Where did you get the idea that God was a "God of Love?"

We've all heard about "the unconditional love of God"...That phrase is not in the Bible.
That Phrase means: God's love is unconditional, which means therefore he does not judge people. He loves them just as they are so come to him just as you are.

Neither Jesus nor any of the Apostles ever preached about the love of God in public.

Check it out in your Bible. You won't find a single example of Jesus or the Apostles, ever preaching about the love of God to unbelievers. The most striking absence is from the book of Acts. The book of Acts is a description of the early church evangelizing, spreading the Gospel, planting Churches. Yet in the whole book of Acts, there isn't a single mention of the love of God...that's not what they preached.

Four unique forms of love are found in the Bible -- eros (sensual/romantic love), storge (family love), philia (friend love), and agape (unconditional love).

John 3:16, for example, refers to God's agape, His divine/unconditional love: "For God so loved the world" -- loved, ēgapēsen (https://biblehub.com/greek/e_gape_sen_25.htm)

A much loved and often sung hymn:

1 Just as I am, without one plea,
but that thy blood was shed for me,
and that thou bidd'st me come to thee,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

2 Just as I am, and waiting not
to rid my soul of one dark blot,
to thee, whose blood can cleanse each spot,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

3 Just as I am, though tossed about
with many a conflict, many a doubt,
fightings and fears within, without,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

4 Just as I am, thou wilt receive,
wilt welcome, pardon, cleanse, relieve; because thy promise I believe,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

Agape is not generally defined as unconditional love, though I don't know that I would wildly disagree with the idea. But even at that, I don't think that unconditional love is the same as unconditional acceptance.

Do we find in the words of the wonderful hymn you admirably quoted this recurring theme? "O Lamb of God, I come, I come." So would it not appear that God's acceptance of us is based upon our acceptance of Christ, and our acceptance of Christ is based upon our acceptance of the idea that we are perishing, hopelessly lost sinners in need of a Savior? As the song again said, "to rid my soul of one dark blot, to thee, whose blood can cleanse each spot, O Lamb of God I come, I come." Your scripture, which was another wise choice, has the same theme. God loves everyone, but who is it who will not perish? It would seem to be, "Whosoever believeth in Him."

Hope the hubster is doing better.

Unconditional love of a person = unconditional acceptance of that person. The actions done by that person are not unconditionally accepted.

Think of your children. Do you stop loving them when they do something bad? No, you still love them but don't accept their bad actions.

Unconditional love of a person = unconditional acceptance of that person.That is your definition, but I don't think you can defend it from the Bible. And as far as fathers loving children goes, God does not become your Father until you become a Christian. Isn't that what is meant in John 1:12? "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name..."

God is our Father, even before the creation of the world.

Ephesians 1:
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He [a (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+1&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-29213a)]made us accepted in the Beloved.

You have no support for your first statement. The Ephesians passage is not a reference to people in general. The key word is the pronoun “us”. It is clearly a reference to the Christians in Ephesus. That puts it in perfect harmony with the John 1 passage.

Your view has the John 1 passage saying that God gave the children of God the authority to become…the children of God. Huh???

This thread so far is a perfect example of why I don't cherry-pick and toss Bible verses around.

I understand. I assure you I do.

If a person wants to discuss the Bible, then that person needs to know the Bible. When an objection is made, then he or she should be able to respond to it. Now you seem not to like that, so that's fine, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with "cherry-picking" or a person who will "toss Bible verses around". If your beliefs are Biblical, then you should be able to demonstrate that. Not meaning to be critical, but I just am not convinced you can do that. Perhaps I am wrong. I hope so.

Agape is not generally defined as unconditional love.

I don't know who told you that, but it's wrong. "Unconditional love" is pretty much the dictionary definition. Always has been.

Might be, but it's not the lexicon definition, and that's the one that counts. Both of the ones I have say, "love, affection, or benevolence". No mention of unconditional.

Dictionary.com says this. "the love of God or Christ for humankind.the love of Christians for other persons, corresponding to the love of God for humankind, unselfish love of one person for another without sexual implications; brotherly love."

Again, no mention of unconditional.

Mirriam Webster also made no mention of the love being "unconditional". Kind of strange considering that it, " Always has been."

Various translations of the word "agape" or its verb form.
KJV: Charity, charity, dear, love's, love, Love NAS: beloved, feasts, love's, love, Love HCS: with love, at how great a love, the love, love, love feasts, Love, and love, your love, put on love, is love, loves, of love ESV: with love, [It], love [is], [put on] love, [and] love, love, love feasts, Love, beloved, you love, [the] love, from [His] love, of love, [your] love, [And] love, to love, I love you BSB: beloved, love, Love WEB: the, know love, of the love, the love, in your love, love, Let love, Love, your love, *, walk in love, is love, own love, in love, does the love, of love. Still no mention of unconditional.


Check it out in your Bible. You won't find a single example of Jesus or the Apostles, ever preaching about the love of God to unbelievers. The most striking absence is from the book of Acts. The book of Acts is a description of the early church evangelizing, spreading the Gospel, planting Churches. Yet in the whole book of Acts, there isn't a single mention of the love of God...that's not what they preached.I haven't checked this out yet, but if true, then that is really surprising. Walter, you have raised a fascinating point.

Well, checked it out. The word "love" is used nowhere in the NAS translation of Acts. Not a single usage. Wow. I'm amazed.

If you read your Bible you might find that; every mention of the love of God is addressed to those who've already been redeemed by God, from Slavery. Either slavery in Egypt by pharaoh or slavery unto sin under Satan. But only those who've been redeemed...rescued from Slavery by God, talk about the love of God to each other. So that in the old testament Jews only talked about the love of God to Jews...and in the new testament Christians only talked about the love of God to Christians. It was an "in subject". Only those who've been redeemed by God can understand his love, that others really don't have enough understanding to grasp what God's love really is until they've been rescued themselves and redeemed. Neither Jesus nor the Apostles ever preached about the love of God to unbelievers.

Do you want to know how many times "the Love of God" is mentioned in the entire Bible?
I think it's something like 1 verse in 1,000, which refers to "the Love of God."

waltero, you dare to limit God so much??? I weep!

If you read your Bible you might find that; every mention of the love of God is addressed to those who've already been redeemed by God, from SlaveryHow about John 3:16? Also Romans 5:8. "But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." This passage in Mt. 5 so strongly implies it that it cannot be overlooked. "“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust."


Neither Jesus nor the Apostles ever preached about the love of God to unbelievers.Again, John 3:16 and Romans 5:8.

Romans 5:8. "But God shows his love for uspreaching about the love of God to unbelievers.???

Mt. 5 so strongly implies it that it cannot be overlooked. "“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.
Who is the Father of the Unbelievers...is he talking to you???
Either way, this does not include "the love of God."


How about John 3:16?We use it primarily as a gospel text. I'm sure you know the cliche; a text out of context is a pretext.  unfortunately, it can also be used as a proof text. Once-the Bible was divided up into chapters and verses and each verse was given a number, we begin to treat the Bible as a box full of proof texts and think that if we can find one text that says what we want it to say that we've given proof from the Bible about a particular view or position, and John 3:16 has been used like that...out of context. 

I'm still searching. I don't know where to begin. But I am certain that the Love of God belongs to the Redeemed.

preaching about the love of God to unbelievers.???Read the entire text. "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." There is a hint of dishonesty when you only PARTIALLY quote the text. Don't go there. Paul is very clearly saying that God's love was exhibited when Christ died for sinners.


Who is the Father of the Unbelievers...is he talking to you???
Either way, this does not include "the love of God."Read more carefully. Jesus is referring to the Father of we Christians, but that he blesses the unjust as well as the just. Isn't that love in action? At any rate, I did not say it included the love of God, but that it "implied" the love of God.

John 3:16. Who does it say God loved? Please don't get evasive and go down the "context" path without explaining how context would do away with God loving "the world". You are starting to sound like people on this site you don't want to sound like.

Being "right" is not the goal. Being truthful is the goal.

Read the entire text.
Yes, if you read the entire text you will clearly see that he is talking to fellow Christians.


John 3:16. Who does it say God loved?
It goes much deeper than you think. I'm still trying to grasp it myself.

Everybody knows John 3:16, but they never heard of the verse before or after 3:16? We've stopped searching the bible because now we can just look it up. You don't like long-winded threads, I was trying to keep it short and simple.

John 3:16 is in reference to; Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.

Yes, if you read the entire text you will clearly see that he is talking to fellow Christians.When did God express His love to them? When they were Christians, or when they were sinners?


It goes much deeper than you think. I'm still trying to grasp it myself.

Everybody knows John 3:16, but they never heard of the verse before or after 3:16?You are being evasive. Who does it say God loved???

TRUTH, Walter. TRUTH!!!

When did God express His love to them? When they were Christians, or when they were sinners?

So that in the old testament Jews only talked about the love of God to Jews...and in the new testament Christians only talked about the love of God to Christians.



Who does it say God loved???
Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him...thats who!

You did not answer the question. In the Romans 5 passage, were they sinners when God expressed His love to them? Clearly they were.


Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him...thats who Dear Walter, you are disgracing yourself. John 3:16 clearly says that "God so loved the world". Who? "The world."

Another one. How about the rich young ruler? He was clearly not a Christian.

18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 19 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.’”
20 “Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.”
21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”



Hey, Walter. A thought just hit me. How do you define, "the love of God"? Maybe that is where we are missing each other. What is your definition of the term?

I clearly can't articulate my understanding of John 3:16. Jesus never preached (Even though God loved the World) the love of God to unbelievers. Unbelievers can't know the love of God. Only unless you have experienced the love of God can you understand the love of God.


So if we could go another route maybe?


God so loved the world When did God love the world?

It was clearly before He sent Christ. "God so loved the world THAT He gave His only..." In other words, the sending (giving) of Christ was the result of God loving the world. The love clearly came first. One way or the other, it was the WORLD that God loved.

How do you define "God's love"?

As a result of your post about the absence of God's love being referenced in Acts, I'm going to read the book carefully, especially the sermons, and see what common aspects they contain. That was an interesting little fact.

I've come to the conclusion that talking about the love of God to those who have not been redeemed is precisely an example of pearls to pigs and Jesus said if you do that they will turn and attack you and I've discovered that when you talk about the love of God to unbelievers they immediately do turn and rage and immediately come up with two very profound objections- first how can you then explain the suffering in this world and second how can you dare to believe in suffering in the next world these are the immediate reactions of unbelievers when you tell them God loves everybody.

Does the "so"- in "God so loved the world" really mean "soooo"?

How do you define God's love?

As to talking to other people, I am convinced that of every 25 people you talk to about Christ, two or three are really listening. The rest are not at that place yet and might never be. Most of the time we are sowing seeds. Some of the time we are harvesting. Perhaps sometimes we are hoeing. You can really see that in Acts 17. "32 When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered (outright rejection), but others said, “We want to hear you again on this subject.” (sowing seed) 33 At that, Paul left the Council. 34 Some of the people became followers of Paul and believed."(harvesting the crop)

It is interesting that when Jesus appeared to Saul of Tarsus, He did not tell him anything about love.

I do enjoy our discussions. You don't go down the silly roads others go down.

I believe it means...
Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up.

I think instead of a Gospel of Love it was meant to be a Gospel of God's righteousness.
It became a Gospel of love about 100 years ago...With the Unconditional love thingy.

I will try to explain later. Got to go.

I would still like to hear your definition of God's love. Not an illustration, but a definition.



I think instead of a Gospel of Love it was meant to be a Gospel of God's righteousness.True in many ways.

definition of God's love
Giving me Freedom in Christ Jesus. Knowing God needs me...needs me to love.

Well, that might explain the difference. I would say that God's love (agape) is doing what is in the best interest of the object of that love, even at a great cost to you. "Benevolence"

I believe the only way unbelievers are going to know God's love is by the Love of the Christians.
Talking about God's love, to unbelievers will only fall on deaf ears. Actions speak louder than words. God Demands that we Love, he gives us that love. You can try to explain God's love to an unbeliever, they will never understand and they will most likely use it against you. Repent and you will know of the love God has for you...otherwise your hosed. And we are to keep on repenting.

Don't you just love it when unbelievers talk as if you need to love them or all things as God loves...what do they know of God's love? OH! yeah, they know John 3:16, well that's all they need to know.

Actions speak louder than words. God Demands that we Love, he gives us that love.
Exactly! Well said, waltero!

he gives us that love.
Yes, he doesn't tell us (referring to unbelievers) that love...just as if I was to tell you or an unbeliever how much I love them, they would just blow it off or use it against me.

If a person wants to know how to become saved, John 3:16 (the Bible in a nutshell)will be in almost every book you choose, in searching out how to be saved. Come as you are...no need for repentance.

And such love, of course, would require telling people the truth of God’s word.

For God so loved the world.
The word so does not mean so much, soo greatly or soooo deeply. In fact, the Greek word means (autos); Thus (in this way). Or, in this way. Or, in just the same way. "He did it so." He did it in this way. In fact, the literal meaning of the word is Thus. "For thus God loved the world." It's not a quantity word at all, it's a comparison word.

Waiting on the correction. Do I have it right?

What is the point?

Isn’t the quality and quantity of God’s love indicated by the extravagance of His giving?

What is the point?

The point is; neither Jesus nor any of the apostles ever preached about the love of God in public. I could not find a single example of Jesus or the apostles ever preaching about the love of God to unbelievers.

"what about John 3:16?"

Should we be preaching "the Love of God"? If not, why are we???

Consider this, Walter. You said earlier, "Actions speak louder than words." Now when Jesus prayed for sinners on the cross by saying, "Father, forgive them," was that not love in action? When he fed the multitude TWICE, was that not love in action? When He healed many lost sinners and cast demons out of others, was that not love in action? When He took the sins of the whole world upon Him on the cross, people who were all lost sinners, was that not love in action? Now the word "love" was not in the text of any of those events, but didn't His, "actions speak louder than words?" And should we not tell sinners about that love that was demonstrated so clearly?

When we read this in Acts, do we not see the love of God clearly presented to sinners? Granted the word "love" is not in the text, but surely we can say that the concept of love is very much there.

"37 Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” 38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.” 40 And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation!”

Consider this, Walter. You said earlier, "Actions speak louder than words." Now when Jesus prayed for sinners on the cross by saying, "Father, forgive them," was that not love in action? When he fed the multitude TWICE, was that not love in action? When He healed many lost sinners and cast demons out of others, was that not love in action? When He took the sins of the whole world upon Him on the cross, people who were all lost sinners, was that not love in action?

What am I missing? Actions speak louder than words. Was Jesus/Apostles ever just sitting around (Like the Church) talking (to unbelievers) about the love of God??? - (adlib) That'll get them, they are sure to understand something that is so profound as "the love of God," when I simply speak the "love of God" to them (unbelievers), they'll get it for sure! Yes, he was at times sitting (action no action) down talking about the love of God, but only when he was surrounded by believers. It is only when you experience "the love of God" that you are able to understand "the love of God." Why bother talking about rebuilding an engine unless the useless person you are talking to desires to become a mechanic (or at least wishing to work an engine himself)? You can talk till your blue in the face, they will not grasp an understanding of what it is you're talking about...they simply don't care to hear it...just fix it...John 3:16 is not a fix, although some use it as if it is.

That's why John 3:16 isn't directed toward unbelievers. John 3:16 is talking to believers, aka the Church...John (the book of John), stresses for them to continue believing, from the start of the book to the end of the last page.

Side note: "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat" -and- "But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith will not fail. Why did Jesus pray for Simon? Why would he not pray for Judas?? What do you think would have happened if he had prayed for Judas???

That's why John 3:16 isn't directed toward unbelievers. John 3:16 is talking to believers, aka the Church...John (the book of John), stresses for them to continue believing, from the start of the book to the end of the last page.So when it says that God loved "the world", you understand "the world" to mean believers? And when Romans 5 says God expressed His love by having Christ die for "sinners", you understand "sinners" to mean believers? Don't you think that's a little wild? It would seem you are forcing your beliefs into unrealistic views of scriptures, scriptures which have plain and obvious meanings. If actions really do speak louder than words, then the NT is shouting that God loves sinners. In fact Jesus said He did not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. What great love for sinners that represents!

I think you are mistaken by insisting on seeing the word "love" being used without being willing to look for acts of love which, you said, speak louder than words anyway.

Another text to consider. In Galatians 2:20 we read, "the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me." When did Christ love Paul and give Himself up for him, after Paul became a believer, or when he was yet a sinner? The same idea is found in Ephesians. " just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma." Notice that "loved" is past tense. So He loved them and gave Himself up for them while they were yet sinners, which agrees completely with the Romans 5 passage.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. Are you saying that God does not love sinners, or are you saying that He does love sinners, but we should not tell them that?

Speaking as someone with two advanced degrees in the biblical languages, you are full of something, but it ain't the Holy Spirit.

I gave you both the lexical definition and the contextual definition as set out in both Testaments.

You are quibbling over the fact that none of them used the word "unconditional." You're playing word games, nothing more.

I won't play. This is a ridiculous game that is getting nowhere. All you're proving is that you need to go learn Greek.

I frankly find this offensive to my life's work. You're trivializing one of the most important ideas in the Bible.

Just stop it. You have no clue what you're talking about.


Might be, but it's not the lexicon definition, and that's the one that counts. Both of the ones I have say, "love, affection, or benevolence". No mention of unconditional.

Dictionary.com says this. "the love of God or Christ for humankind.the love of Christians for other persons, corresponding to the love of God for humankind, unselfish love of one person for another without sexual implications; brotherly love."

Again, no mention of unconditional.

Mirriam Webster also made no mention of the love being "unconditional". Kind of strange considering that it, " Always has been."

Various translations of the word "agape" or its verb form.

1 Tim 2:1-2

I want to hear you explain how "all people" doesn't really mean "all people." I want your explanation for how "wants ALL to come to [Jesus] doesn't really mean everybody.

I'll wait.

So when it says that God loved "the world", you understand "the world" to mean believers?

I don't know where you got this?

I'm still trying to figure it out myself. I guess what I am more less saying is: "the love of God" is a person, in a person...it is not a thing.
If you are using John 3:16 as "unconditional love" and presenting John 3:16 as a go-to guide when somebody is wanting to learn (seeking) how to become saved...It is not "the love of God" we should be preaching to unbelievers. Yet it is always the first thing unbelievers will turn to (That's all we - as Christians - got)...It implies - no need for repentance. When you already have the (unconditional) love of God, you will not come to him with a repentant heart.



And for those of you who believe "all will be saved!"

Hell is insufficient in bringing a person into "The love of God." Even if they (as you say) have to spend some time in Hell. I remember reading (on this site) "so you Sin for 40-80 years and you have to spend eternity in hell, pfft." Uh, yeah, It's not the length of your Sin that matters, it's the height of your Sin.

I understand John 3:16 as being "SO"- (John 3:15) like the snake in the wilderness...as So, just like.
All you need is to Look at the Cross, just look!

God Loved (at one time) the world. You can't understand John 3:16 unless you look at the verse before it and the verse after it. That's what I mean when I said; "people have stopped searching the scriptures."...because now (Chapter and verse) you can just look it up!
I would like to research this further. I am off to work now, won't be online for a few weeks.

Until next time.


I frankly find this offensive to my life's work
Empty "self" and enter into the body of Christ Jesus...life's work is all that is needed.

I frankly find this offensive to my life's work
Empty "self" and enter into the body of Christ Jesus...life's work is all that is needed.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. I've spent the last 50 years searching the Scriptures in their original languages, seeking how to know and love Jesus and be more like Him.

You're telling me it was all wasted, all I need is some emotional experience.

My instinctive response isn't appropriate for this forum, but if you are determined to insult me, I have one thing to say:

bring it on, kid. Let's see what you've got.

Speaking as someone with two advanced degrees in the biblical languages, you are full of something, but it ain't the Holy Spirit.So they taught you how to make vulgar comments in those two advanced degrees?


I gave you both the lexical definition and the contextual definition as set out in both Testaments.If you gave either one, I didn't see it, so where was that? This is the only post you made prior to today. "I don't know who told you that, but it's wrong. 'Unconditional love' is pretty much the dictionary definition. Always has been." I supplied both lexicon and dictionary entries as you actually copied in your post, and none of it supported your definition of agape as "unconditional love". I have seen nothing from you. Perhaps I missed it.


You are quibbling over the fact that none of them used the word "unconditional." You're playing word games, nothing more.

Oh please. That's like saying, "The definition said it meant unconditional love except, of course, that it didn't say it." Did you learn that in your two advanced degrees also?


I frankly find this offensive to my life's work. You're trivializing one of the most important ideas in the Bible.Then you need to get over yourself. This is an internet message board for crying out loud, and you think someone has offended your life's work? HERE??? Well, if you think I'm going to accept your comments because you are full of yourself, then you are sadly mistaken.


1 Tim 2:1-2. I want to hear you explain how "all people" doesn't really mean "all people." I want your explanation for how "wants ALL to come to [Jesus] doesn't really mean everybodyAll means "all people". And yes, it means everybody. I have not contested that. However, it certainly does not say that all people DO come to Jesus. Jesus, in fact, said that would not happen.

"13 (http://biblehub.com/matthew/7-13.htm)“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 (http://biblehub.com/matthew/7-14.htm)But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." So tell me, does "many" mean "many", and does "few" mean "few"?

You might as well stop bragging about your degrees and "life work". That means nothing. If you can defend your positions, then go for it, but I'll tell you right now that I'm not intimidated with your degrees. I respect education as much as anyone, but it should prepare you to be able to make a compelling case for your ideas. Just expecting us to believe your comments because you have two advanced degrees and a "life work" is foolishness.

bring it on, kid. Let's see what you've got.That was uncalled for. Walter said nothing offensive to you. He simply offered his opinion.

So they taught you how to make vulgar comments in those two advanced degrees?
Vulgar? He didn't say anything vulgar. Your imagination is working overtime. The saying is, "You're full of applesauce!"

you are full of something, but it ain't the Holy Spirit.What do you think he meant by that? Applesauce? Yeah, I'm sure that was it. I know you are fully committed to supporting your buddies at all costs, but that's really excessive.

What do you think he meant by that? Applesauce? Yeah, I'm sure that was it. I know you are fully committed to supporting your buddies at all costs, but that's really excessive.
Yes, applesauce.

"Err on the side of kindness." -Kurt Fearnley. And Eph. 4:32a, "Be kind and compassionate to one another."

It came from the same guy who said this. "My instinctive response isn't appropriate for this forum..." So yeah, I'm pretty sure he wasn't referring to applesauce. And the scripture you quoted about being kind and compassionate is simply allegorical. It is not meant to be taken literally. Remember?

At any rate, is this your example of how to be kind and compassionate? "This thread so far is a perfect example of why I don't cherry-pick and toss Bible verses around."

It came from the same guy who said this. "My instinctive response isn't appropriate for this forum..." So yeah, I'm pretty sure he wasn't referring to applesauce. And the scripture you quoted about being kind and compassionate is simply allegorical. It is not meant to be taken literally. Remember?
Why are you being mean and making fun of me? Okay. I'm gone.

You always say I'm too literal, don't you? But if I'm being mean, then I do apologize. It's been a stressful afternoon, and then I come home to read DW's diatribe which was aggravating.

But I must confess that I don't understand why you want to lecture me but then not follow your own advice.

I understand John 3:16 as being "SO"-.as So, (thus. just like) John 3:15- like the snake in the wilderness...
All you need is to Look at the Cross, just look!


I frankly find this offensive to my life's work

Isaiah 64:6 says that “all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags.” The Pharisees had a righteousness, but Jesus asserts that our righteousness must exceed theirs (Matthew 5:20), meaning that we need to have His righteousness imputed to us, which becomes our new covering, our new garment. As we become one with Him and submit to taking on His image, we have a righteousness that does not come from our works but from God's …

All you need is to Look at the Cross, just look!

Your Fight is with Jesus, not me.

I'm out.

Your Fight is with Jesus, not me.

I'm out.

This is a familiar refrain from evangelicals. When they leave a discussion with nothing more to contribute, they say, "Your fight is with Jesus, not me". Where have I heard that before?

(Note my civility in replying to W.)

I understand John 3:16 as being "SO"-.as So, (thus. just like) John 3:15- like the snake in the wilderness...That's probably fair enough, and yet the text still says that God loves the world. The 15th verse is a beautiful thought for sure. Emphasizes grace in a wonderful way.

I'm still thinking about your observation about the sermons in Acts and their non-mention of love. Soon I'm going to take each sermon in Acts, one at a time, and try to see what they did emphasize. Was there a pattern?

This is what Paul talked about. Acts 24:25. "As Paul talked about righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come..."


All you need is to Look at the Cross, just look!Reminds me of Spurgeon's conversion experience.

I have no idea what got DW so upset. Seemed strange to me. Your remark seemed pretty harmless to me.

One more thing. I spent a little time this morning looking to see if I could find a major translation that used "unconditional" in conjunction with "love". There was not a single one. I then looked at some paraphrases. Nothing. Looked at both the Amplified and Expanded versions. Nothing. Even looked at the old J.B. Philips paraphrase. Still nothing. So it certainly seems fair to say that English translations do not render "agape" as "unconditional love".

Now you can appeal to context, and that might help out some, but not to actual translations, and that seems pretty conclusive to me as far as the simple meaning of "agape" is concerned. But I'm open to the viewpoints of others if they have support from other areas.

There's seem to be no other contributors to Walter's thread, so we are continuing with a somewhat related topic.

This is from WG.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/custom/vgo/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jlisenbe https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/custom/vgo/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?p=3873592#post3873592)
It's not what I believe. It's what Jesus declared.



Please read that blog post for a better understanding of what hell is.

Too late. I already have. Your statement is just flat wrong. It is widely believed that Revelation was the last of the NT books written and was produced in the final decade of the first century.


Please research this.

Deal. At least you are now admitting that you were, indeed, condescending.


Nope, am just trying to placate you. :-)

This from JL


Nope, am just trying to placate you. :-)


So you are going to stop that which you were not doing? Sorry, but as we say down here, "That dog just won't hunt."


Please research this.


Take your own advice. I've been doing that for the past twenty years. You're just wrong and you don't want to admit it.


Please read that blog post for a better understanding of what hell is.


Pretty sure they don't have a better explanation than Jesus did. I read one article. If that one's a loser like your first one was since, according to you, it was based on a book that's not supposed to be in the Bible, then I'm done.

In John 3:16 it says that whoever believes in Jesus, "would not perish". What do you think "perish" means in that passage? Honest question.

Jesus not only triumphed over hell, but also defeated hell by suffering hell away. Christ himself suffered the dread and horror of a distressed conscience that tasted eternal wrath…to be killed and damned, or to be in death and hell…to have the same consciousness as the damned—that is death, THAT is the descent into hell.
https://www.1517.org/articles/the-suffering-away-of-hell

Jesus not only triumphed over hell, but also defeated hell by suffering hell away. Christ himself suffered the dread and horror of a distressed conscience that tasted eternal wrath…to be killed and damned, or to be in death and hell…to have the same consciousness as the damned—that is death, THAT is the descent into hell.Now if you can just get the Bible to say that, then you'll have a case. But the Bible doesn't say that. Jesus, in contrast, Himself said this. It is a lengthy, clear, detailed passage that completely contradicts your idea.

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Now if you can just get the Bible to say that, then you'll have a case. But the Bible doesn't say that. Jesus, in contrast, Himself said this.
And Jesus wrote that down Himself....or there's a recording somewhere?

And He wrote down what you claimed to true? Why are you using different standards? And if you claim not to believe what He said here because you can't find "a recording somewhere", then how do you believe anything He or anyone else in the Bible said? You render the Bible utterly meaningless.

When was it written down? By whom? As it was spoken? As a memory? By word-of-mouth?

The New Testament was nearly all completed by A.D. 70. It was written by eye witnesses or people who knew eye witnesses. It was also written in the lifetime of those who could have contradicted the whole story because they were eye witnesses as well. That did not happen. Wonder why?

You did not answer this. " And if you claim not to believe what He said here because you can't find "a recording somewhere", then how do you believe anything He or anyone else in the Bible said?"

Also never answered this. What does "perish" mean as used in John 3:16?

The New Testament was nearly all completed by A.D. 70. It was written by eye witnesses or people who knew eye witnesses.
Maybe.

You did not answer this. " And if you claim not to believe what He said here because you can't find "a recording somewhere", then how do you believe anything He or anyone else in the Bible said?"
I have to believe every jot and tittle in the Bible?

Also never answered this. What does "perish" mean as used in John 3:16?
Succumb to spiritual havoc.

I have to believe every jot and tittle in the Bible?That's not an answer. You are being evasive.


Succumb to spiritual havoc.So you would agree that those who do not believe in Jesus succumb to spiritual havoc? What does "spiritual havoc" mean?

That's not an answer. You are being evasive.
I'm not a literalist.

So you would agree that those who do not believe in Jesus succumb to spiritual havoc? What does "spiritual havoc" mean?
As was described in that blog post you refused to read.

So you don’t believe that God literally loves sinners? Interesting.

Again, what is spiritual havoc?

The New Testament was nearly all completed by A.D. 70.

Another disingenuous remark by you. The EARLIEST complete copies of the Gospels are from later centuries, NOT 70 A.D.


It was written by eye witnesses or people who knew eye witnesses. It was also written in the lifetime of those who could have contradicted the whole story because they were eye witnesses as well.

That has been rebuked once and for all by almost all scholars except the fundamentalist types. Why do you keep repeating the falsehood?


You did not answer this. " And if you claim not to believe what He said here because you can't find "a recording somewhere", then how do you believe anything He or anyone else in the Bible said?"

Easy to do - apply your reasoning powers to the Bible and that way you won't go around believing in talking snakes and other stories that are not literal. Will you never learn?


Also never answered this. What does "perish" mean as used in John 3:16?

Perish means to die, whether in John 3:16 or in any other book. When you claim other meanings than the plain meaning of a word, you are far off in another universe.

1. That the Gospel accounts were written in the first century is disputed by virtually no one.

2. Oh? Name some of those "all scholars".

3. Except that your rant did not even come close to answering the question.

4. So you don't agree with WG? At any rate, then those who don't believe in Christ are going to die. But wait, those who DO believe are also going to die, so how does your definition make any sense as regards John 3:16?

1. That the Gospel accounts were written in the first century is disputed by virtually no one.

COMPLETE COPIES is what I said. Not even fragmemts are available from the first century. Stop playing word games. I'm tired of it.


2. Oh? Name some of those "all scholars".

Do your own research. Google New Testament scholars. It couldn't be simpler. You can find all the names your heart desires.


3. Except that your rant did not even come close to answering the question.

Perish means perish. All your nonsense won't change that.


4. So you don't agree with WG?

It's OK to disagree with WG. Did you think she is infallible?

1. But complete copies is not what I said. I simply said they were written in the first century prior to A.D. 70.

2. I don't research your foolish remarks. I find that liberals love to make bold, brash statements UNTIL you ask for some specifics. Then they beat a hasty retreat as you are doing.

3. Thank you for the non-answer.

4. Fine with me. I don't agree with her either. Still, I'll state the question again for your benefit. "At any rate, then those who don't believe in Christ are going to die. But wait, those who DO believe are also going to die, so how does your definition make any sense as regards John 3:16?" It renders the passage to basically say, "Everyone is going to die, but those who don't believe in Jesus are going to die." So that makes sense to you?

The Greek word apolētai doesn't mean "to die". It has more of the sense of being destroyed.



ἀπόληται

1. But complete copies is not what I said. I simply said they were written in the first century prior to A.D. 70.

2. I don't research your foolish remarks. I find that liberals love to make bold, brash statements UNTIL you ask for some specifics. Then they beat a hasty retreat as you are doing.

3. Thank you for the non-answer.

4. Fine with me. I don't agree with her either. Still, I'll state the question again for your benefit. "At any rate, then those who don't believe in Christ are going to die. But wait, those who DO believe are also going to die, so how does your definition make any sense as regards John 3:16?" It renders the passage to basically say, "Everyone is going to die, but those who don't believe in Jesus are going to die." So that makes sense to you?

Give it up, jl, you're starting to do the repeating thing again. No matter what answer you get, you will deny it if it doesn't agree with your biases. We've all been there, done that.

Remember?
I'll state the question again for your benefit. "At any rate, then those who don't believe in Christ are going to die. But wait, those who DO believe are also going to die, so how does your definition make any sense as regards John 3:16?" It renders the passage to basically say, "Everyone is going to die, but those who don't believe in Jesus are going to die." So that makes sense to you?

Answers just aren't your thing, are they?

Remember? Answers just aren't your thing, are they?

I get my answers from Jesus. I asked him about that quote and he said it was inserted later, and that he never said it. Satisfied?

Yeah...except that no one ever claimed that Jesus said it. Oh well.

Yeah...except that no one ever claimed that Jesus said it. Oh well.

Jesus also said perish means perish.

you are full of something, but it ain't the Holy Spirit.
What do you think he meant by that? Applesauce? Yeah, I'm sure that was it. I know you are fully committed to supporting your buddies at all costs, but that's really excessive.

You're correct, I did not mean "applesauce." The expression I learned was "baloney."

I think we all know what you were thinking. Tell me again who's being vulgar.


One more thing. I spent a little time this morning looking to see if I could find a major translation that used "unconditional" in conjunction with "love". There was not a single one. I then looked at some paraphrases. Nothing. Looked at both the Amplified and Expanded versions. Nothing. Even looked at the old J.B. Philips paraphrase. Still nothing. So it certainly seems fair to say that English translations do not render "agape" as "unconditional love".


That proves that they didn't translate it in a pleonastic fashion, it's understood from the context. You can't prove anything with translations.


The New Testament was nearly all completed by A.D. 70.

I don't know what JL's source for this is, but those who want to read an interesting defense of it might check out John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament. Those familiar with the name will know he was anything but a raving conservative, so I found his approach fascinating. You might as well.

1. That the Gospel accounts were written in the first century is disputed by virtually no one.

2. Oh? Name some of those "all scholars".

1. Pretty much all non-evangelical scholars put Matthew and some others after the close of the first century. They make fun of evangelicals for their lack of solid evidence for their side. I'm not saying I agree with them, but the statement that virtually nobody disputes what JL said is incorrect.

2. Bart Ehrman. NT Wright. Marcus Borg. James Dunn. John Dominic Crossan. To name just a few.

You can't prove anything with translations.If that's so, then why did you get so wrought up about the meaning of agape? For that matter, if that's true, then why do we have translations?



The New Testament was nearly all completed by A.D. 70.


I don't know what JL's source for this is, but those who want to read an interesting defense of it might check out John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament. Those familiar with the name will know he was anything but a raving conservative, so I found his approach fascinating. You might as well.That's true. There are those who want to date some books past that point, but there are good reasons to believe otherwise. And the late dates cannot be applied without a major assumption that the Gospels were basically fraudulent accounts written by liars.



you are full of something, but it ain't the Holy Spirit.
What do you think he meant by that? Applesauce? Yeah, I'm sure that was it. I know you are fully committed to supporting your buddies at all costs, but that's really excessive.


You're correct, I did not mean "applesauce." The expression I learned was "baloney."

I think we all know what you were thinking. Tell me again who's being vulgar.It was an ugly, irreverent statement. Slice it any way you want, and that's still what you have. Besides, what makes you think I was not thinking of "baloney"? And wouldn't that make you vulgar?

You guys are sure experts at knowing what someone else is thinking. Interesting.

It was an ugly, irreverent statement. Slice it any way you want, and that's still what you have. Besides, what makes you think I was not thinking of "baloney"? And wouldn't that make you vulgar?

You guys are sure experts at knowing what someone else is thinking. Interesting.

Surely you jest. You consider "baloney" and "applesauce" vulgar? The fact that you considered the statement vulgar is solid evidence of what you were thinking. We didn't have to suss anything out, you told us in plain words.

As for translations, they're better than nothing. But you can't prove the meaning of a word or phrase in the original using translations. You have to know the language. Intimately.

Part of my life's work has been taking some of the incredibly lofty concepts found in the original languages and making them available in plain English (as opposed to Scholarese, a dialect that people only write for each other). Some of the most amazing things can be found in the scholarly literature, and most people don't have the vocabulary or background to follow it. That's where I come in.

Referring to your comment, I said, "It was an ugly, irreverent statement. Slice it any way you want, and that's still what you have." It did, however, have the very distinct appearance of vulgarity. That should have been sufficient reason for you to have avoided it, especially considering your comment that, " "My instinctive response isn't appropriate for this forum..." So "baloney" isn't appropriate for this board? That's what we're to believe?

It was simply a hateful comment, and I would suggest you avoid using a reference to the Holy Spirit in such insults. Now you are trying to dig yourself out of it. Still, it it was many weeks ago, so I'd suggest you forget about it.


As for translations, they're better than nothing. But you can't prove the meaning of a word or phrase in the original using translations. You have to know the language. Intimately.Is that how you decided "agape" meant "unconditional love", despite the fact that no translation or lexicon agrees with you?


As for translations, they're better than nothing. But you can't prove the meaning of a word or phrase in the original using translations. You have to know the language. Intimately.Or you could go to works published by legitimate scholars and read what they have to say. That's the practice I employ.

Is that how you decided "agape" meant "unconditional love", despite the fact that no translation or lexicon agrees with you?

I didn't "decide" anything. Context did. Translations and lexicons are a starting point, not the end. And they're often wrong.


Or you could go to works published by legitimate scholars and read what they have to say. That's the practice I employ.

Who are they? What are their credentials? What criteria do you use to decide whether they're right or wrong?
This is a dodge, nothing more. But it's what you do. I'm done here.

I didn't "decide" anything. Context did. Translations and lexicons are a starting point, not the end. And they're often wrong.When a large group of scholars say one thing, and DW says something else, then I'll let you decide who's probably wrong. That's not meant to be ugly, but you are asking a lot for me to believe you when you have no support.


What criteria do you use to decide whether they're right or wrong?Uhm...I think I just answered that. But I'll add that William Vine and Joseph Thayer do fine for me.


This is a dodge, nothing more. But it's what you do. I'm done here.And this is what you do. When your position gets tenuous, you disappear.

And this is what you do. When your position gets tenuous, you disappear.
That's what you've done several times.

Never have. Period. But if you can link to it, we can talk about it.

Never have. Period. But if you can link to it, we can talk about it.
Here's one: Post #64, Genuine Attitudes thread
***I leave it with you. Not interested in this type of "discussion".

My position was never tenuous. Your replies just became too far detached from reality. There was no point to it.

"The author's intent was to scare the pants off the reader so that person would give up ungodly ways. Much like a parent who scolds a child for clumsiness or sloppiness with the threat, "If you don't start shaping up and do better than this, you'll end up in hell!"

You might as well have said, "I don't like what Paul said, so I'll just change it to something suitably ridiculous." It is not possible to hold a discussion in that kind of craziness.

My position was never tenuous. Your replies just became too far detached from reality. There was no point to it.

Ah, it was MY fault! I get it!

I thought you had kids and would understand my premise. Oh, well.

It is not possible to hold a discussion in that kind of craziness.

Every so often JL writes something that is so ironically funny it fits him to a "T".

His statement above is one of those things.

EVERY SINGLE PERSON HERE (except his pal Tomder) has one time or another ended any discussion with JL because of the crazy charges, and conclusions, and comments he makes. Tal, clete, WG, myself and now a very calm, very intelligent, and very friendly Biblical scholar Dwashbur who even he has had enough with JL.

Not only funny ha-ha, but funny in a weird way.

I thought you had kids and would understand my premiseI actually understood your premise quite well, far better than you realize.

At any rate, I was referring to DW disappearing for weeks at a time. People can back out of a discussion at any time. These discussion do frequently (always?) end up in an unbreakable headlock and I oftentimes wonder what the point is. No one's mind is ever changed on anything. It's more and more just looking like an utter waste of time.

I actually understood your premise quite well, far better than you realize.
And that premise was?

At any rate, I was referring to DW disappearing for weeks at a time. People can back out of a discussion at any time. These discussion do frequently (always?) end up in an unbreakable headlock and I oftentimes wonder what the point is. No one's mind is ever changed on anything. It's more and more just looking like an utter waste of time.
I've been his friend for years. Plus, you know not of what you speak.

And that premise was?Paul did not agree with WG, so a completely implausible spin had to be put on his words. No translation even comes close to agreeing with your speculation.


I've been his friend for years.Fine. I didn't say anything critical of DW in my post to you. I just made the observation that he disappears for weeks at a time which has, in the past, been true.


Plus, you know not of what you speak.In what way?

Paul did not agree with WG, so a completely implausible spin had to be put on his words. No translation even comes close to agreeing with your speculation.
No speculation. That's what Bible-believing fundamentalist Christian parents do -- quote Paul and Jesus and whoever to scare their naughty kids with the threat of hellfire if they don't shape up. That was Paul's message to us too. As I had said earlier:

"The author's intent was to scare the pants off the reader so that person would give up ungodly ways. Much like a parent who scolds a child for clumsiness or sloppiness with the threat, "If you don't start shaping up and do better than this, you'll end up in hell!"

No speculation. That's what Bible-believing fundamentalist Christian parents do -- quote Paul and Jesus and whoever to scare their naughty kids with the threat of hellfire if they don't shape up.I've never witnessed that, and I certainly don't think either one of us knows what those, "Bible believing fundamentalist Christian parents" do. I suppose you can comment on what you've seen from the 0.0001% of them you've actually known have done.


That was Paul's message to us too. There is nothing in the text at all to support that. It's only your prejudices at work. It's just idle (idol?) speculation at work.

Not really sure what the point of all these discussions is. As I said, I don't recall a single occasion where anyone ever changed his or her mind on any topic at all. Maybe you can tell me what purpose all of this back and forth serves.

I've never witnessed that, and I certainly don't think either one of us knows what those, "Bible believing fundamentalist Christian parents" do. I suppose you can comment on what you've seen from the 0.0001% of them you've actually known have done.
I grew up with children of Bible-believing fundamentalist Christians. I often heard that and similar rants.

There is nothing in the text at all to support that. It's only your prejudices at work. It's just idle (idol?) speculation at work.
That was the long-time prevailing threat in most ancient religions -- behave or you're going to hell.

Not really sure what the point of all these discussions is. As I said, I don't recall a single occasion where anyone ever changed his or her mind on any topic at all. Maybe you can tell me what purpose all of this back and forth serves.
Then this website should eliminate any political and religious discussions.

Like I said, I suppose you can comment on what you've seen from the 0.0001% of them you've actually known.


That was the long-time prevailing threat in most ancient religions -- behave or you're going to hell.But not in the Gospel.


Then this website should eliminate any political and religious discussions.So it's all pointless.

WG says - Bible believing Christians are threatened with hell


But not in the Gospel.

Did you really say that? Right here in black and white? Amazing!!

YOU are the chief promoter of hell from the Gospels ever seen on thses pages.

Like I said, I suppose you can comment on what you've seen from the 0.0001% of them you've actually known.
100%. Grew up amongst them. NC and rural NY. Spanking, beating, whipping with belt, locked in bedroom or shed, no supper, no talking/conversation....

Like I've said twice now, I suppose you can comment on what you've seen from the 0.0001% of them you've actually known.

I'll also repeat this. Not really sure what the point of all these discussions is. As I said, I don't recall a single occasion where anyone ever changed his or her mind on any topic at all. Maybe you can tell me what purpose all of this back and forth serves.

Maybe you can tell me what purpose all of this back and forth serves.

It goes to expose you for the false belief of Jesus sending people (his creations, humans, sinners, unbelievers - whatever the term du jour is) - for sending these people to hell for eternal punishment.

Since you've been fed that since the cradle, you can't be blamed for believing it, but it's time for you to examine it and not just believe literally whatever is written in the Bible without a careful analysis. If you can't do it, others can do it for you.

I'll also repeat this. Not really sure what the point of all these discussions is.
Why are there discussions during high school and college classes? Why are there discussions at congregational meetings? Why are there family discussions during or after dinner? Why are there discussions by the US Senate and by the House?

You still have not answered the question. What is the point of THESE discussions?

You still have not answered the question. What is the point of THESE discussions?

You got your answer - to expose YOU.

You still have not answered the question. What is the point of THESE discussions?
Pontius Pilate said it best.

So we have arrived at a common understanding of truth? When did that happen?

So we have arrived at a common understanding of truth? When did that happen?

It hasn't happened. You have a serious problem with truth.

WG, isn't it apparent that we discuss and discuss and no one ever moves an inch?

WG, isn't it apparent that we discuss and discuss and no one ever moves an inch?

The reason is very simple. It's your blind idolatry to a 2,000 year old series of books that you are unable to read with any understanding. You can hide but you can't ignore.

Most white evangelicals live in a universe that the majority of Christians have long since abandoned. Rather than play contrarian, this is an opportunity for you to learn some home truths about the Bible - a step many of your former co-religionists are gradually taking.

WG, isn't it apparent that we discuss and discuss and no one ever moves an inch?
You and I don't "discuss and discuss." If you disagree with me, you turn to insults rather than explore our differences.

You mean like you just did? You are not following your own moral conviction. Are you "exploring our differences"? I don't think so.

I still don't see the point in these discussions. I've been pondering this for weeks. We never arrive at any point of agreement on anything. They frequently turn ugly. I'll take some of the responsibility for that, but you and others also bear some of the load as your last post clearly shows.

So how can we make any progress?

You mean like you just did? You are not following your own moral conviction. Are you "exploring our differences"? I don't think so.
I was simply answering your question.

I still don't see the point in these discussions.

So how can we make any progress?
Keep it simple. Make lists. Number them. Don't go into all sorts of verbiage; stick to the topic.

E.g., Name three historical events recorded in the Bible. What evidence is there that they are historical?

No you weren't. You were being insulting. Take responsibility for it and stop letting yourself off the hook. And why is it that you only direct these comments towards me? Is there anyone else here who is WILDLY insulting and should be corrected by WG? I just have trouble accepting your one-way "correction". When you become more inclusive, including yourself, then it will bear more weight.

I'll name one historical event and give evidence for it. The resurrection of Jesus.

Evidence.
1. change of Sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday
2. many extra-biblical references to the resurrection
3. the willingness of the witnesses of the resurrection to undergo lives of great hardship to spread the message of that resurrection
4. the testimony of the NT
5. the incredible conversion of Saul of Tarsus
6. an empty tomb
7. prophesied in the OT
8. oral tradition recorded in 1 Cor. 15 which traces back to within 3 years of the resurrection
9. the absence of writings in the first century contradicting the resurrection
10. extraordinary transformation of the disciples from fearful men into fearless preachers of the Gospel
11. the tomb of Jesus was never turned into a shrine as His burial place
12. The absence of any other plausible explanation. For instance, if His body had still been in the tomb, then the Jewish leaders would simply have paraded it through town and the resurrection account would have been completely discounted.

No you weren't. You were being insulting. Take responsibility for it and stop letting yourself off the hook. And why is it that you only direct these comments towards me? Is there anyone else here who is WILDLY insulting and should be corrected by WG? I just have trouble accepting your one-way "correction". When you become more inclusive, including yourself, then it will bear more weight.


Call it what you want, stop pretending you can see into my mind because you can't. And these things get directed at you because you're the one making the erroneous statements. It's that simple. Stop saying wrong things and that'll solve it.

Call it what you want, stop pretending you can see into my mind because you can't. And these things get directed at you because you're the one making the erroneous statements. It's that simple. Stop saying wrong things and that'll solve it.Calm down. I haven't said anything about you. Where you think I'm wrong, point it out. We can discuss it.

As to seeing into your mind, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Calm down. I haven't said anything about you. Where I'm wrong, point it out. We can discuss it.

As to seeing into your mind, I have no idea what you're talking about.
Your post #81

This is my post 81.


When a large group of scholars say one thing, and DW says something else, then I'll let you decide who's probably wrong. That's not meant to be ugly, but you are asking a lot for me to believe you when you have no support.

Uhm...I think I just answered that. But I'll add that William Vine and Joseph Thayer do fine for me.

And this is what you do. When your position gets tenuous, you disappear.

What are you upset about?

I wish you would answer this. "And why is it that you only direct these comments towards me? Is there anyone else here who is WILDLY insulting and should be corrected by WG?"

I'll name one historical event and give evidence for it. The resurrection of Jesus.

Evidence.
1. change of Sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday
2. many extra-biblical references to the resurrection
3. the willingness of the witnesses of the resurrection to undergo lives of great hardship to spread the message of that resurrection
4. the testimony of the NT
5. the incredible conversion of Saul of Tarsus
6. an empty tomb
7. prophesied in the OT
8. oral tradition recorded in 1 Cor. 15 which traces back to within 3 years of the resurrection
9. the absence of writings in the first century contradicting the resurrection
10. extraordinary transformation of the disciples from fearful men into fearless preachers of the Gospel
11. the tomb of Jesus was never turned into a shrine as His burial place
12. The absence of any other plausible explanation. For instance, if His body had still been in the tomb, then the Jewish leaders would simply have paraded it through town and the resurrection account would have been completely discounted.

Most Christians believe in a literal resurrection, for some Christians it's a spiritual resurrection, and for a handful it's a literary resurrection.

In any case, there is no “evidence” for the resurrection. It is a matter of faith.

Citing the NT as evidence/proof of itself is not evidence. Although your instances of heroic early Christians is certainly praiseworthy as a demonstration of their faith, it is not evidence of the resurrection.

Absence of writings denying the resurrection is obviously not evidence. It's not clear why you would claim that.

Your mention of “many extra-Biblical references to the resurrection” is definitely interesting. They would not necessarily be evidence, but they would surely be an indication that the resurrection was independently known outside of the disciples. But contemporary extra-Biblical references are almost non-existent as far as I can determine, certainly not “many”. If you have information about any, please let us know what they are.

You can start with Josephus. You can also go with Tacitus and Pliny. They don't agree that there was a resurrection, but they do attest that early Christians believed it to be so.

Not sure what you want for evidence. Everything I listed is valid historical evidence.

This is my post 81.
You were addressing DW, not me.

Then why are you concerned about it?

You can start with Josephus. You can also go with Tacitus and Pliny. They don't agree that there was a resurrection, but they do attest that early Christians believed it to be so.

You saved me the time. Yes, they don't agree that there was a resurrection.

Several generations after the fact, they are reporting the existence of Christians and, in the case of Pliny and Tacitus, I can find no attestation they reported that Christians believed in the resurrection. Tacitus' words have been interpreted as such by some, but they are not considered evidence of the resurrection. Tacitus is reporting what others believe, not an evident fact.

As to Josephus who also lived much later, he was initially cited as a believer in the resurrection, but those words were shown to be a later interpolation by Christians so that he, too, is left as a reporter of what others believed.

All three fail as evidence of the resurrection. The best that can be said is that all three wrote about the beliefs of others, not themselves.


Not sure what you want for evidence. Everything I listed is valid historical evidence.

No, it is not valid historical evidence for the resurrection. If the report of someone believing in something were all that was needed for evidential proof, then all the believers of Zeus or Jupiter or some other god would be considered evidence of those gods. That is obviously not the case.

With something as remarkable as the resurrection, more is required than someone's say-so. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe. It is a matter of faith.

What Josephus wrote. "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

Now this is contained in every extant manuscript. It has not been shown to be a later addition. It has been conjectured, but not proven.

Tacitus wrote, "Therefore, to stop the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue." That does not prove the resurrection, but does strongly hints that it was widely believed (" the pernicious superstition"), and shows clearly that about thirty years after the resurrection, the Gospel had not only spread as far as Rome, but had a large number of adherents who were willing to do a horrible death rather than recant. And the question must be asked, why would they have done so if the dead body of Jesus was laying in a tomb outside of Jerusalem?

As to why I would include the NT, it is an historical document in it's own right. There is no good reason to discount it and many good reasons to accept it.

This is what Pliny said. "They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food–but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.” In singing hymns to Christ as, "to a god", they clearly believed He still lived.

It does not simply show that people "believed" something. It shows that they believed it so strongly they were willing to lose everything, including their lives, to keep that belief.

Paul said there were more than five hundred witnesses to the resurrection, most still alive at the time he wrote that. It would have been a very simple undertaking for the Jews, who hated the idea of the resurrection, to have contradicted the story from the outset simply by displaying the dead body of Jesus. Wonder why they didn't?

What Josephus wrote. "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

Josephus, a Jew, would not have said Christ was the Messiah. The language in the passage is too Christian. In another manuscript the words "They said" are found before "He appeared". "They said" is reportage, not agreement.


Tacitus wrote, "Therefore, to stop the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue."

That does not prove the resurrection, but does strongly hints that it was widely believed (" the pernicious superstition")

I agree with you that it does not prove the resurrection. Your claim was that it was evidence of the resurrection. Btw, the "pernicious superstition" could mean simply Christianity, not necessarily the resurrection.


As to why I would include the NT, it is an historical document in it's own right. There is no good reason to discount it and many good reasons to accept it.

I did not say to discount it. I said it cannot be used to prove a remarkable event like the resurrection simply by saying so. There is much history in the NT. I never denied that.


This is what Pliny said. "They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food–but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.” In singing hymns to Christ as, "to a god", they clearly believed He still lived.

It does not simply show that people "believed" something. It shows that they believed it so strongly they were willing to lose everything, including their lives, to keep that belief.

That is true of their strong belief. It is NOT true as evidence of the resurrection.


Paul said there were more than five hundred witnesses to the resurrection, most still alive at the time he wrote that. It would have been a very simple undertaking for the Jews, who hated the idea of the resurrection, to have contradicted the story from the outset simply by displaying the dead body of Jesus. Wonder why they didn't?

I don't know why some Jews did not contradict the story. Maybe some Jews did contradict it, but that is no longer remembered. In any case, it's hardly evidence for the resurrection.

Josephus, a Jew, would not have said Christ was the Messiah. The language in the passage is too Christian. In another manuscript the words "They said" are found before "He appeared". "They said" is reportage, not agreement.The surviving manuscripts disagree with you. Josephus, by the time he wrote in Rome, was a Jew more in name than by religious commitment. And "reportage" is exactly what we are looking for. It's what Luke did for much of Acts.

The rest of your comments can be answered by the concept of circumstantial evidence. I think it would be safe to say that it is, by far, the primary means of establishing history. How do we know Washington crossed the Delaware and won the Battle of Trenton? Video? Photographs? Ballistics? No, it is by circumstantial evidence that is so overwhelming that the only reasonable inference (which is what comes from circumstantial evidence) that can be drawn is that both events happened. The same is true of the Resurrection.

What kind of evidence are you looking for?

If the "pernicious superstition" referred to by Tacitus was not the resurrection, then what else could it have been?

The surviving manuscripts disagree with you. Josephus, by the time he wrote in Rome, was a Jew more in name than by religious commitment. And "reportage" is exactly what we are looking for. It's what Luke did for much of Acts.

When Josephus wrote the passage in question he was a Jew. As a Jew, he never would have referred to Jesus as the Messiah. "Reportage" in this case is heresay. You cannot expect heresay to be evidence of a resurrection. For those interested, the problem is discussed at length at Testimonium Flavianum. However one looks at it, it is definitely NOT evidence of resurrection.


The rest of your comments can be answered by the concept of circumstantial evidence.

You are helping my position. Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence, NOT direct evidence. Washington crossing the Delaware is insignificant in any scheme of history. The resurrection of a man is an incredibly miraculous event that may be unique in human history and therefore requires much, much more than circumstantial evidence.


The same is true of the Resurrection.

By "the same is true of the Resurrection", you are referring to the proof of circumstantial evidence. As I have explained above, the required evidence for proof of a resurrection is far greater than what you offered.


What kind of evidence are you looking for?

That is YOUR concern, not mine. You have claimed evidence for the resurrection. What you have cited as evidence is nothing more than circumstantial and lacking in proof.


If the "pernicious superstition" referred to by Tacitus was not the resurrection, then what else could it have been?

Easy. Christianity fits perfectly.

When you claim there is evidence for the resurrection, and not being able to offer proof of such evidence, you are undermining faith in Christianity. I don't think that's your intent, but it is the effect.

The Josephus passage is suspect, and doesn't appear in some manuscripts. See Edwin Yamauchi, "Josephus and the Scriptures" in Fides et Historia 1960.

We don't need Josephus anyway. There's enough in the gospels and Acts to establish the probability that it happened.
1. He was dead.
2. Nobody expected him to rise, when he told his boys he would they didn't get it.
3. He was in a sealed, guarded tomb.
4. Days later the tomb was found empty and the guards had no explanation.
5. The disciples were in despair. They had nothing left, their leader was dead, and they were preparing to go back to their lives. They did not expect a resurrection.
6. Some time after the disappearance of the body, multiple people claimed to have had direct personal contact with the risen Jesus.
7. Saul's conversion was the unlikeliest event in the whole story, and he attributed it to a direct encounter with the risen Jesus.
8. James, Jesus' brother, didn't believe in him until after a post-resurrection appearance, whereupon he became a leader in the Jerusalem group.
9. The despairing clowns who had lost everything suddenly became the boldest proclaimers on the planet, willing to give up their lives for what they said happened. Since these were in direct contact with Jesus from the beginning, it's doubtful that liars would make martyrs. SOMETHING happened to them. Mass hallucination isn't a thing and neither is a mass hysteria where everybody sees and experiences exactly the same thing. Something objectively life-changing happened to these people. To date, there is no better explanation.
10. The efforts by the Jewish leadership to suppress the message says they knew something real happened, as well, but it threatened their power so they tried to squelch it, to the point of killing people. If the body had been moved, all they had to do was go get it, parade it through the streets of Jerusalem, and that would be the end of it. They didn't. They didn't even try, nobody asked about the body or any of the rest. They knew.

Put it all together and you have a strong historical case for a unique, one-time resurrection event.

Please note that this stuff isn't mine. I'm indebted to Dr. Gary Habermas for the material.

That is YOUR concern, not mine. You have claimed evidence for the resurrection. What you have cited as evidence is nothing more than circumstantial and lacking in proof.But as has been pointed out, circumstantial evidence is all that is available for most historical events. Many a criminal has been convicted on circumstantial evidence. If you reject CE, then you reject practically all of history. That's why I asked what kind of evidence would satisfy you.



If the "pernicious superstition" referred to by Tacitus was not the resurrection, then what else could it have been?


Easy. Christianity fits perfectly.Not really. The worship of a long dead Savior would hardly have been compelling. What "superstition" would be needed to worship a dead man?


I'm indebted to Dr. Gary Habermas for the material.His "minimal facts" argument is very good.

Tacitus on the Christians

"Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius (https://www.livius.org/articles/person/tiberius/) at the hands of one of our procurators (https://www.livius.org/articles/concept/procurator/), Pontius Pilate (https://www.livius.org/articles/person/pontius-pilate/), and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea (https://www.livius.org/articles/place/judaea/), the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular."

"pernicious [mischievous] superstition" = Christianity

https://www.livius.org/sources/content/tacitus/tacitus-on-the-christians/

We don't need Josephus anyway. There's enough in the gospels and Acts to establish the probability that it happened.

That may be true but the discussion here was that there is proof of evidence that the resurrection happened. You have changed the terms to indicate "probability".

The problem with your items 1 through 8 is that they each originate in the NT, a book(s) that is the only record of the resurrection and that clearly is written for believers to begin with. Such a miraculous, unique, one-time occurrence requires more than the testimony of those who are the originators of the claim.

The fervor shown in item 9 is not all that uncommon. Humans have been known to give their lives for reasons far less than a resurrection.

Item 10 implies that the Jewish leadership was aware of the resurrection - "They knew". That can be dismissed without comment. Even if you meant something different, it is hardly proof or probability of the resurrection.

I believe that the resurrection is a matter of faith. Trying to prove it as a certainty is an exercise in futility. If probability is required to support the faith of a Christian, then believe as necessary.

But as has been pointed out, circumstantial evidence is all that is available for most historical events. Many a criminal has been convicted on circumstantial evidence. If you reject CE, then you reject practically all of history. That's why I asked what kind of evidence would satisfy you.

My answer was, and is, that circumstantial evidence is not enough for such a rare event as the resurrection from death. Comparing it to "most historical events" is a problem since it is absolutely unique in human history, not remotely like most historical events.


The worship of a long dead Savior would hardly have been compelling. What "superstition" would be needed to worship a dead man?

We know for a fact from extra-Biblical records that the Christians were despised for many reasons. The Romans saw Christianity as a superstition, a way to demean and justify their treatment of Christians. This is all well-documented, from Nero to Constantine, the latter being the champion of the new religion.


His "minimal facts" argument is very good.

See my reply to DW on this matter.

My answer was, and is, that circumstantial evidence is not enough for such a rare event as the resurrection from death. Comparing it to "most historical events" is a problem since it is absolutely unique in human history, not remotely like most historical events.The only logical answer for the evidence presented is that the resurrection took place. There is no other logical answer.



We know for a fact from extra-Biblical records that the Christians were despised for many reasons. The Romans saw Christianity as a superstition, a way to demean and justify their treatment of Christians. This is all well-documented, from Nero to Constantine, the latter being the champion of the new religion.Fair enough, but it remains true that a religion based on an obviously dead man would not have gotten very far. It is completely obvious that it was a resurrection based faith.

I'd still like to know what evidence you would accept?

The only logical answer for the evidence presented is that the resurrection took place. There is no other logical answer.

No offense but I don't think you understand what logic is. For starters, you are assuming, without proof, that the events described are actual occurrences. That remains to be seen, regardless of what you or I may believe. Saying something is so doesn't make it so. Your premise is defective.


The worship of a long dead Savior would hardly have been compelling. What "superstition" would be needed to worship a dead man?

I don't know what you mean by saying this again.


Fair enough, but it remains true that a religion based on an obviously dead man would not have gotten very far.

Buddhism is based on a dead man and is a major world religion older than Christianity. The ancient Egyptians believed in gods that not only were not dead, they never even existed and that religion lasted thousands of years, longer than Christianity.


It is completely obvious that it was a resurrection based faith.

No one here has denied that the resurrection is, and was, a basis for the faith of Christians. I don't know why you posted that.


I'd still like to know what evidence you would accept?

I already answered that. The claim for evidence is your thing, not mine.

I'd still like to know what evidence you would accept?
Evidence means proof. Faith is not based on evidence, but on spiritual apprehension/understanding.

I already answered that. The claim for evidence is your thing, not mine.You just did an end-run around the question. It remains unanswered.

As to the rest, you are right that saying something is so doesn't make it so. No one has suggested that. So I'm not sure what you are after. Events of history have been put forward in abundance, events which, as all circumstantial evidence does, calls for inferring some answers, and that is where logic comes in.

I do appreciate the calm discussion.


The resurrection of a man is an incredibly miraculous event that may be unique in human history and therefore requires much, much more than circumstantial evidence.This is you setting forth a requirement, so I assume you have some idea of what is needed. If it requires, "much, much more than circumstantial evidence," then what would that be? Perhaps this is not you, but I'm convinced that Jesus could walk up to many people in His glory and shake hands with them, show them His scars, and they would still walk away and not believe. For them, there is no sufficient evidence.

But as I said, I’m not saying that’s you.

I'm convinced that Jesus could walk up to many people in His glory and shake hands with them, show them His scars, and they would still walk away and not believe. For them, there is no sufficient evidence.
Read Mitch Albom's new book, The Stranger in the Lifeboat.

from Athos
I already answered that. The claim for evidence is your thing, not mine.


You just did an end-run around the question. It remains unanswered.

YOU are the one claiming evidence, not me. I don't know why you are blaming me for something I never claimed - if that is what an end-run is.


As to the rest, you are right that saying something is so doesn't make it so. No one has suggested that. So I'm not sure what you are after.

When you claim something to be true that cannot be proved, you are saying that your claim makes it so. Yes, you are suggesting that in this particular case.


Events of history have been put forward in abundance, events which, as all circumstantial evidence does, calls for inferring some answers, and that is where logic comes in.

No, that is not logic. It can be persuasion, it can be opinion, it can be hoped for - but it is not logic. My best advice to you is to google "logic" and learn what constitutes logic. An inference is a conclusion based on a premise which is true. You have not proven your premise to be true. You believe it, as many do, but not proven it. I think you have admitted that.


If it requires, "much, much more than circumstantial evidence," then what would that be?

That is up to you to discover whatever that may be, and then present it here. I think you are way over-complicating this. It's just a matter of your evidence to support your claim. Asking others for evidence for what are claiming is not how it works.


Perhaps this is not you, but I'm convinced that Jesus could walk up to many people in His glory and shake hands with them, show them His scars, and they would still walk away and not believe. For them, there is no sufficient evidence.

Even if there are those who will not believe any evidence, that does not relieve you of presenting evidence to support your claim.

When you claim something to be true that cannot be proved,That would include practically all of ancient history.

You want to see, "...much, much more than circumstantial evidence," but you don't know what that would be? I find the evidence to be overwhelming, but you don't. Each to his own. I guess we'll just leave it there.

Once again, there is no agreement found. That's why I am questioning all of this. It is fruitless. But we were civil, and I do appreciate that.

That would include practically all of ancient history.

I have no idea why you are saying that.


You want to see, "...much, much more than circumstantial evidence," but you don't know what that would be? I find the evidence to be overwhelming, but you don't. Each to his own. I guess we'll just leave it there.

I'm happy to leave it there. But I insist on you NOT misquoting me. I never said I "don't know what that would be". What I DID say was the job of providing evidence falls on you since you are the one who is making the claim. Misquoting your opposition is NOT a valid discussion technique.

You are free to find your position "overwhelming" but, as I have explained in detail, it is not evidence.


Once again, there is no agreement found. That's why I am questioning all of this. It is fruitless.

Lack of agreement does not mean the discussion has been fruitless. It only means one side has not agreed with the other. It can be quite fruitful when the truth has been displayed.

I have no idea why you are saying that.Because practically all of ancient history is established by circumstantial evidence.

I have asked what evidence you would accept. You have stated, "As I have explained above, the required evidence for proof of a resurrection is far greater than what you offered." If that is so, then you must have some idea of what that "far greater" evidence would be. Otherwise, how would you know I had not "offered" it, and if I did offer it, how would you know it was the "far greater" evidence you require?

I did NOT misquote you. I never offered, "don't know what that would be," as a quote, so I didn't claim you had said that. It was included in a question (with no quotation marks) you have so far declined to answer other than deflecting it. So I'll simply say again that you must have some idea of what that "far greater" evidence would be. Otherwise, how would you know I had not "offered" it? Can you say what it would be? It seems unreasonable to me for a person to say the evidence offered so far does not reach some standard, but then be unwilling or unable to specify what that standard is.



You are free to find your position "overwhelming" but, as I have explained in detail, it is not evidence.You have agreed that it is circumstantial evidence (post 124) which, as has been established, is what most of history is built upon. So it is unquestionably evidence, a type that is the primary currency of both the detective and the historian and without which most of history would be unaccepted and most crimes would remain unsolved.

Yes, "probability" is a better word than proof, and in historical study it's what we have. You dismiss the gospels because they were written with certain things in mind, but that's a straw man. All history was written with certain things in mind. They were written within the lifetimes of those who were there and purport to be written by people who were there. Simply dismissing them because they include miraculous events isn't good history.

The fervor you describe was out of place here. We know the disciples were despairing. Most were in the process of returning to their day jobs because this whole thing was over. They weren't expecting a resurrection, they were expecting a similar fate because of being associated with Jesus.

Something transformed them. It wasn't just zeal because they didn't have any. As for dismissing 10 out of hand, sorry, can't do that. We have written records saying that they ordered the guards to lie about what happened. Under ordinary circumstances, if those guards had really let someone come steal the body, their lives would have been forfeit. So we know the Jewish leaders understood SOMETHING happened that they couldn't explain. And when the disciples started talking about what did happen, the leaders panicked. They started arresting them, jailing them, killing them, anything to suppress the message.

As as historian that tells me something important. They knew.

Your mileage may vary, but that's how we do history. Add the fact that Caesar's Gallic Wars is accepted as fairly accurate and the manuscripts we have are fairly correct, the ones we have are thousands of years after the fact and there's less than a handful of them. With the NT we have over 5000 manuscripts, parts of manuscripts, bits and pieces, some dating to less than 100 years after the events. So we have good records. The only question is what one does with them.

The historical probability is that the resurrection happened. There have been no truly valid alternatives suggested over 2000 years. There was no time for legend to develop, these men gave their lives for what they said they saw and experienced, and contrary to popular belief, liars do not make martyrs, especially when nobody related to the movement has anything to gain by someone's martyrdom. So they were telling the truth as they knew it.

It happened. Like it or not, it happened. The very rise of the Christian message and the vicious opposition to it, as well as the other evidence, say it happened.

YMMV, but I'm doing history the best I know how. I put it out there and people can do what they want with the evidence. You can lead a person to eternal life, but you can't make them drink of it.



Quote Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
That would include practically all of ancient history.
I have no idea why you are saying that.


Because it's a fact. We know what little we do about the Sumerians, for example, because of the accident of a fire in a clay tablet library. But we have no idea how much of what we read is true and how much might be someone's Great Sumerian Novel. Ugaritic gives us the story of King KRT who went through all kinds of gyrations to win the hand of Lady HRY, how 'El helped him and all kinds of stuff. Is the story true? Were KRT and HRY real people, and the writer threw in the religious elements? Or is it an epic poem? We don't know, because all we have is the circumstantial evidence of the writings.

This is why doing ancient history is so iffy. If we write off even the vast majority of "circumstantial evidence" we're left with nothing but pretty artifacts that can tell us nothing.

Yes, "probability" is a better word than proof, and in historical study it's what we have. Good point. Probability is a better word. Of course there are degrees of probability. I would contend the resurrection is a high degree given the amount of evidence.

I think the writing of Caesar is a good example. He contends, for instance, that the Romans built a bridge several hundred meters across the Rhine River in only ten days starting from scratch. That would seem to be an absolutely incredible feat, and yet it is generally accepted as true.

jlisenbe
Yes, "probability" is a better word than proof, and in historical study it's what we have.
Good point. Probability is a better word. Of course there are degrees of probability. I would contend the resurrection is a high degree given the amount of evidence.

I think the writing of Caesar is a good example. He contends, for instance, that the Romans built a bridge several hundred meters across the Rhine River in only ten days starting from scratch. That would seem to be an absolutely incredible feat, and yet it is generally accepted as true.


The double standard for other ancient works vs. the New Testament continues to fascinate me.

Is this acceptable? Don't we need to start fighting about something??? :)

Is this acceptable? Don't we need to start fighting about something??? :)It is terribly concerning. Just seems kind of unnatural, doesn't it? (<:

You dismiss the gospels

Wow - what a bad start! I have NOT "dismissed the Gospels". I have asked for the claimed evidence that the resurrection occurred.


All history was written with certain things in mind. They were written within the lifetimes of those who were there and purport to be written by people who were there. Simply dismissing them because they include miraculous events isn't good history.

I have NOT dismissed "all history" because "they include miraculous events". I don't know of any history that has proven miraculous events.


As for dismissing 10 out of hand, sorry, can't do that. We have written records saying that they ordered the guards to lie about what happened.

By "written records" are you referring to the Gospel? If not, please cite the written records.


Under ordinary circumstances, if those guards had really let someone come steal the body, their lives would have been forfeit.

True. So they lied disproving the resurrection occurred. However, as you claim, if the guards HAD seen the resurrection isn't it far more plausible they would have been completely and totally astounded at witnessing the most important and impressive miracle of all time accompanied by midday darkness and by an angel coming down from heaven. Surely, they would have been immediately converted. But no, they return to the Jewish elders and accept a bribe to deny the miraculous event.


So we know the Jewish leaders understood SOMETHING happened that they couldn't explain.

And you are claiming this SOMETHING was the resurrection. A SOMETHING that was so unimpressive to the witnessing guards that they accepted a bribe to deny it. Not bloody likely.


And when the disciples started talking about what did happen, the leaders panicked. They started arresting them, jailing them, killing them, anything to suppress the message.

But not because the Jewish leaders knew the resurrection occurred. Obviously, they did not believe that. If they HAD believed it, they would have run through the streets declaring the arrival of the Messiah!


As as historian that tells me something important. They knew.

Please explain how, as an historian, they KNEW the resurrection happened and then went around killing those who, like themselves, believed it. I must admit, I've never heard anything so unconvincing on this issue. Matthew's story is dismissed by a majority of scholars.


Caesar's Gallic Wars is accepted as fairly accurate and the manuscripts we have are fairly correct, the ones we have are thousands of years after the fact and there's less than a handful of them.

Nowhere in Caesar's Gallic Wars does Caesar claim that a man was resurrected from the dead. I should know, I spent a year translating him. The point I have been trying to make is that a man rising from the dead requires a burden of proof equal to the fantastic claim. Comparing the resurrection to other ordinary historical events is a non-sequitur.


With the NT we have over 5000 manuscripts, parts of manuscripts, bits and pieces, some dating to less than 100 years after the events. So we have good records. The only question is what one does with them.

5000 manuscripts, parts of, bits and pieces all writing that a man rose from the dead is not proof of a man rising from the dead. I should not have to say that to an historian.


The historical probability is that the resurrection happened.

No, that is a matter of faith. And if it's a "probability", then it's not 100% "historical". That's what I've been saying all along.


There have been no truly valid alternatives suggested over 2000 years.

There were no truly valid alternatives suggested to explain the earth's orbit for hundreds of thousands of years.


So they were telling the truth as they knew it.

That has never been in contention here.


It happened. Like it or not, it happened.

Your enthusiasm is noted. Enthusiasm is not evidence.


The very rise of the Christian message and the vicious opposition to it, as well as the other evidence, say it happened.

I'm sorry, but none of what you say is evidence. It's faith. Nothing wrong with faith. It's the core of all religion, including Christianity and the resurrection.


I put it out there and people can do what they want with the evidence.

Repeating the word "evidence" is not evidence.


You can lead a person to eternal life, but you can't make them drink of it.

This sounds vaguely like a threat. Please don't go that route, DW. We like you too much.


We know what little we do about the Sumerians, for example, because of the accident of a fire in a clay tablet library. But we have no idea how much of what we read is true and how much might be someone's Great Sumerian Novel. Ugaritic gives us the story of King KRT who went through all kinds of gyrations to win the hand of Lady HRY, how 'El helped him and all kinds of stuff. Is the story true? Were KRT and HRY real people, and the writer threw in the religious elements? Or is it an epic poem? We don't know, because all we have is the circumstantial evidence of the writings.

It's an epic poem. Do you seriously think all that talk of gods and goddesses is true?


If we write off even the vast majority of "circumstantial evidence" we're left with nothing but pretty artifacts that can tell us nothing.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Historical study has given us tremendous amounts of information about the past - especially ancient history. I admit to being shocked to read such a statement coming from the pen of a self-proclaimed historian. "If we write off even the vast majority of "circumstantial evidence" we're left with nothing but pretty artifacts that can tell us nothing." I trust you don't really believe that.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Historical study has given us tremendous amounts of information about the past - especially ancient history. I admit to being shocked to read such a statement coming from the pen of a self-proclaimed historian. "If we write off even the vast majority of "circumstantial evidence" we're left with nothing but pretty artifacts that can tell us nothing." I trust you don't really believe that.Can you give some examples of ancient history largely based on direct evidence?

The double standard for other ancient works vs. the New Testament continues to fascinate me.

I'm always surprised when the New Testament is compared to other ancient works by saying the NT is not given the credence of those other works - a double standard.

The answer for that is simplicity itself. The other ancient works do not make a claim similar to the NT that God himself came to earth in the person of a human being, performed miracles, rose from the dead, and ascended bodily into heaven.

Because it is believed as true that Caesar conquered Gaul based on ancient writings, the NT must therefore be also true since it too is based on ancient writings. Must I point out that the one doesn't prove the other?

If it were true that the resurrection was provable, what need for faith?

You still have not outlined what evidence would be needed to satisfy you.

Faith is not based upon blind acceptance. Faith is very much evidence based. Hence Paul went about telling people that the resurrected Christ had been seen by more than five hundred people.

When did the disciples believe, before they saw the resurrected Christ, or afterwards?


Can you give some examples of ancient history largely based on direct evidence?Does your non-answer mean "no"?

You still have not outlined what evidence would be needed to satisfy you.

More than once now, I have told you that the responsibility for providing evidence lies with you since you are the one making the claim.


Faith is not based upon blind acceptance. Faith is very much evidence based.

Faith is the assent to an idea for which complete evidence is lacking. Christianity requires a strong faith. That is not in dispute.


Hence Paul went about telling people that the resurrected Christ had been seen by more than five hundred people.

This is as poor an example as is possible. It is hearsay. In any case, how many of those 500 believed Paul? How many did not? (Rhetorical - neither you nor I know the answer).


When did the disciples believe, before they saw the resurrected Christ, or afterwards?

How could anyone possibly know when the Apostles believed what they did?


Can you give some examples of ancient history largely based on direct evidence?


Does your non-answer mean "no"?

No.

More than once now, I have told you that the responsibility for providing evidence lies with you since you are the one making the claim.And more than once I have replied that claiming evidence does not meet some standard without being able to define that standard just doesn't make sense. If you don't know what the standard is, then how could you possibly know it has not been met?


This is as poor an example as is possible. It is hearsay. In any case, how many of those 500 believed Paul? How many did not? (Rhetorical - neither you nor I know the answer).The testimonies of Paul, John, and Matthew are direct eye-witness testimony. As to the 500, the point Paul was making was that most of those 500 were still living and could have been asked about it by any skeptic who chose to. It would be an incredibly foolish strategy if those hundreds were not still living and willing to testify. Imagine sending a group to interview those individuals and the group coming back reporting, "They all said it was nonsense. They never saw a resurrected Christ and Paul is an abject liar if he says otherwise."


How could anyone possibly know when the Apostles believed what they did?
By reading the several accounts in the Gospels. There is, for instance, John 20:19ff.


Does your non-answer mean "no"?


No.Sure looks that way. Frankly, this seems to be a problem here. There is an unknown and undefined standard which is nonetheless alleged to be unmet. There is history well established by a preponderance of hard evidence...somewhere...we guess. At some point you have to be willing to deliver the goods.

Now I'll take a stab at the historical question. There certainly is a great deal of archaeological evidence and it is valuable. It ranges from the Great Pyramids to the ruins of long abandoned cities, but the written historical accounts of individuals such as Luke, Herodotus and Josephus provide far more information. For instance, practically nothing would known of the major military conflicts of ancient times without the written accounts which describe them. And in case you question including Luke in that list, bear in mind that no less an authority than Sir William Ramsay, who was initially an avowed skeptic and unbeliever, said of Luke, "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense...in short, this author should be placed along with the greatest of historians."

And more than once I have replied

Solid evidence that you have not understood what I said.


claiming evidence does not meet some standard without being able to define that standard just doesn't make sense. If you don't know what the standard is, then how could you possibly know it has not been met?

The evidence required is at least as fantastic as what is being claimed - i.e., God in human form rising from the dead and ascending into heaven! Such a standard for evidence makes eminent good sense. THAT'S the standard you need to meet. Satisfied?


The testimonies of Paul, John, and Matthew are direct eye-witness testimony.

They are from the same source (NT) that is the source for the claim of the resurrection (NT). Also - In a courtroom (not a perfect analogy, but it may help you understand), it would be like a witness testifying to the truth of an event by giving his word. More proof than that is required.


As to the 500, the point Paul was making was that most of those 500 were still living and could have been asked about it by any skeptic who chose to............................etc., etc., etc............................................... roup to interview those individuals and the group coming back reporting, "They all said it was nonsense. They never saw a resurrected Christ and Paul is an abject liar if he says otherwise."

There is no need to state your personal beliefs on a different issue. We can do Paul some other time. The issue here is evidence for the resurrection.


By reading the several accounts in the Gospels. There is, for instance, John 20:19ff.

Proving the Bible by citing the Bible is a no-no.


Sure looks that way. Frankly, this seems to be a problem here. There is an unknown and undefined standard which is nonetheless alleged to be unmet. There is history well established by a preponderance of hard evidence...somewhere...we guess. At some point you have to be willing to deliver the goods.

You may try to your heart's content to turn it around. The fact remains, and always will remain, the evidence is UP TO YOU, not others. Another court room analogy - the delivery of evidence is always and only up to the prosecution (you).


Now I'll take a stab at the historical question. There certainly is a great deal of archaeological evidence and it is valuable. It ranges from the Great Pyramids to the ruins o......................................etc., etc., etc. ......................................stance, practically nothing would known of the major military conf question including Luke in that list, bear in mind that no less an authority than Sir William Ra.........................etc., etc., etc..............................................r e his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense...in short, this author should be placed along with the greatest of historians."

You're going far afield. What is your point? Does any of this prove the resurrection?

I'm always surprised when the New Testament is compared to other ancient works by saying the NT is not given the credence of those other works - a double standard.


I gave several other examples of ancient literature that claim miraculous events, you didn't comment on them, only on Caesar.


The answer for that is simplicity itself. The other ancient works do not make a claim similar to the NT that God himself came to earth in the person of a human being, performed miracles, rose from the dead, and ascended bodily into heaven.


Except I showed you others that make miraculous claims and you haven't mentioned them.



Because it is believed as true that Caesar conquered Gaul based on ancient writings, the NT must therefore be also true since it too is based on ancient writings. Must I point out that the one doesn't prove the other?


I never said it did. Please don't put words in my fingers. I gave them as similar examples of how the double standard works.
See, the vast majority of the New Testament isn't about the miraculous stuff. It's about the new movement trying to find itself and figure out where its footing was. That makes it immensely valuable for history.

And just as a side note, you poo-poohed the first eight of my bits of evidence because they're only found in the New Testament, but I have to point out that you're setting up a much higher bar than even the most critical of New Testament scholars. I don't know of any who dispute any of those facts, even though they only come from one source. They are the ones who set the bar, and they're okay with the material.


If it were true that the resurrection was provable, what need for faith?

Thanks for bringing this up, because "faith" that isn't based on something solid isn't faith at all. The writings themselves say it: we haven't followed carefully crafted fables. We are following what people's eyes saw, ears heard, and hands touched. It's eyewitness testimony. THAT is what faith is. Too many people have tried to define it the Mark Twain way, and it's wrong. Genuine faith has a foundation. And we have a mighty good one.

Oh yes, one more thing:


how many of those 500 believed Paul? How many did not?

I'm afraid you read that sdrawkcab. Paul didn't tell them, they told Paul. They didn't need Paul's testimony, they had their own and shared it with him.

The evidence required is at least as fantastic as what is being claimed - i.e., God in human form rising from the dead and ascending into heaven! Such a standard for evidence makes eminent good sense. THAT'S the standard you need to meet. Satisfied?Of course not. That is not a standard. It's simply a vague, thoroughly imprecise "moving target" that one imagines will never be met. Perhaps you can give us an example of what would satisfy you.


They are from the same source (NT) that is the source for the claim of the resurrection (NT). Also - In a courtroom (not a perfect analogy, but it may help you understand), it would be like a witness testifying to the truth of an event by giving his word. More proof than that is required.Not even close to being correct. You have asked for direct evidence. Eye-witness testimony, in the actual words of the eye witness, is direct evidence. So in a courtroom, a witness testifying to the truth of an event he actually witnessed is an EYE WITNESS. Do you understand now? You complain about circumstantial evidence, and then you complain about direct evidence. Rather hard to please, aren't we?


Proving the Bible by citing the Bible is a no-no.Nope. You asked how anyone could know when the disciples began to believe in the resurrection. That is a NT story, so quite naturally the answer is to be found...in the NT! Where would you think it would be found?


You're going far afield. What is your point? Does any of this prove the resurrection?The topic was the value of circumstantial evidence to the study of history. You had said that DW's statement about the value of CE was off base. I asked if you knew of ancient history based largely upon direct evidence. You had avoided the question, so I answered it for you.

I gave several other examples of ancient literature that claim miraculous events, you didn't comment on them, only on Caesar.
Except I showed you others that make miraculous claims and you haven't mentioned them.

I sincerely apologize. I will go look for them now - or you could give me your post #s where they can be found, just so I don't miss them again.


I never said it did. Please don't put words in my fingers.

That Caesar reference was directed at Jl who made it. I thought that was obvious. Again, I'll be careful going forward.


See, the vast majority of the New Testament isn't about the miraculous stuff. It's about the new movement trying to find itself and figure out where its footing was. That makes it immensely valuable for history.

I have never doubted the immense historical value of the NT. Words-in-mouth this time?


And just as a side note, you poo-poohed the first eight of my bits of evidence because they're only found in the New Testament,

I "poo-poohed" nothing. I gave a reasoned analysis re the difficulty of proving the NT events by citing the NT.


I have to point out that you're setting up a much higher bar than even the most critical of New Testament scholars.

That is true. The issue of NT scholars can be a tricky one.

Can you deny that just about every one over the years has come with a built-in prejudice of believing the NT? At least most of it. Much valuable criticism of the NT has come from non-biblical historians. I agree the problem there might be the opposite - a built-in anti-Bible prejudice.

That is why the arguments pro and con must be examined as closely as possible and using modern-day tools (like your own study of ancient Greek).


I don't know of any who dispute any of those facts, even though they only come from one source. They are the ones who set the bar, and they're okay with the material.

They are easy to find. Google the topic and you will find them.


Thanks for bringing this up, because "faith" that isn't based on something solid isn't faith at all.

I never said it was (based on nothing).


The writings themselves say it: we haven't followed carefully crafted fables. We are following what people's eyes saw, ears heard, and hands touched. It's eyewitness testimony.

Actually, it's hearsay - third party sourced. It is testimony written down in a book that took centuries to arrive in its present condition. However, let's not get far off the track - the issue here is evidence for the resurrection.


Oh yes, one more thing: I'm afraid you read that sdrawkcab. Paul didn't tell them, they told Paul. They didn't need Paul's testimony, they had their own and shared it with him.

A minor point. But it provides you with your ounce of flesh.

Because it is believed as true that Caesar conquered Gaul based on ancient writings, the NT must therefore be also true since it too is based on ancient writings. Must I point out that the one doesn't prove the other?That was not my point. The issue was probability vs. proof. Caesar's writings were just an example of that distinction.

I gave several other examples of ancient literature that claim miraculous events, you didn't comment on them, only on Caesar. Except I showed you others that make miraculous claims and you haven't mentioned them.

As promised, I went back and looked at each of your posts and not a single one had "other examples of ancient literature that claim miraculous events". As far as Caesar, I can't find you claiming miraculous events by him.

Homer and Virgil certainly wrote about miraculous events, but I assume you meant miraculous events like the resurrection that are still claimed to be true, not fiction.

I hope this was just an oversight on your part, and not something devious.

That is not a standard. It's simply a ....... "moving target" that one imagines will never be met. Perhaps you can give us an example of what would satisfy you.

Good for you. That's it - precisely. It will "never be met". There is no example that will prove the resurrection. That's the point!


Eye-witness testimony, in the actual words of the eye witness, is direct evidence. ....... Do you understand now?

A book written centuries ago is NOT an eye-witness. It is hearsay. Do you understand now? Finally?


You asked how anyone could know when the disciples began to believe in the resurrection. That is a NT story, so quite naturally the answer is to be found...in the NT! The topic was the value of circumstantial evidence to the study of history. You had said that DW's statement about the value of CE was off base. I asked if you knew of ancient history based largely upon direct evidence. You had avoided the question, so I answered it for you.

Your deflection is noted. Now how about getting back to the resurrection?

A book written centuries ago is NOT an eye-witness. It is hearsay.
Let's say Atticus was an eyewitness centuries ago. He wrote a book about his experience. Anyone who reads that book is not an eyewitness. That person's report about it is hearsay.

A book written by an eyewitness is eye witness testimony. It is certainly not hearsay.

A book written by an eyewitness is eye witness testimony. It is certainly not hearsay.
Exactly! If you are saying I'm wrong, please reread what I posted.

You do realize you are in disagreement with Athos? That's a first!!

You do realize you are in disagreement with Athos? That's a first!!
No, I'm not.

He says it’s hearsay. You say it’s not.

He says it’s hearsay. You say it’s not.
No. Please read carefully.

Post #153:

The writings themselves say it: we haven't followed carefully crafted fables. We are following what people's eyes saw, ears heard, and hands touched. It's eyewitness testimony.

Athos: Actually, it's hearsay - third party sourced. It is testimony written down in a book that took centuries to arrive in its present condition.

Athos wrote, IN POST 153, "Actually, it's hearsay - third party sourced. It is testimony written down in a book that took centuries to arrive in its present condition. However, let's not get far off the track - the issue here is evidence for the resurrection."

He wrote again, in post 156, "A book written centuries ago is NOT an eye-witness. It is hearsay. Do you understand now? Finally?" So Athos clearly is saying the Gospel accounts are hearsay.

Now WG, on the other hand, holds the opposite view. I wrote, "A book written by an eyewitness is eye witness testimony. It is certainly not hearsay." You responded, "Exactly! If you are saying I'm wrong, please reread what I posted."

So again, Athos believes the Gospel accounts are hearsay. You claimed to be in agreement (Exactly!) with a statement saying Matthew and John are NOT hearsay. So either you are completely confused, or you don't agree with Athos.

You are cherrypicking and not understanding what he wrote. Context!

You are running from his plain and clear statement. Are you that afraid??

You are running from his plain and clear statement. Are you that afraid??
You are deliberately misunderstanding. Why?

Can you deny that just about every one over the years has come with a built-in prejudice of believing the NT? At least most of it. Much valuable criticism of the NT has come from non-biblical historians. I agree the problem there might be the opposite - a built-in anti-Bible prejudice.

That is why the arguments pro and con must be examined as closely as possible and using modern-day tools (like your own study of ancient Greek).

I've seen both. Scholars like Bart Ehrman, Spong, and others have a built in anti, while others, mainly evangelical scholars, have a built in pro. I try to be neither and let the text speak for itself. (TBH, I quit reading most evangelical scholars years ago.)

And I can attest that miracles do happen. I carry one in my body. I can't remember if I've told you about it or not, but it's the kind that people can try to find natural explanations for, demand x-ray comparisons (the damage happened when I was 15, healing happened at 55, so yeah, good luck with that) and all kinds of other stuff. But I'm the eyewitness to whom it happened and I know what happened.

As I read somewhere just today, miracles aren't violations of nature. They're violations of what we know about nature. We don't know everything yet.

First you quote him. Then when your quote backfires on you, rather than be honest, you seem to run out the back door. Why is that? Are you saying that Athos believes that Matthew and John should be taken as eyewitnesses? Have you always been this confused?

Let's say Atticus was an eyewitness centuries ago. He wrote a book about his experience. Anyone who reads that book is not an eyewitness. That person's report about it is hearsay.


I don't follow this logic. The book is written by an eyewitness. The book is eyewitness testimony. If anyone can read the book for themselves and check what someone says about it, I don't see how that is written off as hearsay. The evidence isn't what someone says about the book the evidence is what's written in the book.

The vast majority o the New Testament was written by people who were there. 1 John makes that clear, they were there, they saw, they heard, they touched, they wrote it down. Luke is the odd man out because he didn't come into it until later under Paul's teaching, and became Paul's personal doctor. When they got to Jerusalem, he started studying the various accounts that had been written down. He interviewed people, talked with those who saw and heard, sifted through it, and gave us a genuinely historically researched book built on eyewitness testimony. For more on that, check out A. T. Robertson,Luke the Historian. I think it's out of print but a library should be able to get it.

The only book I tend to have serious doubts about regarding authorship is Revelation, but that's mainly because that book gives me a pain where I never had a window.


A book written centuries ago is NOT an eye-witness. It is hearsay. Do you understand now? Finally?

How do you figure? The book was written BY an eyewitness, so it's eyewitness testimony. I don't follow the logic here.


A book written centuries ago is NOT an eye-witness. It is hearsay. Do you understand now? Finally?

How do you figure? The book was written BY an eyewitness, so it's eyewitness testimony. I don't follow the logic here.

I don't follow this logic. The book is written by an eyewitness. The book is eyewitness testimony. If anyone can read the book for themselves and check what someone says about it, I don't see how that is written off as hearsay. The evidence isn't what someone says about the book the evidence is what's written in the book.

Let's say Atticus was an eyewitness centuries ago. He wrote a book about his experience. Anyone who reads that book is not an eyewitness. That person's report about it is hearsay.

Example: The book was written by Johnny, the eyewitness. The book was later read by Pete. Pete tells his friend Ray about the book. That transmission of information by Pete is heresay, Pete's own interpretation of what was in the book.

And I can attest that miracles do happen.

I think we have to define our terms to have a good discussion.

A miracle is an event that denies/defies/goes against scientific knowledge. It cannot be explained by the known laws of nature - laws that have been demonstrated as valid repeatedly.

Such an event is attributed to God or a supernatural (above/beyond nature) cause.


I carry one in my body. I can't remember if I've told you about it or not, but it's the kind that people can try to find natural explanations for, demand x-ray comparisons (the damage happened when I was 15, healing happened at 55, so yeah, good luck with that) and all kinds of other stuff. But I'm the eyewitness to whom it happened and I know what happened.

You wrote that you can't remember whether you already told us about the miracle you experienced. That tells me that you are not averse to telling us about it now. Please tell us now what that miracle was and include as much info as you can indicating its miraculous nature.


As I read somewhere just today, miracles aren't violations of nature. They're violations of what we know about nature. We don't know everything yet.

To say a miracle is NOT a violation of nature is incorrect. If it is considered a violation of what we know about nature because not everything is yet known about nature, then it is NOT a miracle. It is simply an event waiting for an explanation.

I don't follow this logic. The book is written by an eyewitness. The book is eyewitness testimony. If anyone can read the book for themselves and check what someone says about it, I don't see how that is written off as hearsay. The evidence isn't what someone says about the book the evidence is what's written in the book.

The vast majority o the New Testament was written by people who were there.

The only book I tend to have serious doubts about regarding authorship is Revelation, but that's mainly because that book gives me a pain where I never had a window.

How do you figure? The book was written BY an eyewitness, so it's eyewitness testimony. I don't follow the logic here.

Any written document (letter, book, etc.) is not considered eyewitness testimony if the authorship is disputed. Those are rules of evidence. The disputed authorship of the Gospels has been discussed here at great length with the result that Jl and myself were in disagreement. There is no need to do it all again.

Also - eyewitness testimony is not always valid testimony. People do not always see what they think they see. I'm not offering that as an argument in the present case - just noting a fact.

Interesting that you doubt authorship in a part (Revelation) of the NT.

Btw, please see my post # 155 where I questioned the claim you made as noted in that post. Do you have an answer?

Let's say Atticus was an eyewitness centuries ago. He wrote a book about his experience. Anyone who reads that book is not an eyewitness. That person's report about it is hearsay.

Example: The book was written by Johnny, the eyewitness. The book was later read by Pete. Pete tells his friend Ray about the book. That transmission of information by Pete is heresay, Pete's own interpretation of what was in the book.

I'd have to say I don't get this either. The topic was Matthew, John, and Paul (and probably Mark) being considered to be eyewitnesses. They did not hear the story of the resurrection from someone else. They claimed to have seen the living Christ for themselves. It was not second hand.

As far as the authorship of the Gospels is concerned, my understanding is that not a single one of the early church fathers (first 3 or 4 centuries) ever questioned the traditional authorship of the Gospels. It would therefore seem to be an unspeakably weak argument.

As far as the authorship of the Gospels is concerned, my understanding is that not a single one of the early church fathers (first 3 or 4 centuries) ever questioned the traditional authorship of the Gospels. It would therefore seem to be an unspeakably weak argument.

'...unspeakably weak..." Indeed! Since you wouldn't leave it alone, here's one for you.

The traditional authors of the canonical Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - are doubted among the majority of mainstream New Testament scholars. Neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith. Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings.

Unfortunately, much of the general public is not familiar with scholarly resources and methods in order to argue that the Gospels are the eyewitness testimonies of either Jesus’ disciples or their attendants.

The mainstream scholarly view is that the Gospels are anonymous works, written in a different language than that of Jesus after a substantial gap of time by unknown persons compiling and redacting various traditions in order to provide a narrative of Christianity’s central figure—Jesus Christ—to confirm the faith of their communities.

https://thegodlessplace.blogspot.com/2014/02/why-scholars-doubt-traditional-authors.html

The article you plagiarized is found at "thegodlessplace.blogspot.com. It was written by "author unknown". It was a very, very long article, more likely a chapter from a book (the entire book?) that they copied with no acknowledgment, and included no citations at all. And we're supposed to take that seriously?

It was also found here, a no doubt thoroughly academic site named Internet Infidels. They at least did give an author named Matthew W. Ferguson. The article was heavily cited, but not the statement posted below about the supposed "majority of mainstream New Testament authors." No wonder.

https://infidels.org/library/modern/matthew-ferguson-gospel-authors/

As I said, no early church father is on record as doubting the traditional authorship of the Gospels. Do you really believe that an anonymous person, 100 years after the life of Christ, would have been able to pen those Gospels, lying blatantly, and get away with it with no one questioning it, and do that four times no less? That would be a bigger miracle than the resurrection!!


The traditional authors of the canonical Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - are doubted among the majority of mainstream New Testament scholars.How would anyone know that? Is there any hard documentation other than the Internet Infidels?

The article you plagiarized is found at "thegodlessplace.blogspot.com. It was written by "author unknown". It was a very, very long article, more likely a chapter from a book that they copied with no acknowledgment, and included no citations at all.

That was an excellent article. Thanks for posting it.


no early church father is on record as doubting the traditional authorship of the Gospels.

That's an argument from silence. Not valid. For the reasons that no early church father is on record, read the article you linked. It's all there.


Do you really believe that an anonymous person, 100 years after the life of Christ, would have been able to pen those Gospels, lying blatantly, and get away with it with no one questioning it?

Nope, I don't believe that. Has somebody said that?


How would anyone know that?

You would have to inform yourself about how that is done. It's not hard to do, but takes time to do it. Plenty of info at your local library or the internet now that we know you can link to the net.

Summary.
1. You plagiarized.
2. You provided no answers.
3. There is no documentation for this silly claim. "The traditional authors of the canonical Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - are doubted among the majority of mainstream New Testament scholars."
4. Argument from silence? Hardly.

"This is one of those very interesting topics that worth sharing. Our early church fathers had quite a bit to say about our four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). Of the four Gospels alone, there are 19,368 citations by the church fathers from the late first century on."

Early second century Papias wrote, "Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remembered, without however recording in order what was said or done by Christ. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow him; but afterwards, as I said, (attended) Peter, who adapted his instructions to the needs (of his hearers) but had no design of giving a connected account of the Lord’s oracles. So then Mark made no mistake, while he thus wrote down some things as he remembered them; for he made it his one care not to omit anything that he heard, or to set down any false statement therein."

Iranaeus, later second century, said this. "“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia."

Clement of Alexandria, late second century, said this. "As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel."

There are many more. Hardly an argument from silence.

https://cyberpenance.wordpress.com/2017/01/05/what-did-the-early-church-fathers-say-about-the-gospels/

Now here are the quotes from all of the early church fathers who QUESTIONED the traditional authorship.
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ..


Do you really believe that an anonymous person, 100 years after the life of Christ, would have been able to pen those Gospels, lying blatantly, and get away with it with no one questioning it?


Nope, I don't believe that. Has somebody said that?Did "somebody" say that? Really, you're asking that? Well, from your own plagiarized post we can quote this. "The mainstream scholarly view is that the Gospels are anonymous works, written in a different language than that of Jesus after a substantial gap of time by unknown persons compiling and redacting various traditions in order to provide a narrative of Christianity’s central figure—Jesus Christ—to confirm the faith of their communities."

Hardly an argument from silence.

You misunderstood - what else is new?

The argument from silence is your argument that since no early church father is on record as doubting the authorship of the Gospels, the authorship is thereby confirmed. That's not a valid argument.

Half my time with you is explaining the basics of whatever the discussion of the day is. It really gets tiresome.

I'll wait until DW returns, if he does, for some intelligent conversation. I want to give him a chance to answer some questions I put to him. As for you, you've outworn your welcome. Good night.

I'll wait until DW returns, if he does, for some intelligent conversation. I want to give him a chance to answer some questions I put to him. As for you, you've outworn your welcome. Good night.In other words, you are out of answers and hitting the road. I don't blame you. Good night indeed.

The evidence put forward for the non-traditional authorship of the Gospels was an excerpt plagiarized from an article hosted by "Internet Infidels" (No, I'm not making that up.) in which it was claimed that the majority of mainstream scholars had determined that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did not write the Gospels attributed to them. When it was pointed out that not only did the early church fathers, including three from the second century, not question the traditional authorship but even clearly supported it, the person making the argument left the discussion in a huff. The question of how anyone could know what the majority of mainstream scholars thought about this subject was left unanswered as was the question as to how four unnamed imposters could have written the four Gospels in the second century and gotten away with it.

Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
I gave several other examples of ancient literature that claim miraculous events, you didn't comment on them, only on Caesar. Except I showed you others that make miraculous claims and you haven't mentioned them.
As promised, I went back and looked at each of your posts and not a single one had "other examples of ancient literature that claim miraculous events". As far as Caesar, I can't find you claiming miraculous events by him.

Homer and Virgil certainly wrote about miraculous events, but I assume you meant miraculous events like the resurrection that are still claimed to be true, not fiction.

I hope this was just an oversight on your part, and not something devious.


Did I forget to include the Sumerians and Babylonians and their stories? If so, I apologize. I thought I had mentioned them.

"The mainstream scholarly view is that the Gospels are anonymous works, written in a different language than that of Jesus after a substantial gap of time by unknown persons compiling and redacting various traditions in order to provide a narrative of Christianity’s central figure—Jesus Christ—to confirm the faith of their communities."


There's only one part of this that I dispute, and it's part of the reason I can't go all the way in that direction: we have evidence in the gospels that Jesus spoke fluent Greek as well as Aramaic. He made at least two puns that are only possible in Greek, plus he spoke to various Romans and other "foreigners" who didn't speak Aramaic. Greek had been the lingua franca of the region since Alexander, and when the Romans took over they left well enough alone since they already spoke Greek as well. Based on what we know of him, can anybody really see Pontius Pilate going to the trouble to learn Aramaic? I think not.

The reality is, everybody in Judea and Galilee was trilingual. Aramaic was the language of home life, Greek was the language of trade and dealing with the Romans, and Hebrew was the language of the synagogue and the temple. So I have to dispute the claim that the gospels were written in a language Jesus didn't know. Not only did he know it, pretty much everybody did.

DW posted, "We know what little we do about the Sumerians, for example, because of the accident of a fire in a clay tablet library. But we have no idea how much of what we read is true and how much might be someone's Great Sumerian Novel. Ugaritic gives us the story of King KRT who went through all kinds of gyrations to win the hand of Lady HRY, how 'El helped him and all kinds of stuff. Is the story true? Were KRT and HRY real people, and the writer threw in the religious elements? Or is it an epic poem? We don't know, because all we have is the circumstantial evidence of the writings."

Athos replied, "It's an epic poem. Do you seriously think all that talk of gods and goddesses is true?"

Did I forget to include the Sumerians and Babylonians and their stories? If so, I apologize. I thought I had mentioned them.

You mentioned the Sumerian epic poem but nothing about the Babylonians - you can always go back and see what you wrote. You seem to be saying that the Sumerian poem is a true example of a miraculous event occurring in ancient literature other than the New Testament. I sincerely hope you don't actually believe that the "miracles" in that work of fiction are actual events. I sincerely hope I'm misreading you. We already have Jl believing in talking snakes from another piece of fiction.


from Athos (quoted)
"The mainstream scholarly view is that the Gospels are anonymous works, written in a different language than that of Jesus after a substantial gap of time by unknown persons compiling and redacting various traditions in order to provide a narrative of Christianity’s central figure—Jesus Christ—to confirm the faith of their communities."

from dwashbur
There's only one part of this that I dispute, ............................... we have evidence in the gospels that Jesus spoke fluent Greek as well as Aramaic.

Thank you for that. I bow to your superior knowledge re what languages were spoken by Jesus.

Since that is the only part that you dispute, I also thank you for not disputing what was written there about the Gospels - their authorship, time, copying, editing, purpose etc., etc. That was most helpful.

Some questions are still hanging. In post #126, you seem to be saying the Jews knew of the resurrection which had been witnessed by the guards. That was to explain why they were so against the Christians, killing them, etc. Would you clarify what you meant? See also my post #144 which addresses this topic more fully.

There is also the unanswered request for you to provide more information about the miracle you experienced that you wrote about in post #168. As a student of comparative religion, I'm genuinely interested in such an unusual claim.

Thank you for the discussion.

Since that is the only part that you dispute, I also thank you for supporting what was written there about the Gospels - their authorship, time, copying, editing, purpose etc., etc. That was most helpful.You are employing an argument from silence which you claimed earlier was an ineffective strategy.

You mentioned the Sumerian epic poem but nothing about the Babylonians - you can always go back and see what you wrote. You seem to be saying that the Sumerian poem is a true example of a miraculous event occurring in ancient literature other than the New Testament. I sincerely hope you don't actually believe that the "miracles" in that work of fiction are actual events. I sincerely hope I'm misreading you. We already have Jl believing in talking snakes from another piece of fiction.


I'm saying we can't know if those things happened, but as historians we can't rule anything out. It may sound fantastical for 21st century ears, but we don't know everything about nature, as you and I agreed.


Since that is the only part that you dispute, I also thank you for supporting what was written there about the Gospels - their authorship, time, copying, editing, purpose etc., etc. That was most helpful.

Correct. The gospels are anonymous works, attributed to certain people who were there. I frankly don't care who wrote them, though Luke does sort of obliquely identify himself and says he researched everything carefully. They were all composed within the lifetimes of the apostles, only the most "out there" scholars dispute that any more. Was some redaction done? Probably. But we do the same thing with the average newspaper, all good writings go through a similar process. It doesn't bring their veracity into question.

If I understand correctly, the miraculous parts of the gospels are the only parts that you really take issue with, the speeches, the travels, you're generally okay with that. Do I have that right?


Some questions are still hanging. In post #126, you seem to be saying the Jews knew of the resurrection which had been witnessed by the guards. That was to explain why they were so against the Christians, killing them, etc. Would you clarify what you meant?

The constant refrain that we see them shouting at the Christians was "stop proclaiming the resurrection under penalty of death." The most likely reason they would try to squelch the message is because they didn't have an answer to it. If they had known Jesus didn't rise, they could have simply found the body and paraded it through the streets of Jerusalem and the whole thing would have been over.
But they didn't even dispute the notion that the resurrection had happened. They simply said "Stop talking about it." The obvious question would be, why.

I'll try to track down those other posts and see about them. Things are kind of in a mess right now, we had a scuba diver die in front of us last night.

The gospels are anonymous works, attributed to certain people who were there. I frankly don't care who wrote them, though Luke does sort of obliquely identify himself and says he researched everything carefully. They were all composed within the lifetimes of the apostles,I'm just not following you on this. If they were composed within the lifetimes of the apostles, then why would it be doubted that the named individuals wrote them? I would think that would be an especially hard case to make with John, because of the many personal notes he included, and with Luke considering the connection with Acts which clearly seems to have been written by him. Perhaps you are saying that Matthew, for instance, dictated his account to a "secretary" of sorts?

How were they able to completely deceive individuals such as Papias and Irenaeus?

Very sorry to hear of the death you witnessed. Those are such shocking and tragic occasions.

The question of how anyone could know what the majority of mainstream scholars thought about this subject was left unanswered as was the question as to how four unnamed imposters could have written the four Gospels in the second century and gotten away with it.

You do realize that by the end of the first century there were dozens of "gospels" floating around, purporting to be from Peter, Thomas, Mary, Joe the Bartender, you name it. The church's job by the Nicean council was to determine which ones really came from authoritative sources, and which were the fabrication of someone's imagination. The gospels that we retained had the greatest claims to authorship by an apostle (Matthew, John) or a companion of an apostle (Mark, Luke). But the other spurious gospels are still out there and the Gnostics in particular continued to use them well into the fourth century.


How were they able to completely deceive individuals such as Papias and Irenaeus?

Who said anything about deceiving someone? That's your word, nobody else's. The only one early enough to count is Papias, and we don't have his actual writings. The earliest scholars did the best they could, and I have no problem with their conclusions that Matthew the reformed IRS agent, Mark companion of Paul and Peter, Luke the Physician and John Son of Thunder wrote them.
But I won't go to the stake for it.

You do realize that by the end of the first century there were dozens of "gospels" floating around, purporting to be from Peter, Thomas, Mary, Joe the Bartender, you name it. The church's job by the Nicean council was to determine which ones really came from authoritative sources, and which were the fabrication of someone's imagination. The gospels that we retained had the greatest claims to authorship by an apostle (Matthew, John) or a companion of an apostle (Mark, Luke). But the other spurious gospels are still out there and the Gnostics in particular continued to use them well into the fourth century.That's true to a point, but it's also true that only the four Gospels we have now were ever accepted by church leaders(Gnostics don't count for that). The three quotes I posted earlier certainly seem to show that to be the case. The four Gospels were quoted on many thousands of occasions by the church fathers. How often were the apocryphal gospels quoted?

But even with that understanding, why would that show that the four Gospels we have now were not written by the traditional authors?

Also not too sure how much I agree that there were dozens of purported Gospels in circulation by the end of the first century. The gospel of Thomas, for instance, has no certain date but could have been as late as 250. Most of the non-canonical gospels, as least as I understand it, have very little evidence surrounding them. I just think it's really a stretch to date them by the "dozens" prior to the end of the first century.

As to deception, this was your description of it. "Correct. The gospels are anonymous works, attributed to certain people who were there." So if Joe Schmoe wrote a gospel and attributed it to John, in what way would that not be deceptive, and massively deceptive at that? Now I get your point that the Gospels did not have names attached to them, so fair enough. It's just hard to imagine that you could have Papias and Irenaeus attributing the books to Matthew, Mark, and so forth if in fact that was not the case. So if the early church fathers never questioned it, then it's hard to imagine why we would want to now.

I'm saying we can't know if those things happened, but as historians we can't rule anything out. It may sound fantastical for 21st century ears, but we don't know everything about nature, as you and I agreed.

As historians, surely we can rule out gods and goddesses and miracles depicted in works of fiction. Not knowing everything about nature hardly supports the belief that anything found in fiction is possibly true. I never agreed to such a wild surmise.


If I understand correctly, the miraculous parts of the gospels are the only parts that you really take issue with, the speeches, the travels, you're generally okay with that. Do I have that right?

Nope, you don't have that right. Not even close. You have not understood me correctly. I'm not sure where you even got that idea in the first place.

The only issue I have is my long-standing objection to the Gospel of Matthew saying that Jesus condemned to eternal torture in a fiery hell for all eternity all those who A) did not believe in him, B) were sinners, C) refused his message, or whatever the reason was as Jl tended to change it from time to time. My position is, and always has been, that that part of the Gospel had been altered or added or edited for reasons that the Christian community at the time thought necessary.

As for the resurrection, I asked what evidence there was for it after Jl claimed there was evidence for the resurrection. Again, I never stated either way about the truth of the resurrection. I only asked for the evidence. My religious beliefs are not important.

However, as to the Jesus comment on hell in Matthew, I categorically deny the truth of that. That is the only position I have ever offered about what I believe in the Gospels.

Next was your reply to my question of why you seemed to be saying the Jews believed the resurrection had been witnessed by the guards.


The constant refrain that we see them shouting at the Christians was "stop proclaiming the resurrection under penalty of death." The most likely reason they would try to squelch the message is because they didn't have an answer to it. If they had known Jesus didn't rise, they could have simply found the body and paraded it through the streets of Jerusalem and the whole thing would have been over.
But they didn't even dispute the notion that the resurrection had happened. They simply said "Stop talking about it." The obvious question would be, why.Yes, why? I'm still in the dark about what you seem to be implying here. You wrote, "They didn't even dispute the notion that the resurrection had happened". That sure reads like they DID believe the resurrection. Is that what you mean?


I'll try to track down those other posts and see about them.

Only one left is the one about your experience of a miracle. Your post #151. My post # 155. Thanks.

However, as to the Jesus comment on hell in Matthew, I categorically deny the truth of that. That is the only position I have ever offered about what I believe in the Gospels.Actually, that is merely a comment about what you DON'T believe. That's been a complain of mine for some time. Getting you to state what you DO believe is quite an undertaking.

Actually, that is merely a comment about what you DON'T believe. That's been a complain of mine for some time. Getting you to state what you DO believe is quite an undertaking.


My religious beliefs are not important.

I beg to differ. You love to ridicule and trash the religious beliefs of others, and yet don't care to offer yours up for examination. Seems like a double-standard at work.

I beg to differ. You love to ridicule and trash the religious beliefs of others, and yet don't care to offer yours up for examination. Seems like a double-standard at work.

That's a base canard! I never ridiculed anyone in my entire life!

Btw, I have a question for you:

When you talk to snakes, do they talk back? In English?

I never ridiculed anyone in my entire life!

Btw, I have a question for you:

When you talk to snakes, do they talk back? In English?Bingo. At least you admit it. It's your schtick to be sure. "Fundamentalists" and "white evangelicals" are some of your favorite targets. And yet all the while there is one person who is conspicuously missing when it comes to having the backbone to put his beliefs on the line. Wonder why?

As historians, surely we can rule out gods and goddesses and miracles depicted in works of fiction. Not knowing everything about nature hardly supports the belief that anything found in fiction is possibly true.

But if we don't know everything about nature, including what may or may not lie beyond it, we can't make such an absolute statement. We don't know if they encountered such beings or not, the current bias against such things notwithstanding. It doesn't have any solid basis to stand on except the current trends toward anti-supernatural things. There's no "surely" about it. That's a presupposition.


The only issue I have is my long-standing objection to the Gospel of Matthew saying that Jesus condemned to eternal torture in a fiery hell for all eternity all those who A) did not believe in him, B) were sinners, C) refused his message, or whatever the reason was as Jl tended to change it from time to time. My position is, and always has been, that that part of the Gospel had been altered or added or edited for reasons that the Christian community at the time thought necessary.


When Jesus or anyone else described hell, they were trying to use familiar imagery to describe the indescribable. But that's the one thing they all agree on: Jesus is the watershed of history. One is either with him or against him. But even he qualified that when he said "Whoever isn't against us is on our side." That tells me there's as much latitude as possible to give everyone a chance. Jesus never condemned anyone to hell, people do it to themselves.

In any case, I appreciate the correction.


As for the resurrection, I asked what evidence there was for it after Jl claimed there was evidence for the resurrection. Again, I never stated either way about the truth of the resurrection. I only asked for the evidence.

I gave you some.


Yes, why? I'm still in the dark about what you seem to be implying here. You wrote, "They didn't even dispute the notion that the resurrection had happened". That sure reads like they DID believe the resurrection. Is that what you mean?

Not in the sense that Jesus said to believe in him. They couldn't deny it, that was their problem. They couldn't find any basis to deny it or claim it was false, and they never did. As recently as 1985, a Rabbi looked me in the eye and said "Okay, he rose. So what?" Inability to deny isn't the same as believing approvingly, and I don't claim they approved of any of it.


Only one left is the one about your experience of a miracle.

I'll try to do that in detail tomorrow in a separate post. It's been a long day, and most of us here are still reeling from last night's horrible event.

from Athos
Thanks for posting it. It was very interesting.

from DW
I confess I was hoping for a bit more..... ;)

Not sure what you mean by this reply. Did you want me to accept it was a miracle based only on your say-so? I have no doubt you believe it was a miracle, but more than your belief is needed to establish its truth as a miracle.


But if we don't know everything about nature, including what may or may not lie beyond it, we can't make such an absolute statement. We don't know if they encountered such beings or not, there's no "surely" about it, that's a presupposition

If I understand you, the following is possible:

This girl said that the wolf led her astray while she was on the way to her grandmother. She continued, saying that the wolf ate her granny and dressed up as that old lady, and she really believed he was her granny when she arrived. Then she was eaten herself by that wolf. She was saved by a passing hunter who cut her and her granny out of the belly.

Can you believe this story is possible because it's a presupposition that has never been seen in nature – a speaking wolf, who is able to swallow a grown woman and a girl in whole without killing them?

Another example is Zeno's Paradox. This states that an arrow shot at a target must first travel one-half the distance, then one-half the remaining distance, and so on forever one-half the distance every time so that the arrow will never reach its target. No matter how infinitesimal, there is always one-half the distance remaining.

This is similar to your belief that we can't make absolute statements that are always correct since we don't know everything about nature. The solutions to Zeno are many which I will leave to those interested to find and read them. My favorite is GK Chesterton's who, debunking a similar paradox, struck his toe against a table, yelled ouch, and said, “”Therefore, I disprove it”.

The point of both stories is that common sense can defeat hard-to-disprove theories that seem incontrovertible but really aren't. One last thing: the Judge tells the jury what “beyond a reasonable doubt” means. The judge instructs the jury that any doubt must be reasonable, not a philosophical or semantic possible doubt. Otherwise, no criminal would ever be convicted of anything.


When Jesus or anyone else described hell, they were trying to use familiar imagery to describe the indescribable. ........................... One is either with him or against him. But even he qualified that when he said "Whoever isn't against us is on our side." That tells me there's as much latitude as possible to give everyone a chance. Jesus never condemned anyone to hell, people do it to themselves.

If I understand this paragraph correctly, you are saying that Jesus agreed that hell exists, is indescribable, and is a place of punishment of horrible torture in fire for all eternity - Matthew 25:46. But he did not personally send anyone to hell. People do it themselves.

Please explain how a person who lived a good life and never heard of Jesus chose for themselves to go to hell for eternity.


from Athos
I'm still in the dark about what you seem to be implying here about the Jewish elders. You wrote, "They didn't even dispute the notion that the resurrection had happened". That sure reads like they DID believe the resurrection. Is that what you mean?


reply from DW
Not in the sense that Jesus said to believe in him. They couldn't deny it, that was their problem. They couldn't find any basis to deny it or claim it was false, and they never did. As recently as 1985, a Rabbi looked me in the eye and said "Okay, he rose. So what?" Inability to deny isn't the same as believing approvingly, and I don't claim they approved of any of it.

I agree that denial is not the same as agreeing. But the question is begged. What in the world did the Rabbi mean when he said sarcastically, “Okay, he rose, so what”. It reads like he was NOT agreeing.

But let's say he WAS agreeing. Did he accept rising from the dead was an everyday event? Did he then believe Jesus was not your everyday human being? Where did the conversation go from there?

Not sure what you mean by this reply. Did you want me to accept it was a miracle based only on your say-so? I have no doubt you believe it was a miracle, but more than your belief is needed to establish its truth as a miracle.

Not at all. I was hoping to hear more of your take on what happened.


This girl said that the wolf led her astray while she was on the way to her grandmother. She continued, saying that the wolf ate her granny and dressed up as that old lady, and she really believed he was her granny when she arrived. Then she was eaten herself by that wolf. She was saved by a passing hunter who cut her and her granny out of the belly.

Can you believe this story is possible because it's a presupposition that has never been seen in nature – a speaking wolf, who is able to swallow a grown woman and a girl in whole without killing them?


Bad example. Nobody ever claimed that story was true. Deliberate fiction is a different matter and doesn't really apply here.


Another example is Zeno's Paradox. This states that an arrow shot at a target must first travel one-half the distance, then one-half the remaining distance, and so on forever one-half the distance every time so that the arrow will never reach its target. No matter how infinitesimal, there is always one-half the distance remaining.

Zeno was playing logic games that may or may not have any actual basis in the real world of physics, so it doesn't apply here, either.


Please explain how a person who lived a good life and never heard of Jesus chose for themselves to go to hell for eternity.

I don't suggest that they do. The first three chapters of Romans set out the principle that everyone is judged on the amount of information they have. No information, no harsh judgment. Exactly how that works, I don't know. I'm not in charge of it.


I agree that denial is not the same as agreeing. But the question is begged. What in the world did the Rabbi mean when he said sarcastically, “Okay, he rose, so what”. It reads like he was NOT agreeing.

But let's say he WAS agreeing. Did he accept rising from the dead was an everyday event? Did he then believe Jesus was not your everyday human being? Where did the conversation go from there?

It didn't. He said he could acknowledge it, but the conversation ended there because he didn't care. And since he was the professor and I was the student, and we were in a class session at the time,* I didn't push it.

*While in seminary I took several extension courses through the University of Denver Center for Judaic Studies. That was where this conversation happened.

The first three chapters of Romans set out the principle that everyone is judged on the amount of information they have. No information, no harsh judgment. Exactly how that works, I don't know.Well said, and it is supported in a number of other places such as Jesus stating, 'And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24 (http://biblehub.com/matthew/11-24.htm)But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you.'" Now how all of that works in the context of an eternal hell, I have no idea. But I'm not going to reject it simply because I might not like or understand it.

Not at all. I was hoping to hear more of your take on what happened.

Other than what I said, there was not much more to say. You explained it well and in detail. I don't know what more I could have said.


Bad example. Nobody ever claimed that story was true. Deliberate fiction is a different matter and doesn't really apply here.

I'm glad to hear you say that. But in your post 187 you wrote, "But as historians we can't rule anything out. It may sound fantastical for 21st century ears, but we don't know everything about nature." You are now saying the opposite - that deliberate fiction is a different matter so we CAN rule out fiction.

The position you were defending was that miracles occur in ancient literature, and you gave the Sumerian example of a fictional epic poem. Now you say it "doesn't really apply". It's ok to change your mind, but please say that.

The Little Red Riding story was to indicate the untrue nature of your original claim about miracles - that "as historians we can't rule anything out".


Zeno was playing logic games that may or may not have any actual basis in the real world of physics, so it doesn't apply here, either.

Again, that is the opposite of what you originally claimed. Physics is part of nature about which you wrote we don't know everything, allowing a paradox like Zeno's to be possibly valid. Now you say it doesn't apply.

Re Jesus and Hell:
The first three chapters of Romans ....

I wasn't referring to Romans. I was referring to what Jesus is reported to have said re hell.

Re the Rabbi believing Jesus rose from the dead
It didn't. He said he could acknowledge it, but the conversation ended there because he didn't care. And since he was the professor and I was the student, and we were in a class session at the time,* I didn't push it.

The man, a Rabbi and highly educated professor, believed Jesus rose from the dead but he didn't care. You are offering this as an example of why the Jewish elders did not proclaim the resurrection was false because they also believed it was true - it actually happened.

I can't understand how a rabbi could believe in the most phenomenally remarkable event in all of human history and not care about it. Nor that the Jewish elders believed it and that their silence proves the resurrection actually happened. It's all too "fantastical".

Other than what I said, there was not much more to say. You explained it well and in detail. I don't know what more I could have said.


Your thoughts on what you suspect might have happened?


The position you were defending was that miracles occur in ancient literature, and you gave the Sumerian example of a fictional epic poem. Now you say it "doesn't really apply". It's ok to change your mind, but please say that.

I said we don't know if the Sumerian poem is fictional or not. That's part of the conundrum when dealing with ancient literature. Again I also refer you to the Ugaritic story of King KRT, we don't know if it's a true story or not. Ditto for a lot of ancient literature.


Again, that is the opposite of what you originally claimed. Physics is part of nature about which you wrote we don't know everything, allowing a paradox like Zeno's to be possibly valid. Now you say it doesn't apply.

Obviously there are limits to any such thing. We don't know everything about nature, but we can observe that the arrow did in fact hit the target. So it still doesn't apply.


I wasn't referring to Romans. I was referring to what Jesus is reported to have said re hell.

Part of the purpose of letters such as Romans was to help explain such things.


I can't understand how a rabbi could believe in the most phenomenally remarkable event in all of human history and not care about it. Nor that the Jewish elders believed it and that their silence proves the resurrection actually happened. It's all too "fantastical".


I don't pretend to understand either, but he said it to my face and he was dead serious. That's all I can tell you.

Your thoughts on what you suspect might have happened?
I put on my librarian hat and found this:

"When a bone is broken, the body produces fibrous tissue, called a bone callus, to protect the injured area. That's the bump you see. Then, bone cells begin to grow, reuniting and healing the bone segments that broke apart. Once the bone has mended, the bone callus is usually reabsorbed into the bone. The more extensive or severe the fracture, the more bone callus is produced during the healing process, and reabsorption can take more time. In some cases, the bump may never go away completely.
In your situation, as the bone matures, the callus likely will be remodeled gradually over time, decreasing the size of the bump and reducing its prominence. But you may always have a subtle bulge in the region of the fracture."
https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/bump-on-collarbone-not-uncommon-after-fracture/#:~:text=This%20bump%20is%20a%20result%20of%20the% 20process,and%20healing%20the%20bone%20segments%20 that%20broke%20apart.

Was there pain all those years, especially if you pressed on it? Did it ever get smaller?

Was there pain all those years, especially if you pressed on it? Did it ever get smaller?

When I pressed on it, when I used it, a friend once got me a job with a fencing company setting posts for chain-link fence, but my hand couldn't deal with operating the auger hole digger. I had to quit after one day.

Guitar had been my first love, and I couldn't play for more than about 10 minutes without pain. And then there were the two fingers that liked each other a little too much and acted like conjoined twins.

It never got any smaller. It stayed the same the whole time, that's why it was such a handy fidget rock, and why I was so shocked when I couldn't fidget with it.

Your thoughts on what you suspect might have happened?

I said we don't know if the Sumerian poem is fictional or not. That's part of the conundrum when dealing with ancient literature. Again I also refer you to the Ugaritic story of King KRT, we don't know if it's a true story or not. Ditto for a lot of ancient literature.

Obviously there are limits to any such thing. We don't know everything about nature, but we can observe that the arrow did in fact hit the target. So it still doesn't apply.

Part of the purpose of letters such as Romans was to help explain such things.

I don't pretend to understand either, but he said it to my face and he was dead serious. That's all I can tell you.

I'm sorry, DW, but you're going around and around each time you post. First you write one thing, then you write another thing when I challenge what you wrote, then you post the first thing again.

You're back to the Ugaritic story saying gods and goddesses may be true after discarding the red riding hood story as fiction. Are speaking wolves more fictional than speaking gods and goddesses? "I'm saying we can't know if those things happened, but as historians we can't rule anything out. It may sound fantastical for 21st century ears, but we don't know everything about nature." Both speaking wolves and speaking goddesses are fictional, yet you allow for the goddesses but not the wolves.

As for some other comments of yours above;

I've already expressed my thoughts on your miracle story. I don't know why you're asking again.

The issue re Jesus and hell was what he is claimed to have said, not an explanation in Romans of how people are judged based on the information they have. Your reply had nothing to do with the question of what Jesus is reported to have said by Mattthew.

You said you can't understand what the Rabbi said, but you claim he said it and "that's all I can tell you".

No, DW, you told us an enormous amount more by offering it as an example of how the Jewish elders may have thought and that it was therefore evidence that they knew of the resurrection.

The only book I tend to have serious doubts about regarding authorship is Revelation, but that's mainly because that book gives me a pain where I never had a window.

I forgot to comment on this first time around. (Took me three times to figure out that window thing).

The author laid a curse on anyone who would change anything in Revelation.

During the debate on whether to include the book, the curse in Revelation 22:18–20 was not taken too literally. Eusebius quoted Dionysius of Alexandria (Ecclesiastical History 3 (http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Eusebius_Gospels.htm)

Afterward he [DIONYSIUS] speaks in this manner of the Apocalypse of John. "Some before us have set aside and rejected the book altogether, criticizing it chapter by chapter, and pronouncing it without sense or argument, and maintaining that the title is fraudulent. For they say that it is not the work of John, nor is it a revelation, because it is covered thickly and densely by a veil of obscurity.

Somehow the book passed muster anyway to the everlasting delight of the fundies and evangelicals.

If this was the goal of Cerinthus in supposedly writing the book, it would seem he failed dramatically. "And as he was himself devoted to the pleasures of the body and altogether sensual in his nature, he dreamed that that kingdom would consist in those things which he desired, namely, in the delights of the belly and of sexual passion; that is to say, in eating and drinking and marrying, and in festivals and sacrifices and the slaying of victims, under the guise of which he thought he could indulge his appetites with a better grace."

You're back to the Ugaritic story saying gods and goddesses may be true after discarding the red riding hood story as fiction. Are speaking wolves more fictional than speaking gods and goddesses?.

Yes. .

Yes. .

Fiction is fiction. It doesn't have levels. You can't have more fictional or less fictional. It's like being a little pregnant. You're either pregnant or not pregnant. Gotta be one or the other.

How about speaking snakes?

The general approach of Athos on this board is to attempt (frequently feebly) to belittle the positions of others while avoiding stating his own beliefs.

Fiction is fiction. It doesn't have levels. You can't have more fictional or less fictional. It's like being a little pregnant. You're either pregnant or not pregnant. Gotta be one or the other.

How about speaking snakes?

A. You haven't established that deities are fictional, you're assuming it. And you're mistaken about fiction, as any historical novel proves.
B. I'm not going to get into that. Assuming we take the story literally I think we all know what's really going on there, so that's a dodge.
C. I don't like to talk about it, but I know for a fact that God speaks.

Yes, yes, and really yes.

A. You haven't established that deities are fictional, you're assuming it.

The fact that deities are fictional in your example is self-evident. If you want to call it an assumption, that's ok with me.


And you're mistaken about fiction, as any historical novel proves.

You missed my point. The fictional part of an historical novel is all fictional - fiction can't be both factually true and untrue at the same time. Historical novels have historically factual aspects - that's why they're called historical. This is pretty basic stuff, DW.


I'm not going to get into that. Assuming we take the story literally I think we all know what's really going on there, so that's a dodge.

Not going to get into what? What story literally? The Sumerian one? What do "we all know what's really going on there"? What is the "dodge?" As you can see, I don't know what you're talking about here. Please explain in enough detail for me to understand and reply. Thank you.


I don't like to talk about it, but I know for a fact that God speaks.

It's ok not to talk about something you don't want to. In your comment you say that you know for a fact God speaks, do you mean literally as in words and in English or another language?

The fact that deities are fictional in your example is self-evident. If you want to call it an assumption, that's ok with me.


You didn't limit it to my examples. You said "deities" in general and assumed any deities are fictional.


You missed my point. The fictional part of an historical novel is all fictional - fiction can't be both factually true and untrue at the same time. Historical novels have historically factual aspects - that's why they're called historical. This is pretty basic stuff, DW.

Are you sure any parts are fictional? How do you know? Historical novels may or may not include fictional elements. Once again, you're assuming. An author might describe a particularly colorful sunset in a historical novel to set the stage for something. Did the sunset happen? We don't know. It doesn't matter because that's not what is being written about. You're both assuming, and splitting hairs.


Not going to get into what? What story literally? The Sumerian one? What do "we all know what's really going on there"? What is the "dodge?" As you can see, I don't know what you're talking about here. Please explain in enough detail for me to understand and reply. Thank you.

Oh come on. You mentioned talking snakes as if it's not obvious what your reference was. As Pilate said, what I have written, I have written.


It's ok not to talk about something you don't want to. In your comment you say that you know for a fact God speaks, do you mean literally as in words and in English or another language?

As in English, in my ear, plain as your voice or any other. Happened once, exactly one sentence. Scared the liver out of me. That's as far as I'll go.

Are you sure any parts are fictional? How do you know? Historical novels may or may not include fictional elements. Once again, you're assuming. An author might describe a particularly colorful sunset in a historical novel to set the stage for something. Did the sunset happen? We don't know. It doesn't matter because that's not what is being written about. You're both assuming, and splitting hairs.

I have to butt in. I was a librarian for over 25 years, shelving library materials, taking inventory of them, and for fourteen years cataloging them. (Btw, sunsets are not considered historical. And historical novels ALWAYS include fictional elements.)

The main characteristics of a historical fiction are an authentic historical setting and/or authentic historical characters. The fiction can be the story itself and most of the characters.

A good example of historical fiction:
The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco
"Imagine a Dan Brown novel — an action-packed race to solve a serial murder mystery that can only be unraveled by decoding ancient manuscripts and artistic clues. The Name of the Rose is all that, but it’s set in a prestigious monastery in 14th-century Italy. A young monk by the name of William arrives at this monastery right as the killings begin, and he is asked to take on the task of uncovering the truth behind them. As William dives deeper into the clues embedded in the texts and the architecture of the grounds, the other monks become embroiled in a battle of accusations.

Drawing from his well of knowledge on semiotics and ancient literature, Umberto Eco crafted a complex and enticing novel that’s difficult to put down. Though it’s his debut novel, The Name of the Rose is one of the best-selling books ever published."
https://reedsy.com/discovery/blog/best-historical-fiction

You didn't limit it to my examples. You said "deities" in general and assumed any deities are fictional.

I SPECIFICALLY said "in your example"!


Are you sure any parts are fictional? How do you know? Historical novels may or may not include fictional elements. Once again, you're assuming. An author might describe a particularly colorful sunset in a historical novel to set the stage for something. Did the sunset happen?

See WG's reply above for the answer to this comment of yours.


Oh come on. You mentioned talking snakes as if it's not obvious what your reference was. As Pilate said, what I have written, I have written.

If it's Genesis you are referencing, I still don't know what your comment means. If you would explain it, I would be more than happy to reply to you. I'm also lost with your Pilate quote.


As in English, in my ear, plain as your voice or any other. Happened once, exactly one sentence. Scared the liver out of me. That's as far as I'll go.

If you do not want to go any further with your claim, I have no problem with that. Previously, when you asked me to say more re your claim of a miracle (#199), I assume you will not do the same thing again with this claim of God speaking to you.

Starwars is a great deal more fictional than The Red Badge of Courage.

Starwars is a great deal more fictional than The Red Badge of Courage.
How so?

Is either historical fiction?

Yes, and that's the point. Starwars has very little we can genuinely relate to. TRBC, on the other hand, is a realistic portrayal of a soldier's life in the Civil War and is certainly historical fiction. All Quiet on the Western Front also falls in that category.

Thus, you have now given a good example (actually, TWO examples) of my definition in post #215.

I'm not sure what your point is. I never disagreed with your post. The issue was a statement that all fiction is fiction and there are no "levels". DW disagreed with that and I was supporting his position.

DW is incorrect ("Historical novels may or may not include fictional elements.") Historical novels ALWAYS include fictional elements. That's why they are shelved in the fiction collection, not in the 900s.

I was referring to this comment by DW. "And you're mistaken about fiction, as any historical novel proves." He was responding to the idea that fiction has no "levels".

Fiction has no levels.

We just established it does. Starwars is a great deal more fictional than All Quiet on the Western Front.

We just established it does. Starwars is a great deal more fictional than All Quiet on the Western Front.
All Quiet is not fiction; it's historical fiction.

Name other fiction "levels".

All Quiet is not fiction; it's historical fiction.Correct. Its a different "level" of fiction. Thank you for establishing that. "Fiction is fiction" is not a correct statement.

There are no "levels". They are called genres, categories.

https://www.writerswrite.co.za/the-17-most-popular-genres-in-fiction-and-why-they-matter/

Some are entirely based on fiction. Others are only partly so. It is plainly levels.

Some are entirely based on fiction. Others are only partly so. It is plainly levels.
Nope. I'm traditionally published and a librarian. NEVER have I heard the term "fiction levels".

But the concept is plain and clear. Some books just are plainly more fictional than others. Good grief.

BTW, no one has suggested that "levels" is a term. It is the concept that is being discussed.

There is no such word -- or concept -- in fiction writing or reading.

It's pretty clear.

Only to you.

To anyone who actually thinks about it, it's very clear. To those who only want to argue, it's not. But you are welcome to your ideas. That's fine.

Ask any librarian. Ask any fiction author. Yes, you are welcome to your ideas. Free country and all.

Ask anyone who wants to think a little.

...just a little.

Yep. That's all it takes. Kind of amazing. It's like asking if there are degrees of beauty, hate, love, wisdom, stupidity, immorality, and a thousand other subjects which are clearly capable of being less or more. Sorry, but fiction is plainly one of them.

Now you're talking "degrees," not "levels".

Sub "level" there if you like. Meaning stays the same.

I don't like, so I won't.

There are no "levels". They are called genres, categories.

Sounds to me like it's just a matter of terminology. Library science doesn't separate fiction into historical and non-historical, but so what? I've seen plenty of works cataloged in fiction that should have been in the 800s, and vice versa.

Call it what you like. The fact is, the division exists.

This certainly settles the issue of whether or not, "Fiction is fiction."

"All Quiet is not fiction; it's historical fiction." So one is not the other.


Sounds to me like it's just a matter of terminology.Sound like a reasonable stopping point.

I've seen plenty of works cataloged in fiction that should have been in the 800s, and vice versa.
All fiction of any genre used to be in the 800s (literature). American Fiction in English was at 813.54. There was no "fiction" section with FIC/Author on the spine; all books had numbers on their spines -- Dewey Decimal (or Library of Congress) classifications.

Dewey Decimal Classifications:


810 American literature in English
811 American poetry in English
812 American drama in English
813 American fiction in English
814 American essays in English
815 American speeches in English
816 American letters in English
817 American humor and satire in English
818 American miscellaneous writings in English
819 No longer used—formerly Puzzle activities

Sounds to me .................................................. ..........

Have you given up on replying to my post #216? Especially your reference to Genesis, if that is what it was.

I hope you're not reverting to your hit-and-run approach to this board again. Once in a while is ok.

Your regular participation is welcome here.

Have you given up on replying to my post #216?This is coming from the person who refused to state his view on the resurrection, has refused to disclose his own religious beliefs, and will not state what kind of evidence he would accept concerning the resurrection. Now if he want others to be forthcoming, he should accept that challenge himself.

Have you given up on replying to my post #216? Especially your reference to Genesis, if that is what it was.

I hope you're not reverting to your hit-and-run approach to this board again. Once in a while is ok.

Your regular participation is welcome here.

Thanks. Back at you.

Not so much hit-and-run as "life is insane and I can only get here occasionally".

The "talking snake" in Genesis is clearly a euphemism for hasatan, the adversary who appears later on especially in Job. Could other animals talk before the Fall? The question never occurred to me. But the story in Genesis 3 is clearly talking about something more than your basic garter snake.

As I said, life has gotten crazy and I have limited time. It seems to me this discussion is going nowhere, so I'm going to politely bow out for now.

Not so much hit-and-run as "life is insane and I can only get here occasionally"

LOL - I know exactly what you mean!


The "talking snake" in Genesis is clearly a euphemism for hasatan, the adversary who appears later on especially in Job.

Yes, the snake is Satan (hasatan). I don't think that's ever been denied. The question is - based on that story - can snakes talk? I say no, the story is just that, a story with a message. Some here have claimed the snake did literally talk. That's like saying Mickey Mouse is an actual talking mouse. It's not easy to take anyone seriously who makes such a claim.


Could other animals talk before the Fall? The question never occurred to me.

It never occurred to me either.


But the story in Genesis 3 is clearly talking about something more than your basic garter snake.

Yes, it's talking about the story of Adam and Eve. That has never been denied either.


It seems to me this discussion is going nowhere, so I'm going to politely bow out for now.

That is your privilege to bow out, but I wonder why you could never unequivocally deny the notion of a talking snake.

Anyway, this discussion is much more than simply "going nowhere". It was part of challenging the literal-ness of the Bible. It began with the belief of Jesus saying in the Gospel of Matthew that unbelievers go to hell for eternal punishment.

After many deflections and denials - all of which were answered - it included the "talking snake" belief. This belief is a mainstay of fundamentalists and white evangelicals, about which I will have more to say at "Religious Discussions".

After many deflections and denials - all of which were answered.Must be meant to be taken humorously?