Do you believe this? Really?

[Gorgias]

Yep. Furthermore, what does it mean that they were even “in” Hades? And how can they be in “compartments” if they are not physical? It’s very hard to make sense out of and that’s kind of my point.

If you look at it as a way that physical people are trying to make sense of an unembodied existence, then it makes sense.

Hmmm…so you’re making no distinction between a vision and a soul.

Hmm… I don’t think so; rather, I’m asserting that a vision can be seen as a manifestation of a soul.

No, I mean the reverse. I don’t think they do go against the flow. I think they fit right in and so should be taken literally, as do so many believers, the majority of Christians I believe.

Again… what the ‘majority’ says makes for the correct interpretation? The Holy Spirit works as a democracy? Nahhhh…

That’s the standard understanding of the “holy city”. I know you interpret it otherwise.

Again… ‘standard understanding’ of whom? I’ll agree that this is the way to read this verse on its surface, but as we’ve seen, it leads to a variety of difficulties in making coherent sense of this verse.

Seems like it. You can check out post #45 and subsequent interaction.

LOL! So… when someone suggests to you that this passage means ‘those raised in Mt 27’ you say “no way!”; but when I demonstrate that Eusebius doesn’t believe this (based on another citation), you return to that quote and assert that it does refer to them?

(In any case, I agree with your initial take on it; the Quadratus reference probably does not refer to those in Mt 27, since it refers to not only ‘resurrections’ but also ‘healings’ of Jesus!)

Lol. So when Matthew wrote:

He actually meant the sky went dark just around the centurion?

That’s a rather facetious interpretation of what I’ve written, isn’t it? ‘Local’ doesn’t imply ‘in a two-foot-sphere around him’…! C’mon now, Vic – ridiculing an interlocutor’s statements and reducing them to an absurdity, and then asking the interlocutor to defend that absurdity? That’s not reasonable. Straw man much, Vic?

Em…that’s a bit of a stretch. it’s a little too convenient to personally interpret “over all the land” to be just visible where the Roman centurion was.

And yet, the phrase doesn’t set distinct boundaries, does it? Rather, it is ambiguous, allowing for interpretation. Therefore, asserting that ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν must mean “observed by Roman historians”, simply because it makes it easier to poke holes in that assertion… well, now I get your approach. It’s easier to defeat straw men than actual arguments.

Is this a respected, scholarly interpretation or just Gorgias’ interpretation?

Ad hominem, now, Vic? I’m disappointed. But, since you asked: in Harrington’s Sacra Pagina treatment of Matthew, he states, “whether Matthew understood [the darkness] to extend over the Jerusalem area or the whole land of Israel or over the whole world is unclear. The portent stands in line with Amos 8:9… and Exodus 10:22.”

Yeah, nice try. It’s like you claiming the sky went dark during the Olympics in Vancouver and I say well I read about how successful the games were but no one mentioned that bizarre, never before witnessed, terrifying phenomenon. Then you come back with, “well were they covering the events of that day?”

No – I’m coming back with “we don’t know the extent of the darkness, so your assertion that it is apocalyptic because historians would have seen it” is unreasonable, since it requires a few presumptions that aren’t necessary to make. But hey – if you want to mischaracterize what I’ve said, in the hopes that it refutes my assertions… I guess you gotta do what you gotta do!

You’re grasping at straws a bit here.

Then again, I’m not the one embracing logical fallacies…

 

[Arizona_Mike]

How is it that the earth going dark for three hours during the middle of the day could not be construed as apocalyptic interpolation? And this question is particularly valid in light of the fact that such an apocalyptic event is recorded nowhere else outside Christian literature. The Romans were very good chroniclers of that period and no one records such a dramatic event. Do you think if, at 12 noon next Wednesday, the earth went completely dark for 3 hours, it wouldn’t cause an utter sensation?

That’s a common misconception, Vic. The idea that Romans were like the Germans of popular folklore, who record the slightest irregularity in the train schedule, and that these records must exist in huge storerooms, um, somewhere, just isn’t corroborated by the evidence. The Romans could be pretty lousy sources of records, at least of things that happened in the provinces, due to the fragility of the media they used (this was two millennia ago, right?), the long-term political instability of the region which resulted in the loss of much historical evidence, and the apparent lack of bureaucratic interest in returning such records all the way to Rome, which means that most such records from 1st century Palestine, if they were ever recorded, didn’t survive the ages. For contemporaneous and near-contemporaneous historical records from the Roman occupation of 1st-century Palestine, we have the texts that comprise the New Testament, the writings of the early Church Fathers, Josephus, a handful of Jewish and Roman documents whose focus is not historical but from which we can draw some inferences about historical subjects…and that’s about all.

There are numerous historical events that occurred around that time that would have been of great interest to the Roman authorities (uprisings, military engagements, etc.) that are described only in the NT texts, the early Church Fathers, and Josephus. We don’t have any corroborating Roman documents for these events, Vic.

The idea that only “non-Christian sources” should be considered, can only be described as nutty, to put it charitably.

That being said, there are several contemporaneous or near-contemporaneous sources (and for that period, even a 50 year gap in reporting is equivalent to the immediacy of receiving a text today, in historical terms for that era) that do suggest that this was a known event and a subject of some wonder even at that late date. Thallus (who from context was a pagan), wrote a 3-volume history circa A.D. 52 that we know only in quotation, and referenced the event in his 3rd volume but claimed it must have been an eclipse, an idea that was disparaged by Julius Africanus, who knew both his astronomy and his theology.

Phlegon of Tralles, another non-Christian, wrote in his 2nd century Olympiades that “In the 4th year of the 202nd Olympiad, there was a great eclipse of the Sun, greater than had ever been known before, for at the 6th hour the day was changed into night and the stars were seen in the heavens. An earthquake occurred in Bythinia and overthrew a great part of the city of Nicæa.” The 202nd Olympiad ran from 29 A.D. to 33 A.D. Although he offers a naturalistic (but unlikely) explanation, he also references the earthquake described at the time of the Crucifixion. The time frame seems about right.

Tertullian wrote in the second century to those who were skeptical of the event that “At the moment of Christ’s death, the light departed from the sun, and the land was darkened at noonday, which wonder is related in your own annals, and is preserved in your archives to this day,” so it seems likely that there were other reports that did not survive, but which Tertullian felt secure in citing.

It could well be the use of literary style of an apocalyptic nature. It could be a lyrical description of localized event, such as a haboob dust storm (I’ve experienced those, and it can seem like it’s suddenly dark night outside in the middle of the day. It’s more than a little terrifying). Those are common, and probably would not have been reported widely unless associated with an event such as this. Eclipses have been claimed as a possible source, but that’s unlikely based on what we know of eclipses at the time. A supernatural event - a darkening felt by those nearby due to the death of the Incarnation of God, or the physical darkening of the sky and physical upheaval - seems like a more reasonable belief to me.

 

[vicwestlad]

Gorgias:

If you look at it as a way that physical people are trying to make sense of an unembodied existence, then it makes sense.

I wouldn’t say it “make sense”. You’d have to explain what “spirit” means and what a “soul” means for it to make sense. I don’t think you could do that.

Gorgias:

Hmm… I don’t think so; rather, I’m asserting that a vision can be seen as a manifestation of a soul.

Actually “vision” would indicate something physical, that can interact with physical light causing the physical eyes of the disciples to capture this interaction. Otherwise, they would just be an implant that Jesus had put in the disciples heads. Is that what you want to suggest? This really isn’t making sense despite your claims to the contrary.

Gorgias:

Again… what the ‘majority’ says makes for the correct interpretation? The Holy Spirit works as a democracy? Nahhhh.

You’re right, the majority opinion doesn’t make it correct. But we’re again back to well who can we trust to know what parts of the resurrection accounts are literal and what parts are allegorical? Some say this; some say that. Undermines their credibility even further.

Gorgias:

LOL! So… when someone suggests to you that this passage means ‘those raised in Mt 27’ you say “no way!”; but when I demonstrate that Eusebius doesn’t believe this (based on another citation), you return to that quote and assert that it does refer to them?

No, you don’t understand. I can argue that neither makes sense. If one wants to take the literal view we can examine where that leads. And if one wants to take an allegorical view we can examine that too.

Gorgias:

That’s a rather facetious interpretation of what I’ve written, isn’t it? ‘Local’ doesn’t imply ‘in a two-foot-sphere around him’…! C’mon now, Vic – ridiculing an interlocutor’s statements and reducing them to an absurdity, and then asking the interlocutor to defend that absurdity? That’s not reasonable. Straw man much, Vic?

Fine, then how far around Jesus (approximately) do you think makes sense when Matthew says “all the land”? Are we talking half a mile, two miles, what? And it’s sounding like the “local flood” idea where water magically defies gravity and slopes off. How does this darkness magically stop on the outskirts of one region?

Gorgias:

But, since you asked: in Harrington’s Sacra Pagina treatment of Matthew, he states, “whether Matthew understood [the darkness] to extend over the Jerusalem area or the whole land of Israel or over the whole world is unclear. The portent stands in line with Amos 8:9… and Exodus 10:22.”

Ahh…you find one source who says it’s “unclear”. And even if we take him to prefer just Jerusalem, I’m not sure how he explains Luke, who says that the source of the darkness was a failing of the sun’s light:

It was now about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour, while the sun’s light failed

Darkness due to an issue with the sun is not likely to cause darkness in just Jerusalem. You’re still on very thin ice here.

And even if one were to give you just Jerusalem (which is really begging), it was controlled by Romans and I think word would have spread pretty fast concerning an astounding, never-before witnessed solar event like this. Again, thin ice.

Gorgias:

I guess you gotta do what you gotta do!

All the emoticons in the world aren’t going to help you here.

 

[vicwestlad]

Arizona Mike:

That’s a common misconception, Vic. The idea that Romans were like the Germans of popular folklore, who record the slightest irregularity in the train schedule, and that these records must exist in huge storerooms, um, somewhere, just isn’t corroborated by the evidence.

All the land going dark for three hours in the middle of the day is not an “irregularity in the train schedule” or anything like a minor record that may be missed.
Arizona Mike:

Thallus (who from context was a pagan), wrote a 3-volume history circa A.D. 52 that we know only in quotation, and referenced the event in his 3rd volume but claimed it must have been an eclipse, an idea that was disparaged by Julius Africanus, who knew both his astronomy and his theology.

The Thallus reference is from a Christian source (not that that means they can’t be trusted) and we don’t have the documents supposedly referenced, or Julius Africanus’ book either. What is not clear is whether Thallus was even talking about Jesus at all. Furthermore, Julius Africanus wrote that the darkness fell on “the whole world” so you’d have to explain why there are not sources from China, Africa, etc. This doesn’t work I’m affraid.

 

[GEddie]

I wouldn’t say it “make sense”. You’d have to explain what “spirit” means and what a “soul” means for it to make sense. I don’t think you could do that.

Originally Posted by Gorgias
Hmm… I don’t think so; rather, I’m asserting that a vision can be seen as a manifestation of a soul.

Actually “vision” would indicate something physical, that can interact with physical light causing the physical eyes of the disciples to capture this interaction. Otherwise, they would just be an implant that Jesus had put in the disciples heads. Is that what you want to suggest? This really isn’t making sense despite your claims to the contrary.

People throw the idea around of “unembodied souls” acting independently, all the time, with no understanding of what that implies. That goes all the way back to Plato.

Our modern culture is Hedo-Platonic, not biblical.

Scripturally, a vision doesn’t necessarily involve solid bodies reflecting visible light, and can occur with the eyes closed. As Daniel said to Nebuchadnezzar: " the **visions of thy head **upon thy bed."

ICXC NIKA

 

[Gorgias]

I wouldn’t say it “make sense”. You’d have to explain what “spirit” means and what a “soul” means for it to make sense. I don’t think you could do that.

OK, wait a minute, Vic: you’re telling me that, for the past two weeks and seven pages of dialogue, you’ve been haranguing the Catholic position on a variety of Scripture passages and doctrines, but in reality, your fundamental issue isn’t with these questions at all, but begins with the question of what ‘spirit’ and ‘soul’ means? And that, in all this time, you thought it would be better to discuss these passages rather than discuss these fundamental issues? I mean, aside from a brief interlude with ahs, a week back or so, in which you disagreed with him on his assertion about spirit/soul, you haven’t really even broached the topic of what ‘spirit’ and ‘soul’ mean in a Catholic context! Are you sure you shouldn’t do that due diligence before you attempt to delve into more complicated doctrinal matters?

Actually “vision” would indicate something physical, that can interact with physical light causing the physical eyes of the disciples to capture this interaction. Otherwise, they would just be an implant that Jesus had put in the disciples heads. Is that what you want to suggest?

No, this is not what I’m asserting. Let me state it again: it’s not that I’m conflating the notions of ‘vision’ and ‘soul’, as you claimed I am, but that a vision is a manifestation of a soul (such that what was normally not subject to visual perception temporarily becomes visible). Why would you assume that I mean anything else?

But we’re again back to well who can we trust to know what parts of the resurrection accounts are literal and what parts are allegorical? Some say this; some say that. Undermines their credibility even further.

I’m not sure I understand your claims about ‘credibility’: are you suggesting that, when there’s a debate about the meaning of some issue, the very fact of the presence of a debate undermines the interlocutors’ credibility? That makes no sense. And, of course, in a Catholic context, the fact that “some (non-Catholic Christians) say this; some say that” holds no evidential weight in the argument; what matters is what the Church has said on the issue. So, inasmuch as you continue to hold up the arguments of Evangelical (non-Catholic) Christians, you’re going to continue to get the response “so what?”…

Fine, then how far around Jesus (approximately) do you think makes sense when Matthew says “all the land”? Are we talking half a mile, two miles, what?

Who knows? It isn’t made clear in the text, and therefore, we cannot draw conclusions about the extent of the darkness.

How does this darkness magically stop on the outskirts of one region?

No one is suggesting that it’s magic. Rather, we don’t know the way that the darkness happened, from a physical perspective. I’ve been in many situations in which there has been localized/regional darkness. (One that comes to mind was a particularly bad bout of seasonal fires in San Diego a number of years ago.) Would I be claiming ‘magic’ if I suggested that it was dark in San Diego (and only San Diego) for a few days? Of course not. Quit setting up the straw men, ok?

vicwestlad:

Is this a respected, scholarly interpretation or just Gorgias’ interpretation?

vicwestlad:

Ahh…you find one source who says it’s “unclear”.

I see: so, when I assert it, it’s “just Gorgias’ interpretation”. When I rise to your challenge and demonstrate that it’s well within the range of “respected, scholarly interpretation”, it’s just “one source.” Really, Vic – you can’t have it both ways; when you challenge a claim, and someone substantiates it, just smile and say “thank you” instead of attempting to use mockery to hide the fact that your challenge has been met and your assertion refuted, ok?

And even if we take him to prefer just Jerusalem, I’m not sure how he explains Luke, who says that the source of the darkness was a failing of the sun’s light:

Why are you assuming that “the sun’s light failed” and “there was darkness” don’t mean the same thing? I’m not seeing the contradiction here.

Darkness due to an issue with the sun is not likely to cause darkness in just Jerusalem. You’re still on very thin ice here.

From his perspective, from where he stood, the sun’s light failed. That doesn’t imply anything about the amount of sunlight elsewhere. When the sun sets in your backyard – that is, when “the sun’s light fails” for you daily – do you require an explanation that says that it fails everywhere on earth? Of course not. You can’t posit thin ice where none exists…

And even if one were to give you just Jerusalem (which is really begging), it was controlled by Romans and I think word would have spread pretty fast concerning an astounding, never-before witnessed solar event like this.

We’re not asserting a solar event. We’re asserting ‘darkness’, which can be described as a failure of the sun’s light to hit the earth. Heck, that happens every time there’s a good-sized thunderstorm! And you want the Romans to report it far and wide? Riiiiight…

All the emoticons in the world aren’t going to help you here.

They’re not intended to: they’re just an attempt to demonstrate that I’m not frothing at the mouth over here. Of course, your silence on the substance of the assertions of the logical fallacies in which you’re indulging speaks volumes… even without emoticons.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

The Thallus reference is from a Christian source (not that that means they can’t be trusted) and we don’t have the documents supposedly referenced, or Julius Africanus’ book either. What is not clear is whether Thallus was even talking about Jesus at all. Furthermore, Julius Africanus wrote that the darkness fell on “the whole world” so you’d have to explain why there are not sources from China, Africa, etc. This doesn’t work I’m affraid.

I hear the faint, echoey whisper of goalposts being moved…

 

[vicwestlad]

Gorgias:

OK, wait a minute, Vic: you’re telling me that, for the past two weeks and seven pages of dialogue, you’ve been haranguing the Catholic position on a variety of Scripture passages and doctrines, but in reality, your fundamental issue isn’t with these questions at all, but begins with the question of what ‘spirit’ and ‘soul’ means?

No. It’s both. So are you ready to tell me what a soul is?

Gorgias:

No, this is not what I’m asserting. Let me state it again: it’s not that I’m conflating the notions of ‘vision’ and ‘soul’, as you claimed I am, but that a vision is a manifestation of a soul (such that what was normally not subject to visual perception temporarily becomes visible). Why would you assume that I mean anything else?

Sure a visible manifestation of a soul, in other words something that can be seen as opposed to a soul. I understand but I made the point that a vision would have to be physical and I wondered if you agreed. So?

Gorgias:

I’m not sure I understand your claims about ‘credibility’: are you suggesting that, when there’s a debate about the meaning of some issue, the very fact of the presence of a debate undermines the interlocutors’ credibility?

No, if we don’t know which parts of the gospels are to be taken literally and which are allegorical, then the same could be said for stories in the OT, like Adam and Eve, Noah’s Ark and basically the whole Bible. How about the virgin birth, Jesus walking on water, feeding the people.

Gorgias:

what matters is what the Church has said on the issue.

Has the Church determined which of the three is literal and which may be allegory: darkness, curtain tearing, dead saints rising?

Gorgias:

Who knows? It isn’t made clear in the text, and therefore, we cannot draw conclusions about the extent of the darkness.

But if you don’t think it was world wide, you must have some idea. Give it your best shot. Just an approximation that make sense to you in light of the dearth of extra-biblical sources on the darkness?

Gorgias:

(One that comes to mind was a particularly bad bout of seasonal fires in San Diego a number of years ago.)

But we’re not talking about anything natural like a fire or storm. We’re talking about a supernatural, apocalyptic event that helps people understand that a god has just died.

Gorgias:

 When I rise to your challenge and demonstrate that it's well within the range of "respected, scholarly interpretation", it's just "one source." Really, Vic -- you can't have it both ways; when you challenge a claim, and someone substantiates it, just smile and say "thank you" instead of attempting to use mockery to hide the fact that your challenge has been met and your assertion refuted, ok?

Lol. “Refuted?” I pointed out that the one source you present only says it’s unclear.

Gorgias:

Why are you assuming that “the sun’s light failed” and “there was darkness” don’t mean the same thing? I’m not seeing the contradiction here.

The point is that you want to localize it and you do so by alluding to a fire or storm as analogous but if Luke says the sun’s light failed and Matthew says there was darkness “over all the land” that’s casting a much wider net that you want to allow.

And the problem for you is that we’re not talking about the kind of darkness that comes from a large rain cloud or smoke from a fire or a thunderstorm. We’re talking about total darkness. You’re either going to have to decide this was an apocalyptic event (such as the literal light of the sun failing) or it was maybe just some natural, local event.

Gorgias:

From his perspective, from where he stood, the sun's light failed. That doesn't imply anything about the amount of sunlight elsewhere. When the sun sets in your backyard -- that is, when "the sun's light fails" for you daily -- do you require an explanation that says that it fails everywhere on earth? Of course not. You can't posit thin ice where none exists...

Not only is it thin, it’s cracking. Even if there was a mild form of darkness over Jerusalem, like you might find from a very large rain cloud, if there was sun elsewhere, if wouldn’t be very dark in Jerusalem. We’re talking total darkness, the kind suggesting an apocalyptic event and you’d need to speculate how that could happen if it wasn’t due to either a sudden rotation of the earth or the sun’s actual light being lessened. So what do you think could have caused it if not that?

Gorgias:

We’re not asserting a solar event. We’re asserting ‘darkness’, which can be described as a failure of the sun’s light to hit the earth. Heck, that happens every time there’s a good-sized thunderstorm! And you want the Romans to report it far and wide? Riiiiight…

You’re painting yourself into a corner here. If that’s all it was, why even mention it at all? You’re making it out to be no big deal and you can’t have it both ways. Either it was apocalyptic total darkness, a never before witnessed event, that heralded Jesus as the saviour of mankind or it was really no big deal like a god sized thunderstorm. In fact, maybe it was a thunderstorm! Could have been something totally natural, right?

 

[daler]

No, if we don’t know which parts of the gospels are to be taken literally and which are allegorical, then the same could be said for stories in the OT, like Adam and Eve, Noah’s Ark and basically the whole Bible. How about the virgin birth, Jesus walking on water, feeding the people.

You’re painting yourself into a corner here. If that’s all it was, why even mention it at all? You’re making it out to be no big deal and you can’t have it both ways. Either it was apocalyptic total darkness, a never before witnessed event, that heralded Jesus as the saviour of mankind or it was really no big deal like a god sized thunderstorm. In fact, maybe it was a thunderstorm! Could have been something totally natural, right?

Vic,
. If I’m hearing you right (and am not interrupting), it sounds to me like you recognize the metaphorical meaning hidden between the lines of Scripture. Its the only way half of it makes any sense to me.

. I would suggest that there was a spiritual darkness over the land when Jesus died. There may have been an eclipse or whatever, but aside from that the people were blind - spiritually - to have let him be crucified.

. The greatest challenge, however, would be to see that the Light was still shining even after the killing of the Lamp of His mortal frame was broken. In fact, the Light got brighter!

.

 

[vicwestlad]

daler:

Vic,
. If I’m hearing you right (and am not interrupting), it sounds to me like you recognize the metaphorical meaning hidden between the lines of Scripture. Its the only way half of it makes any sense to me.

Hi daler,

I’m open to the idea of certain parts of the whole Bible, including gospel stories, being metaphorical. However, if you’re asking me what I think, I think much of the gospels to be mythological embellishments. I don’t believe in a virgin birth, or wise men, or the many resurrections in the gospels. These are god-man motifs that an audience would expect from stories of that period. I hope that’s not offensive. I’m just being honest.

daler:

. I would suggest that there was a spiritual darkness over the land when Jesus died. There may have been an eclipse or whatever, but aside from that the people were blind - spiritually - to have let him be crucified.

I think scientists have ruled out an eclipse, but the metaphorical reading seems reasonable including the tearing of the veil meaning there is a new covenant and God is now available to everyone instead of the priests, etc.

Personally, though, I think it was meant to be taken literally and I think the writer of Matthew really meant a whole bunch of special people came back to life, crawled out of their graves together, hung around for three days, then marched into the city to chat with non-dead people.

daler:

The greatest challenge, however, would be to see that the Light was still shining even after the killing of the Lamp of His mortal frame was broken. In fact, the Light got brighter!

Good point, although perhaps the light would come 3 days later, because at the point the darkness came Jesus would be dead.

 

[daler]

Hi daler,

I’m open to the idea of certain parts of the whole Bible, including gospel stories, being metaphorical. However, if you’re asking me what I think, I think much of the gospels to be mythological embellishments. I don’t believe in a virgin birth, or wise men, or the many resurrections in the gospels. These are god-man motifs that an audience would expect from stories of that period. I hope that’s not offensive. I’m just being honest.

I think scientists have ruled out an eclipse, but the metaphorical reading seems reasonable including the tearing of the veil meaning there is a new covenant and God is now available to everyone instead of the priests, etc.

Personally, though, I think it was meant to be taken literally and I think the writer of Matthew really meant a whole bunch of special people came back to life, crawled out of their graves together, hung around for three days, then marched into the city to chat with non-dead people.

Good point, although perhaps the light would come 3 days later, because at the point the darkness came Jesus would be dead.

Vic,
. I think we’re pretty much on the same page in a lot of our thinking. I’ve been around people and listening to stories from many cultures for about 6 decades now, and one thing I’ve learned is that people like to tell stories…

. I seriously doubt that the Jewish culture is the only one on the planet that does not employ metaphorical use of language in the expression of their stories, sacred or otherwise. This is the only way I can hang on to my brain and make sense out of so much of what has been passed along from these ancient accounts.

. For me, the stories have value and hold truth, but the literal part is the bread and to get to the meat you have to open up the sandwich. The truth is hidden behind the mustard and ketchup, you know, and if you want to bite into the hotdog, theres more than just the bread on the outside.

. Literalists can’t seem to see this. Therefore, they have Jesus pulling loaves and fishes out of the air, while ignoring the very words He spoke to His disciples: “Take what you have and share it with them” Hence, what really happened is that He taught Jews and Gentiles to share their food together and plenty was left over at the end of the meal.

. But people are children, and want to remain as children, and what feeds the appetites of children? Fantasy. Where ever there is a demand, someone will arise to fill it. Whether it be drug lords supplying pot and cocaine to America citizens, or magic concocted to satisfy the appetites of the imaginationally challenged, if you catch my drift.

. I believe in Christ, but not the “physical” resurrection. Thats just how the story got told to explain the strong sense of His presence, even after He was crucified. But people want their miracles, the physical ones, without which they refuse to believe that He could live apart from His body having been killed. Thats my take on it.

. They seem to skip over all the Good Samaritan stories and how He called out the Pharisees as a generation of vipers, and want Him to walk on water and fly through the sky. His message was all about recognizing who your brother is and taking responsibility, but thats just too dull and ordinary to motivate people. They want Superman, and By golly! They’re gonna have him one way or another!

. Peace

 

[vicwestlad]

daler:

I seriously doubt that the Jewish culture is the only one on the planet that does not employ metaphorical use of language in the expression of their stories, sacred or otherwise.

Yeah, it’s a little too convenient.

daler:

For me, the stories have value and hold truth, but the literal part is the bread and to get to the meat you have to open up the sandwich.

Nicely said.

daler:

I believe in Christ, but not the “physical” resurrection.

Yeah, I mean I have problems with some of what Jesus said but over all, for his time, I would say a good teacher and visionary.

daler:

They seem to skip over all the Good Samaritan stories and how He called out the Pharisees as a generation of vipers, and want Him to walk on water and fly through the sky. His message was all about recognizing who your brother is and taking responsibility, but thats just too dull and ordinary to motivate people. They want Superman, and By golly! They’re gonna have him one way or another!

Absolutely. I see so many prominent Christians today who don’t seem to realize how much their religious zeal is focused on sexual matters while they seem oblivious to Jesus’ teachings about helping the poor, the infirm, and the oppressed.

 

[GEddie]

If no physical resurrection, then there is no Christianity.

No, our LORD was not Superman, HE was GOD embodied! (think that one out for a moment).

If He was God embodied, then awakening His own dead body was no big deal.

Conversely, if He could not raise Himself bodily, then there was nothing special about Him.

In reacting to Him as Superman, don’t make the counter-error of reducing Him to a social worker.

ICXC NIKA

 

[daler]

Eddie,
. Not meaning to offend your sense of perception, friend. Just sharing mine. Ya see, I have this problem. God gave me a brain, bro’, and my brain wants some answers. So I feed it some questions and it says: “Hey! This doesn’t make sense. Try it this way!”

. So I say, “Ok, brain. Let’s look at it your way. Hmmm… That makes sense! Never thought of it that way before…” And me and my brain have been gettin’ along fine ever since…

. As to reducing Jesus to a social worker, I’d say that elevates the station of a Good Samaritan to an honorary degree of spiritual wonderment! Some of my best friends are social workers!

.

 

[vicwestlad]

Geddie:

Conversely, if He could not raise Himself bodily, then there was nothing special about Him.

If Jesus raised himself from the dead, then in what sense was he dead?

 

[zz912]

If Jesus raised himself from the dead, then in what sense was he dead?

The same way that we die. Our bodies stop functioning and our souls separate from our bodies. Our souls do not die.

 

[zz912]

. Literalists can’t seem to see this. Therefore, they have Jesus pulling loaves and fishes out of the air, while ignoring the very words He spoke to His disciples: “Take what you have and share it with them” Hence, what really happened is that He taught Jews and Gentiles to share their food together and plenty was left over at the end of the meal

I’m trying to find the quote you gave. And I guess you believe that the Gospel writers were simply too ignorant to know that all these people secretly were hiding food in their clothing, which is completely normal and what people do all the time (/sarcasm).

*Mark 8:1 In those days when there again was a great crowd without anything to eat, he summoned the disciples and said, 2 “My heart is moved with pity for the crowd, because they have been with me now for three days and have nothing to eat. 3 If I send them away hungry to their homes, they will collapse on the way, and some of them have come a great distance.” 4 His disciples answered him, “Where can anyone get enough bread to satisfy them here in this deserted place?” 5 Still he asked them, “How many loaves do you have?” “Seven,” they replied. 6 He ordered the crowd to sit down on the ground. Then, taking the seven loaves he gave thanks, broke them, and gave them to his disciples to distribute, and they distributed them to the crowd. 7 They also had a few fish. He said the blessing over them and ordered them distributed also. 8 They ate and were satisfied. They picked up the fragments left over—seven baskets. 9 There were about four thousand people. He dismissed them 10 and got into the boat with his disciples and came to the region of Dalmanutha.

Matthew 15:32 Jesus summoned his disciples and said, “My heart is moved with pity for the crowd, for they have been with me now for three days and have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, for fear they may collapse on the way.” 33 The disciples said to him, “Where could we ever get enough bread in this deserted place to satisfy such a crowd?” 34 Jesus said to them, “How many loaves do you have?” “Seven,” they replied, “and a few fish.” 35He ordered the crowd to sit down on the ground. 36 Then he took the seven loaves and the fish, gave thanks, broke the loaves, and gave them to the disciples, who in turn gave them to the crowds. 37 They all ate and were satisfied. They picked up the fragments left over—seven baskets full. 38 Those who ate were four thousand men, not counting women and children. 39 And when he had dismissed the crowds, he got into the boat and came to the district of Magadan. *

 

[Gorgias]

I’m trying to find the quote you gave. And I guess you believe that the Gospel writers were simply too ignorant to know that all these people secretly were hiding food in their clothing, which is completely normal and what people do all the time (/sarcasm).

*Matthew 15:32 Jesus summoned his disciples and said, “My heart is moved with pity for the crowd, for they have been with me now for three days and have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, for fear they may collapse on the way.” *

The bold/underline part of this passage really struck me today at Mass. It wasn’t that people showed up and listened to Jesus and then were hungry; if that were the case, then you might be able to make the argument that they shared what they had brought. However, that’s not what the narrative tells us: it tells us that they were there three days, and they clearly had no food, since they would collapse from hunger on the way back to their homes! This isn’t about sharing food, it’s about creating food!

 

[zz912]

Matthew 15:32 Jesus summoned his disciples and said, “My heart is moved with pity for the crowd, for they have been with me now for three days and have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, for fear they may collapse on the way.”

The bold/underline part of this passage really struck me today at Mass. It wasn’t that people showed up and listened to Jesus and then were hungry; if that were the case, then you might be able to make the argument that they shared what they had brought. However, that’s not what the narrative tells us: it tells us that they were there three days, and they clearly had no food, since they would collapse from hunger on the way back to their homes! This isn’t about sharing food, it’s about creating food!

Imagine trying to hide 3 (or more) days worth of food under your clothing!!

This line of thought has been out there for a while to try and discredit the miracles of Jesus. They have to ignore basic facts to make their wild theories seem plausible.

 

[Gorgias]

No. It’s both. So are you ready to tell me what a soul is?

Sure. Start a new thread, asking what souls and spirits are, and we can talk. Until then, it seems, you’re unprepared and under-equipped to discuss this matter of Mt 27…

I understand but I made the point that a vision would have to be physical and I wondered if you agreed.

It would have to be able to be visually perceived. Does that imply that it has physical extension? Does that imply that it has mass?

Has the Church determined which of the three is literal and which may be allegory: darkness, curtain tearing, dead saints rising?

From my experience, the Catholic perspective is that the darkness and torn curtain are literal; there isn’t a doctrinal statement about the interpolation of Mk 27.

But if you don’t think it was world wide, you must have some idea. Give it your best shot. Just an approximation that make sense to you in light of the dearth of extra-biblical sources on the darkness?

All I know is what the narrative tells me: it was experienced by those at Calvary. What I don’t know is what the narrative doesn’t tell me: whether it was experienced by those in Jerusalem proper, in Judea, in Rome, or in Outer Mongolia.

Lol. “Refuted?” I pointed out that the one source you present only says it’s unclear.

Yes, ‘refuted’. You said, “it’s a little too convenient to personally interpret “over all the land” to be just visible where the Roman centurion was. Is this a respected, scholarly interpretation or just Gorgias’ interpretation?”, insinuating that I was just making this stuff up. You asked for scholarly interpretation – something that would contradict your assertion that we must understand the ‘darkness’ as an event that was widespread enough that someone should have written about it. I demonstrated that there is scholarly support for the idea that it is not necessary to think that it was widespread. QED.

And the problem for you is that we’re not talking about the kind of darkness that comes from a large rain cloud or smoke from a fire or a thunderstorm. We’re talking about total darkness.

I’m sorry… ‘total darkness’? Please substantiate that, preferably from a Gospel account. Short of that, I’m going to have to conclude that this is further hyperbole from you.

You’re painting yourself into a corner here. If that’s all it was, why even mention it at all? You’re making it out to be no big deal and you can’t have it both ways. Either it was apocalyptic total darkness, a never before witnessed event, that heralded Jesus as the saviour of mankind or it was really no big deal

Agreed. Yet, to say that it was a “never before witnessed event” doesn’t prove your assertion that it had to have great physical extension (such that someone would have had to mention it in writing). If we were walking around, and a ‘personal raincloud’ opened up above your head and started drenching you, I would be stunned – sufficiently stunned to write about it! Yet, that wouldn’t imply that even the local TV weatherman would have experienced it and would have been compelled to discuss it on that evening’s news! You’re making a boatload of assumptions – setting up yet another straw man (!) – and then asking us to argue from your assumptions! That’s just not reasonable…