No, I'm not.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
|
No, I'm not.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
He says it’s hearsay. You say it’s not.
No. Please read carefully.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
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 deliberately misunderstanding. Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
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.)Quote:
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).
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?
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.Quote:
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.
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.
How do you figure? The book was written BY an eyewitness, so it's eyewitness testimony. I don't follow the logic here.Quote:
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.Quote:
A book written centuries ago is NOT an eye-witness. It is hearsay. Do you understand now? Finally?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
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 think we have to define our terms to have a good discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
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?
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
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...l-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/...ospel-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!!
How would anyone know that? Is there any hard documentation other than the Internet Infidels?Quote:
The traditional authors of the canonical Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - are doubted among the majority of mainstream New Testament scholars.
That was an excellent article. Thanks for posting it.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
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.Quote:
no early church father is on record as doubting the traditional authorship of the Gospels.
Nope, I don't believe that. Has somebody said that?Quote:
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?
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.Quote:
How would anyone know that?
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/2...t-the-gospels/
Now here are the quotes from all of the early church fathers who QUESTIONED the traditional authorship.
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ..
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."Quote:
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?
You misunderstood - what else is new?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
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.
In other words, you are out of answers and hitting the road. I don't blame you. Good night indeed.Quote:
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.
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.
Did I forget to include the Sumerians and Babylonians and their stories? If so, I apologize. I thought I had mentioned them.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
"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."
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?"
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
Thank you for that. I bow to your superior knowledge re what languages were spoken by Jesus.Quote:
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.
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.
You are employing an argument from silence which you claimed earlier was an ineffective strategy.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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?
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.Quote:
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?
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.
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?Quote:
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,
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
How were they able to completely deceive individuals such as Papias and Irenaeus?
But I won't go to the stake for it.
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?Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
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.Quote:
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?
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.
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?Quote:
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.
Only one left is the one about your experience of a miracle. Your post #151. My post # 155. Thanks.Quote:
I'll try to track down those other posts and see about them.
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.Quote:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
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.
That's a base canard! I never ridiculed anyone in my entire life!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
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?Quote:
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?
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
In any case, I appreciate the correction.
I gave you some.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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 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.Quote:
Only one left is the one about your experience of a miracle.
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.Quote:
from Athos
Thanks for posting it. It was very interesting.
from DW
I confess I was hoping for a bit more..... ;)
If I understand you, the following is possible:Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
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.
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.Quote:
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.
Please explain how a person who lived a good life and never heard of Jesus chose for themselves to go to hell for eternity.
Quote:
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?
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.Quote:
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.
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 at all. I was hoping to hear more of your take on what happened.Quote:
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.
Bad example. Nobody ever claimed that story was true. Deliberate fiction is a different matter and doesn't really apply here.Quote:
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?
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Please explain how a person who lived a good life and never heard of Jesus chose for themselves to go to hell for eternity.
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.Quote:
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?
*While in seminary I took several extension courses through the University of Denver Center for Judaic Studies. That was where this conversation happened.
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. 24But 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.Quote:
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.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:53 AM. |