The Bible: Is the Author God, Man or Both?

Except there is NOTHING about not resenting someone in the ten commandments.

From Webster’s:

quote:

---

Definition of COVET

​

transitive verb
1
: to wish for earnestly
2
: to desire (what belongs to another) inordinately or culpably
intransitive verb
: to feel inordinate desire for what belongs to another

---

It seems to me that having an inordinate desire for what belongs to another is jealousy and more loosely resentment. However, if you like I’ll use jealousy rather than resentment.By the way, are you ever off this forum?

quote:

---

There is also a consistent message of what Jesus did and had to say. I agree that there are some confusing bits but these books were written in a different era and context than anything we know today.

---

I was only reporting what you had said. But is true that you dismiss all the actual events in the Gospels as mere details, save for the Resurrection, is it not ?

quote:

---

So where's the conflict. Both those statements can be true.

---

That is simply not true. Joseph and Mary cannot both be residents of Nazareth prior to Jesus birth, and never have lived there until some time after his birth.

quote:

---

I would add that these events happened 30 years prior to the Jesus' ministry and there is no particular reason for anyone to record these events and so I would expect that there would be discrepancies anyway.

---

Again we're not talking about simple discrepancies we're talking about very different stories with only details in common.

quote:

---

I wouldn’t take it as fiction but it is about the writers reporting on events that happened years earlier and that their sources for the information themselves would not have had first hand knowledge. I suppose the only source would have been Mary as there is no further mention of Joseph in the Gospels we can only assume that he was deceased by the time Jesus was 30.

---

And Mary wouldn't know when she gave birth to her first child ? She'd give dates about ten years apart ?Come on ! One of the stories - at least - is so badly wrong that it seems only fair to call it fiction. (In fact with the obvious legendary elements of Matthew and the problems with Luke I'd personally say that BOTH were fiction !)

quote:

---

AS far as Divine Inspiration is concerned it is contention that the Gospel writers were inspired to write down what they knew, not that they were told what to write.

---

Which means that Divine Inspiration - in your usage - is no guarantee of truth or even usefulness of any particular point.

quote:

---

I’m not denigrating what Josephus wrote but, as you agree, he would have had sources for what he wrote in The Jewish War. Certainly he had some first hand knowledge but he couldn’t be everywhere at once. The sources that he used to write about the war where he had no first hand knowledge would have had their biases as well. Also of course Josephus was very concerned about looking after his own hide. He was extremely political.

---

And as I pointed out, we know of other sources he used, too. In contrast to the Gospels where, excepting Gospel writers copying from each other, the sources are all conjectural and our only knowledge of them comes from analysis of the Gospel texts.

quote:

---

No I’m not. I’m attempting to understand the Bible as an historical document.

---

No, you aren't. Someone attempting to understand the Bible as a historical document wouldn't make up lame excuses to dismiss the disagreements in the text without even bothering to find out what the disagreements are !

Of course not. Luke has them in Nazareth both before and after the birth. Matthew has them in Bethlehem for the birth. Matthew talks about Herod sending the magi to Bethlehem but it doesn’t say that that is where the Magi actually found Him. I can’t see where you get the idea that they had never lived in Nazareth until some time after His birth. Yes they moved there after Herod dies but it doesn’t unless I’m missing something which is always possible. I do agree that there is a legendary feel in the narrative of the birth of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew which would make sense as there would have been nothing written at the time and as Mary would very likely have been dead by the time the Gospel was written. Some of the sources might have had something on the birth of Jesus in them but who knows. As I said this all happened at least 33 years before there would have been and recording or even discussion around the details of the birth. It isn’t surprising that the stories have variations.In addition the narratives concerning the birth are only in 2 Gospels and not even mentioned in the rest of the NT. I have certainly never claimed that I could guarantee the truth of what I believe. Neither of us can do that. It is as useful as we choose to make it.The thing is that I agree that there are differences in the narratives. They come from different sources about which we know very little. However, there is no disagreement on the fact that He was born normally of Mary and Joseph, nor of the crucifixion and resurrection.The first Christians, (they were actually Jews who believed Jesus was the Jewish Messiah), were united in their belief of the resurrection. Without that belief there would be no Christian church. Paul is very clear on that in his first letter to the Corinthians where he tells them that if Christ wasn’t raised from the dead that their, (and my), faith is futile.
I have looked at and read the scholars such as Crossan who have come up with other theories such as cognitive dissonance as a theory of what it was all about but frankly I find the arguments of N T Wright far more persuasive. I use those two as they have often been in debate with each other.The belief that Christ was resurrected made two things important. The first thing would be the what it meant to them and the world that the resurrection had happened. Secondly the fact that Jesus had been resurrected validated His message and it would have been important to reproduce the message that He had brought to them.The narratives about time and location would not have been as important and there would have been people who remembered things differently, and it would make sense there would have been some legendary stories around Jesus and particularly about His birth.

quote:

---

Of course not.

---

There's no "of course" about it. Certainly you dismiss a good number of them as mere details.

quote:

---

Luke has them in Nazareth both before and after the birth. Matthew has them in Bethlehem for the birth. Matthew talks about Herod sending the magi to Bethlehem but it doesn’t say that that is where the Magi actually found Him. I can’t see where you get the idea that they had never lived in Nazareth until some time after His birth. Yes they moved there after Herod dies but it doesn’t unless I’m missing something which is always possible.

---

Luke has them as residents of Nazareth before and after the birth. Matthew makes it clear that they were not residents of Nazareth until after the return of Egypt by having them move there. That seems simple enough.

quote:

---

I do agree that there is a legendary feel in the narrative of the birth of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew which would make sense as there would have been nothing written at the time and as Mary would very likely have been dead by the time the Gospel was written. Some of the sources might have had something on the birth of Jesus in them but who knows. As I said this all happened at least 33 years before there would have been and recording or even discussion around the details of the birth. It isn’t surprising that the stories have variations.

​

In addition the narratives concerning the birth are only in 2 Gospels and not even mentioned in the rest of the NT.

---

Again, we are not talking about variations we are talking about different stories. Please deal with the facts rather than trying to sweep them under the carpet.

quote:

---

I have certainly never claimed that I could guarantee the truth of what I believe. Neither of us can do that. It is as useful as we choose to make it.

---

I was not talking about your beliefs, I was talking about your view of Divine Inspiration. According to you a Divinely Inspired text may well contain passages that are hopelessly inaccurate or even completely useless.

quote:

---

The narratives about time and location would not have been as important and there would have been people who remembered things differently, and it would make sense there would have been some legendary stories around Jesus and particularly about His birth.

---

Of course you are playing down the differences as usual. The problem is that the location is a major part of Luke's text and it's important to Matthew, too. Nobody who was actually there is likely to confuse Galilee with Jerusalem, or forget Jesus commanding them to remain in Jerusalem. The stories are clearly badly confused. And we come to the question of why that would be if the post-resurrection appearances were really the impressive events we see in the Gospels...

Well actually Matthew doesn’t make it clear that they weren’t residents of Nazareth before the birth. It says Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Herod asks where the messiah was to be born and was told that it was to happen in Bethlehem by quoting the prophet Micah. Herod sent the Magi to Bethlehem but it doesn’t say that is where they found Him. When they returned from Egypt it was safer to return Nazareth in lieu of Judea as they believed it was safer. In the end it says nothing about where they lived prior to the birth or even after the birth.Luke has them living in Nazareth prior to the birth and afterwards. They are telling different stories that overlap. Together they give a more complete picture. However, even if there were contradictions it wouldn’t bother me. I’ll quote what I wrote in the OP:

quote:

---

We exist as creatures with the ability to reason. We have a sense of beauty and ugliness, fear and courage, love and hate, right and wrong, good and evil etc. We have enquiring minds with a sense of imagination. It is my belief that God connects with us through human imagination and in one sense, through the choices that we make, we connect with Him.

​

With this in mind I want to consider the Bible.

​

Creationists or fundamentalists talk about the Bible as being inspired by God. I’m fine by that but what does it mean?

​

From the online Oxford dictionary:

​

quote:
1 [mass noun] the process of being mentally stimulated to do or feel something, especially to do something creative:
Helen had one of her flashes of inspiration
the Malvern Hills have provided inspiration for many artists
the quality of being inspired:
a rare moment of inspiration in an otherwise dull display
[count noun] a person or thing that inspires:
he is an inspiration to everyone
divine influence, especially that supposed to have led to the writing of the Bible.
2a sudden brilliant or timely idea:
then I had an inspiration
So yes, I have no problem in agreeing that the Biblical authors were inspired to write what it was that they wrote, but that does not mean that they wrote without their personal and cultural conditioning impacting their efforts. It does not mean that God gave them word for word dictation. It does not mean that they always got it exactly right or does it not mean that didn’t get it exactly wrong.

---

I accept that there are inaccuracies in the text. You’re arguing that if there are inaccuracies in the historical details of time and location etc that there is no reason to trust the historical nature of the resurrection. Yes, that is a valid argument to make. I contend that there is commonality between the Gospels on the resurrection and of the nature of the resurrection. I believe that it is highly implausible that the movement would never have gotten off the ground if the bodily resurrection wasn’t factual. Paul is very clear that if it isn’t factual then they are essentially wasting their lives. You may disagree but I see that as a valid argument, which I only make rather ineptly, as well.Frankly my Christian faith isn’t just Bible centred. I personally find that the essence of the message of the Gospels make sense of my life and the world theologically, philosophically and even scientifically. The more I study the faith the more convinced I am.

quote:

---

Well actually Matthew doesn’t make it clear that they weren’t residents of Nazareth before the birth. It says Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Herod asks where the messiah was to be born and was told that it was to happen in Bethlehem by quoting the prophet Micah. Herod sent the Magi to Bethlehem but it doesn’t say that is where they found Him. When they returned from Egypt it was safer to return Nazareth in lieu of Judea as they believed it was safer. In the end it says nothing about where they lived prior to the birth or even after the birth.

---

Where does Matthew mention a return to Nazareth ? According to Matthew the only reason for going to Nazareth at all is fear of Herod's successor, Archelaus. Which is a bit unlikely if Nazareth was their home ! Can you find anything in Matthew at all that contradicts the straightforward reading that Joseph and Mary were residents of Bethlehem up until the Flight to Egypt ?

quote:

---

They are telling different stories that overlap. Together they give a more complete picture. However, even if there were contradictions it wouldn’t bother me.

---

No, they are telling stories that you mash together without caring about the fact that they don't fit.I mean aside from the whole business of the census in Luke which puts Jesus' birth AFTER the reign of Archelaus instead of before it, the stories have very little in common.Luke has no Wise Men (and why would a man seeking to appeal to Gentile readers leave THAT out ?), no Massacre of the Innocents, no Flight to Egypt. None of the major narrative elements.Matthew has no census (and no reason to expect one), no journey to Bethlehem, no need to find an inn, no shepherds, no presentation at the Temple - and Luke has Joseph and Mary return to Nazareth directly after that.Indeed we have to ask where would you put Matthew's story within Luke's. Would you put the whole of it between Jesus' birth and the return to Nazareth ? That's a bit of a tight squeeze !

quote:

---

You’re arguing that if there are inaccuracies in the historical details of time and location etc that there is no reason to trust the historical nature of the resurrection.

---

That is a misrepresentation In fact I argue that the accounts of the post-resurrection appearances are so different that they must represent considerable elaboration in different directions - and that this is implausible if the real events were anything like as impressive.
From this I go on to conclude that we have no basis for thinking that the actual events were beyond the range of natural human experience - and thus they provide no support for a literal resurrection at all.

quote:

---

I believe that it is highly implausible that the movement would never have gotten off the ground if the bodily resurrection wasn’t factual.

---

That is your opinion, but I see no reason why a genuine belief in some sort of resurrection would not serve as well. I would add that the whole doctrine of the Second Coming was likely as important since it saved their belief system from the problem that Jesus died without fulfilling the Messianic prophecies. It's a known way in which cults handle failure.

quote:

---

Paul is very clear that if it isn’t factual then they are essentially wasting their lives.

---

And that works against your point since Paul did NOT have any personal experience of a bodily resurrection. If he did not need that, how can you know that the Disciples needed it ?

I agree but Matthew doesn’t mention at all where they were before the birth. Luke talks about why they went to Bethlehem in the first place. The Gospel writers are not writing an historical account in the way that Josephus did. The Gospels weren’t much concerned about the narrative around the time of the birth. It only talks about the birth in two of the Gospels and not even mentioned in the other two Gospels or in any of the Epistles.The message that the Gospel writers were concerned with was to establish the fact that Jesus was bodily resurrected, what the resurrection meant to the world, that God had confirmed Jesus through the resurrection thus establishing His Kingdom on Earth and of course Christ’s message of love, forgiveness, mercy and justice. There are many others like Crossan etc who have come to the same conclusion. It is a reasonable conclusion with which I disagree. There was no expectation amongst His followers that Jesus would be resurrected in the manner that the Gospels describe. Even if there had been an expectation of resurrection they either would have talked about a resurrection in a heavenly sense or that Jesus would have come back in a form as we see with the prophets in the transfiguration. I’ve gone through this before but I disagree again. (There’s a surprise. ) 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 Gospels tell of a dispirited group of disciples that with only one exception avoided witnessing the crucifixion. They had given up on the movement. If they were trying to generate some new movement by creating false legends around the event why would they have been so critical of the man, (Peter) who was to be one of their chief organizers and evangelists? Paul had a spiritual experience of God which obviously seems to have gotten his attention. He witnessed the stoning of Stephen which likely made an impression on him and he had the accounts of those that would have been eye-witnesses to the resurrected Jesus. The disciples hadn’t had any of that.

quote:

---

I agree but Matthew doesn’t mention at all where they were before the birth. Luke talks about why they went to Bethlehem in the first place.

---

More accurately, Matthew gives no hint that they had ever lived anywhere but Bethlehem, and Luke gives a dodgy reason for their being in Bethlehem - due to an event that occurred around ten years after Matthew's story.

quote:

---

The Gospel writers are not writing an historical account in the way that Josephus did. The Gospels weren’t much concerned about the narrative around the time of the birth. It only talks about the birth in two of the Gospels and not even mentioned in the other two Gospels or in any of the Epistles

---

In the sense that they weren't writing histories, yes. Which means taking them as historically reliable - even by the standards of ancient writers - is dubious. And let's not forget that the point is that we have two DIFFERENT stories... NOT two views of the same story.

quote:

---

There are many others like Crossan etc who have come to the same conclusion. It is a reasonable conclusion with which I disagree. There was no expectation amongst His followers that Jesus would be resurrected in the manner that the Gospels describe. Even if there had been an expectation of resurrection they either would have talked about a resurrection in a heavenly sense or that Jesus would have come back in a form as we see with the prophets in the transfiguration.

---

And yet the stories we have do not fit a simple physical resurrection. Jesus doesn't just come back and keep on going as he was. He comes and goes mysteriously. Even appearing in a closed room without opening the door (John 20:26).Indeed talking about previous expectations doesn't address my point of view at all. My point is that the resurrection stories came about as a reaction to normal events which were interpreted as a resurrection, and the original stories would fit in with that - and the need to resolve the cognitive dissonance. THe stories we have actually fit better with that, than with a simple physical resurrection.

quote:

---

I’ve gone through this before but I disagree again. (There’s a surprise. ) 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 Maccabees are a poor parallel, as has already been pointed out. Bar Kochba is closer but I suspect that his very success made his failure more credible. And let us not forget that we certainly don't know everything that everyone believed back there...

quote:

---

The Gospels tell of a dispirited group of disciples that with only one exception avoided witnessing the crucifixion. They had given up on the movement. If they were trying to generate some new movement by creating false legends around the event why would they have been so critical of the man, (Peter) who was to be one of their chief organizers and evangelists?

---

Of course there are reasons why they might be critical of Peter. Pauline influence, and wanting to minimise Peter's distinctive teachings. Magnifying Jesus. And of course the despair was likely to be exaggerated (we see the same phenomenon today). But again I don't require that they didn't despair - that's a part of the cognitive dissonance ! My point is that some of them found a resolution to that dissonance...
(Personally I see hints that Judas real "betrayal" was simply giving up on the movement. And even that he might have been murdered by Peter. But that's just speculative opinion).

quote:

---

Paul had a spiritual experience of God which obviously seems to have gotten his attention. He witnessed the stoning of Stephen which likely made an impression on him and he had the accounts of those that would have been eye-witnesses to the resurrected Jesus. The disciples hadn’t had any of that.

---

On the other hand the Disciples were Jesus' loyal followers, convinced that Jesus was the Messiah. Paul was hostile to Jesus and his followers. You can't ignore that.

Well it is possible to put the two accounts together to make a more complete narrative in my view but frankly I agree that there is a sense of legend in the accounts so I’m not frankly concerned one way or the other. The narrative of the birth of Jesus is certainly not a focus of the early church. Exactly my point. He was resurrected in a new body that maintained some of the characteristics of the old but was different. IMHO the Christian message isn’t that Jesus went to be with God in some place called heaven where you hang a right at Jupiter for 10 light years.Although it wouldn’t have been understood in these terms when the Bible was written it is my belief that Heaven exists all around us in God’s dimension or universe. I believe that this universe does interlock with ours in ways that we don’t normally perceive. I suppose to an atheist this sounds far fetched but as an aside here is the headline from my copy of the Nov. 2010 Scientific American. Hidden Worlds of Dark Matter... An entire universe may be interwoven silently with our own. Now certainly the writer of the article didn’t see theological implications in the article but I think that it is indicative that natural theology, (science), is drawing closer to the idea that there is existence around us that we can’t perceive with our 5 senses that interwoven universe may be more than just mindless particle equivalents. I realize that is a kinda on the esoteric side. My point is though, that although the idea of Jesus disappearing and showing up somewhere else would be consistent with that belief. But that previous expectations are hugely important. How and why would they write a narrative that tells of something for which there was no expectation? There have always been those that tell of meeting loved ones after their death. Nobody has then ever talked about them coming back physically and having a meal with them. They knew the difference of what happened to them and cognitive dissonance. We know a lot more now than we used to thanks to all the material including the Dead Sea Scrolls universally available. I only mentioned two movements. There was also the movement of Judas the Galilean when Jesus would have been about 10. After the Romans put him to death they jsut started looking for a messianic replacement starting with his relatives. I was thinking about the despair for the movement . If that is correct the way that seemed to be the norm was to find another messiah to lead the movement as in the case I just mentioned above. I don’t see it as Judas giving up on the movement. I see it as Judas rejecting the movement. The Gospels suggest that throughout the disciples were having difficulty comprehending the pacifistic nature of Christ’s teachings. They couldn’t seem to get beyond the common notion that a messiah was to lead them against their occupiers as they saw themselves still as being in exile in their own country. It is my belief that Judas believed that Jesus was something of a traitor to the revolutionary sentiment in the country. Absolutely, but then something happened to turn your namesake completely around so that he himself became a completely loyal follower. That was my point.

quote:

---

Well it is possible to put the two accounts together to make a more complete narrative in my view but frankly I agree that there is a sense of legend in the accounts so I’m not frankly concerned one way or the other. The narrative of the birth of Jesus is certainly not a focus of the early church.

---

Provided you ignore the whole problem of the dates you can mush them together. But really all they have in common is details. The stories are completely different.

quote:

---

Exactly my point. He was resurrected in a new body that maintained some of the characteristics of the old but was different.

---

I don't think the fact that the Gospel stories call the idea of a physical resurrection into question was your point...

quote:

---

My point is though, that although the idea of Jesus disappearing and showing up somewhere else would be consistent with that belief.

---

And the idea of Jesus returning to Heaven by being levitated into the sky would seem to fit poorly with that idea. But it's there in Luke.

quote:

---

But that previous expectations are hugely important. How and why would they write a narrative that tells of something for which there was no expectation?

---

You're seriously asking that ?You're seriously asking why the Christian Gospel authors would write down what they believed rather than what people living decades earlier had expected ?I don't believe that any rational person would even consider that question.

quote:

---

There have always been those that tell of meeting loved ones after their death. Nobody has then ever talked about them coming back physically and having a meal with them. They knew the difference of what happened to them and cognitive dissonance.

---

Obviously you don't understand what you are talking about...

quote:

---

We know a lot more now than we used to thanks to all the material including the Dead Sea Scrolls universally available. I only mentioned two movements. There was also the movement of Judas the Galilean when Jesus would have been about 10. After the Romans put him to death they jsut started looking for a messianic replacement starting with his relatives.

---

Which still doesn't mean that we know of even a tenth of the smaller groups that existed...And I need to point out that human nature isn't as simple and deterministic as you are making out. Some groups fade away when their prophecies fail. Others go on and on (the Jehovah's Witnesses have been through a number of failures to name just one example.)

quote:

---

I was thinking about the despair for the movement . If that is correct the way that seemed to be the norm was to find another messiah to lead the movement as in the case I just mentioned above.

---

And maybe some of Jesus' followers did just that. Indeed, maybe James was offered the role and refused it. You just don't know.SO let us point out that your arguments require detailed knowledge that you don't have and assume that human behaviour can easily be predicted - find out what the majority did in a situation and you know what everyone would do in any broadly similar situation. And that isn't true.

quote:

---

I don’t see it as Judas giving up on the movement. I see it as Judas rejecting the movement.

---

I don't think that those who remained in the movement would have seen a difference. So I don't think that you can hope to derive it from the Gospel stories which demonise Judas further. (But note that Acts and Matthew contradict on the nature of Judas' death - and the account in Acts is pretty suspicious).

quote:

---

Absolutely, but then something happened to turn your namesake completely around so that he himself became a completely loyal follower. That was my point.

---

No. Your point was that such a powerful experience WOUDN'T have worked on the disciples....

Luke has Him carried up into heaven in hid Gospel and lifted into a cloud is how he put it in Acts. The term cloud in the Bible, (the pillar of cloud to the ancient Jews wandering around in the desert for example), was used to represent the presence of Yahweh. It would be more specifically in reference to Daniel 7.

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 peoples, nations and men 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.

---

In other words it has nothing to do with levitation to some other location in our 4d universe. It is about leaving this worldly dimension for God’s heavenly dimension. Well seeing as how I lack your superior rationality I’ll try it another way. If the writers were going to come up with a narrative from invention they would obviously write it in a way that would fit with their cultural and personal expectations of what it might look like and what it would mean if they were to want to keep the movement going. (In addition I can see no motivation for having them do that as it was counter-cultural and the long term prospects were extremely dim.) The stories are written in such a way as to say that although this sounds odd, and not at all what we would have expected but this is what was observed. Clever rebuttal. I don’t claim to know. It is my belief and obviously one we don’t share. All I’m saying is that we do have recorded some parallel situations and I’m pointing out that in those situations the outcome was dramatically different. Not that I think it matters but I would assume that the disciples being cognizant of the politics of the time would be aware of the motivation of Judas. As far as the difference in the texts on the death of Judas is concerned you are obviously correct. My point was that Paul had an experience of God that as far as I know unique to him. The disciples tell a story of a personal experience of the bodily resurrected Jesus. I agree that if you take Paul’s story on its own then cognitive dissonance makes sense. If however if what the disciples experience was a simple case of cognitive dissonance, it would seem very likely that they would have described their experience in similar terms to the story that they tell about Paul. The account for the disciples is very different than the one for Paul.

quote:

---

Luke has Him carried up into heaven in hid Gospel and lifted into a cloud is how he put it in Acts. The term cloud in the Bible, (the pillar of cloud to the ancient Jews wandering around in the desert for example), was used to represent the presence of Yahweh. It would be more specifically in reference to Daniel 7.

---

Which is still Jesus rising into the sky to return to Heaven...

quote:

---

In other words it has nothing to do with levitation to some other location in our 4d universe. It is about leaving this worldly dimension for God’s heavenly dimension.

---

Well you ASSUME that that is what it means, but it doesn't actually say that. (The passage you quote isn't even about LEAVING our world at all - it's about COMING TO our world)

quote:

---

Well seeing as how I lack your superior rationality I’ll try it another way. If the writers were going to come up with a narrative from invention they would obviously write it in a way that would fit with their cultural and personal expectations of what it might look like and what it would mean if they were to want to keep the movement going.

---

If the Gospel writers were making up the stories from scratch that might make sense. But that isn't my position, so your argument is irrelevant.

quote:

---

Clever rebuttal.

---

I'm sorry if you didn't like it, but it seemed more polite than "that is so obviously stupid it doesn't deserve an answer".

quote:

---

I don’t claim to know. It is my belief and obviously one we don’t share. All I’m saying is that we do have recorded some parallel situations and I’m pointing out that in those situations the outcome was dramatically different.

---

And in those cases we have relevant differences in the circumstances so that a differing outcome is not surprising. The more so since we have no survey of the complete range of effects in ANY of the cases.And in fact you DID implicitly claim to know. It is certain that you intended that I should accept it as factually true, even though we have no good basis to come to a conclusion on the matter.

quote:

---

Not that I think it matters but I would assume that the disciples being cognizant of the politics of the time would be aware of the motivation of Judas. As far as the difference in the texts on the death of Judas is concerned you are obviously correct.

---

I haven't spoke as to the motivation of Judas - my parenthetical point was that I personally suspected that Judas as unfairly demonised as Jesus' betrayer for actions taken after Jesus' death. The formation of the Gospel stories is something we know little about - we have almost nothing about Jesus' life on Earth from any useful non-Christian sources, or even from Christian sources that predate the Gospels.

quote:

---

My point was that Paul had an experience of God that as far as I know unique to him. The disciples tell a story of a personal experience of the bodily resurrected Jesus. I agree that if you take Paul’s story on its own then cognitive dissonance makes sense. If however if what the disciples experience was a simple case of cognitive dissonance, it would seem very likely that they would have described their experience in similar terms to the story that they tell about Paul. The account for the disciples is very different than the one for Paul.

---

On the basis of this I have to say that you don't understand the concept of cognitive dissonance at all. In fact Paul's experience in itself is not explainable as purely due to cognitive dissonance.But even more than that, we don't have the disciples stories. We have the Gospel stories which are obviously greatly elaborated.Again we come to the point which you have yet to answer. THe stories in Matthew and Luke are clearly the product of elaboration in two quite different directions. If we assume that the original events were impressive and strongly memorable in themselves how could this happen ? It simply isn't credible that an important and dramatic part of the story would be so throughly lost by at least one community of believers.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

No. It isn’t meant to be understood that way. Wrong again. Here is the quote plus a couple of verses from Daniel 7.

quote:

---

9 "As I looked, "thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool. His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheelswere all ablaze. 10 A river of fire was flowing, coming out from before him. Thousands upon thousands attended him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him. The court was seated, and the books were opened. 11 "Then I continued to watch because of the boastful words the horn was speaking. I kept looking until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire. 12 (The other beasts had been stripped of their authority, but were allowed to live for a period of time.) 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 peoples, nations and men 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.

---

Daniel is describing a heavenly vision. It is the throne room of the Ancient of Days. It is about the Son of Man coming to the heavenly throne. OK fair enough, but what is your position? That certainly helps move the discussion along. It could be but I think the betrayal itself is likely accurate as it makes sense when taken in the context of the politics of the time. I agree, but it does make sense. It is only natural that the ones who would write about Jesus would be His followers. I’ll add this though. This is from Luke 1.

quote:

---

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me 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.

---

Luke does say that he is drawing on many sources and presumably this would be the same for the other gospels as well. It would help account for the differences in the Gospel narratives. Incidentally, this verse by Luke does make me somewhat sceptical of the existence of Q as I understand Q to be one primary source as opposed to the multiple sources that Luke writes about. However, who knows? I didn’t say that what Paul experienced could be described as cognitive dissonance. I said that if the disciples had written of having a road to Damascus experience that could be explained away as cognitive dissonance as they were close to Jesus, whereas Paul wasn’t. We have no way of knowing how many original writings and/or oral accounts of what happened went into the writing of the Gospels, nor who wrote them or when they were written. As the Gospels were compiled decades after the event some of the stories would have evolved and some accuracy would have been lost. I don’t find it surprising that some of the accounts would vary as to time and location.However, there had to be a reason for any of the accounts to have existed in the first place. I realize that you disagree, but if Jesus, (a man who was essentially a pacifist with no earthly political ambition), had been simply executed buried and remained rotting in the grave, there would be IMHO, no plausible explanation for numerous people writing the accounts that were eventually used to write the Gospels.

quote:

---

No. It isn’t meant to be understood that way.

---

Let me know if you have any support for that other than your own personal ideas of what was happening. There is not doubt that read literally it describes Jesus rising into the sky, for instance...

quote:

---

Wrong again. Here is the quote plus a couple of verses from Daniel 7.

---

Except that it isn't the quote you produced before and none of it contradicts what I said... In fact, isn't it true that this is a symbolic vision ? And it never mentions where the "one like a Son of Man" had come FROM ? Or where the court was set up ?Perhaps you should look at Matthew 24:30 So I apologise for not checking and confusing Matthew's interpretation with the actual text, but I still have more support - weak as it is - for my reading than you have for yours...

quote:

---

OK fair enough, but what is your position?

---

The one I've been describing all along ? Where the Gospel stories of the post-resurrection appearances are greatly elaborated stories, developing over time, built on mundane events ?

quote:

---

That certainly helps move the discussion along.

---

It would help even more if you made more of an effort to get things right instead of just assuming that the truth was whatever would be convenient for you...

quote:

---

It could be but I think the betrayal itself is likely accurate as it makes sense when taken in the context of the politics of the time.

---

Not really - the whole question of the motive for Judas' betrayal is something that is argued over again and again. Now my speculation makes a lot more sense. Judas abandons the movement after Jesus' death, accepting that it has failed. As a former leading figure he is condemned as a traitor (almost inevitable). The story gets elaborated into a personal betrayal of Jesus before Jesus' death. Of course we can never know because we simply have no sources we can trust to provide us with the information that we need.

quote:

---

I agree, but it does make sense. It is only natural that the ones who would write about Jesus would be His followers. I’ll add this though.

---

If Jesus was as successful as the Gospels claim then we would expect more notice from non-Christian sources. And it's pretty odd that we have so little from pre-Gospel Christian sources. If Jesus left a body of teachings, for instance, then Paul had little knowledge of it or interest in it.

quote:

---

Luke does say that he is drawing on many sources and presumably this would be the same for the other gospels as well.

---

I would suggest that that is a very big assumption, and one that cannot be supported by any evidence at all. Even the author of Luke does not identify his sources.

quote:

---

Incidentally, this verse by Luke does make me somewhat sceptical of the existence of Q as I understand Q to be one primary source as opposed to the multiple sources that Luke writes about. However, who knows?

---

That isn't in fact a good reason. Q is only the hypothetical source for the material common to Matthew and Luke, but not found in Mark. Luke is also held to have used Mark and other sources. The real question is whether Luke used Q or in fact had access to a copy of Matthew. I would think that you would find Q more palatable than the idea of Luke rejecting large chunks of Matthew.

quote:

---

I didn’t say that what Paul experienced could be described as cognitive dissonance. I said that if the disciples had written of having a road to Damascus experience that could be explained away as cognitive dissonance as they were close to Jesus, whereas Paul wasn’t.

---

Again you aren't making much sense. There's nothing in Paul's experience that speaks of cognitive dissonance especially. But the Disciples are prime candidates for it. They've seen deeply held beliefs appear to fail. They come to a new "understanding" that lets them reconcile their beliefs with the reality that faces them. It fits all too well.

quote:

---

We have no way of knowing how many original writings and/or oral accounts of what happened went into the writing of the Gospels, nor who wrote them or when they were written. As the Gospels were compiled decades after the event some of the stories would have evolved and some accuracy would have been lost. I don’t find it surprising that some of the accounts would vary as to time and location.

---

All of which ignores the point that in this case the location is held to be an important feature of the story. In fact it looks as if Luke is intentionally DENYING the tradition represented in Matthew. And none of the three Gospels dealing with the appearances have a single appearance story in common.Simply writing off important points as mere details is nothing more than an attempt to sweep awkward truths under the rug.

quote:

---

However, there had to be a reason for any of the accounts to have existed in the first place. I realize that you disagree, but if Jesus, (a man who was essentially a pacifist with no earthly political ambition), had been simply executed buried and remained rotting in the grave, there would be IMHO, no plausible explanation for numerous people writing the accounts that were eventually used to write the Gospels.

---

Of course there needs to be no reason more than the beliefs held by the Gospel writers. Moreover, I consider my ow explanation to be more plausible than yours - and you haven't even bothered to pay attention to it when I described it - an opinion based on wilful ignorance isn't worth much. And as we have seen my view better explains the Gospels as we have them.