I very much doubt that you'd consider Paul's failure to say much of anything about Jesus' life or teachings as a reason to think that those stories weren't known in Paul's lifetime - but it's much the same argument.
Paul's message centred on Christ crucified and he expounded Christ's message of love, forgiveness, justice etc. He had not been a disciple so he wouldn't be able to directly quote Jesus. Also, a great deal of his writing was to the various gentile churches and were about building up the various churches. I wouldn't expect Paul to write about the life of Jesus as he hadn't been part of that. He would logically leave that to the disciples, and those that had been part of his ministry prior to the crucifixion.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by PaulK, posted 12-10-2010 1:37 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by PaulK, posted 12-10-2010 2:36 AM GDR has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 43 of 89 (595711)
12-10-2010 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by GDR
12-10-2010 2:23 AM


Re: Any evidence?
quote:
That's been a contentious passage but in my view it is about Jesus saying to the Jews that if they attempt to defeat the Romans militarily is that the temple will be destroyed, but not that it had already happened. His message was that they should love their enemies, (the Romans), turn the other cheek and go the extra mile.
You're missing the point. My point is that the DIFFERENCES in Luke indicate that that version was changed by someone with a knowledge of the events of 70 AD. Others argue that much the same could be said of the version found in Mark and Matthew (or even that the whole speech was largely concocted from that standpoint).
quote:
Paul's message centred on Christ crucified and he expounded Christ's message of love, forgiveness, justice etc. He had not been a disciple so he wouldn't be able to directly quote Jesus.
But he would still be familiar with Jesus teachings and the major events of Jesus' life because otherwise he'd be no good as an Apostle. What you're really saying is that Paul was preaching his own religion - not that of Jesus.
quote:
Also, a great deal of his writing was to the various gentile churches and were about building up the various churches. I wouldn't expect Paul to write about the life of Jesus as he hadn't been part of that. He would logically leave that to the disciples, and those that had been part of his ministry prior to the crucifixion.
That's obviously bogus. You point out that the resurrection was essential to Paul's teaching so why not say more about it ? Why not mention the empty tomb (Paul could have even visited the site) ? Why not give more details of the post-resurrection appearances ? And that's just one example, although a very important one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by GDR, posted 12-10-2010 2:23 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by GDR, posted 12-10-2010 11:00 AM PaulK has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34064
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 44 of 89 (595742)
12-10-2010 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by GDR
12-09-2010 11:28 PM


Re: The topic
No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that the message itself must stand or fall based on the content, not on the source.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by GDR, posted 12-09-2010 11:28 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by GDR, posted 12-10-2010 11:08 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6203
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 45 of 89 (595774)
12-10-2010 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by PaulK
12-10-2010 2:36 AM


Re: Any evidence?
PaulK writes:
You're missing the point. My point is that the DIFFERENCES in Luke indicate that that version was changed by someone with a knowledge of the events of 70 AD. Others argue that much the same could be said of the version found in Mark and Matthew (or even that the whole speech was largely concocted from that standpoint).
It's possible in either case. My view is that Jesus was saying that if the Jews were to try and oust the Romans militarily then the Romans would do what they always do. I see it more as an understanding of the political situation than a specific knowledge of the future. It was all part of his message of peace. His view was you can't defeat the enemy, (the enemy being evil itself but in this case as represented by the Romans), militarily but that if you really want to defeat them it is done by changing their hearts. As I said earlier that is the whole love your enemy and turn the other cheek message.
Jesus was right in both cases in that Jerusalem was flattened in 70 AD, but eventually Christianity and it's message of peace and love was established in Rome.
It is quite possible that it was written after 70 AD but that doesn’t mean that what was written wasn’t faithful to what had originally been said by Jesus and each of the gospels contain different parts of the entire message that Jesus gave.
PaulK writes:
But he would still be familiar with Jesus teachings and the major events of Jesus' life because otherwise he'd be no good as an Apostle. What you're really saying is that Paul was preaching his own religion - not that of Jesus.
Not at all. Paul just put the teachings of Jesus into his own words. Also remember that Jesus was speaking to Jews whereas Paul was reaching out to gentiles. Paul wrote about the message of Christ and not his life which makes sense to me.
PaulK writes:
That's obviously bogus. You point out that the resurrection was essential to Paul's teaching so why not say more about it ? Why not mention the empty tomb (Paul could have even visited the site) ? Why not give more details of the post-resurrection appearances ? And that's just one example, although a very important one.
Obviously resurrection was absolutely central to Paul. This is from 1st Corinthians.
quote:
12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive
The early church was very people driven and depended on individuals. Paul's letters were to essentially shore up divisions and theological problems in the newly minted churches. I don't know why he didn't specifically mention the empty tomb except that I would see it as being implicit in the mention of resurrection.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by PaulK, posted 12-10-2010 2:36 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by jar, posted 12-10-2010 11:05 AM GDR has not replied
 Message 48 by PaulK, posted 12-10-2010 11:34 AM GDR has replied
 Message 49 by Theodoric, posted 12-10-2010 11:42 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