W
Windfish
Guest
You mean crackpots? Again and again, lemondiesel, you privelege the more estoric interpretations and theories. In the face of that, I just don’t know what to tell you.
- Status
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
It’s a well known fact that Mark was Peter’s disciple. When you examine the text of Mark you see Peter dominating the gospel. Some have even wondered if Peter did not simply narrate and Mark took notes, in which case it might be called indirectly the Gospel of Peter. However, there is no credible witness that anyone other than Mark could have recounted the events of that Gospel, so filled is it with personal anecdotes that only Peter could have related to Mark.
There simply is no other credible candidate. So why all the fuss that there is?
There simply is no other credible candidate. So why all the fuss that there is?
L
lemondiesel
Guest
I begin to truly question your motivation on these forums whenever you claim my statements wrong, but leave nothing to provide an answer. If you are speechless, I suggest just not quoting me.
1) Jesus was a healer of illness, not disease. The illness is the psychedelic experience that comes from the actual disease. Jesus allowed them to feel positive of the disease, not allowing it to hinder the person.
**2) **Jesus taught of a “Kingdom of Heaven” which is a state of living on Earth, rather than a place to look forward to in the future.
**3) **Jesus was an egalitarian, which would have shaken the view of the Mediterranean World which ruled with hierarchy.
These three points are at the heart of Jesus’ message.
There are also Old Testament stories that parallel Jesus’ death and resurrection. The parrelism with Jesus as the ultimate sacrifice and Abraham’s attempted sacrifice of his only son Isaac is an important issue to consider. Also Jonah’s **three days **in the belly of a whale is overshadowed by the three days and the resurrection of Jesus. These examples can show that no matter what mankind does, God’s miracles and sacrifices will always over shadow them.
edit: I actually place Jesus with the group of Cynics. The way of living for these people was to live life in virtue, which they do by rejecting wealth, power, and fame. This allows them to live a simple life, much like Jesus did. This idea makes a lot of sense because ancient Greek teachings impacted early Judaism which would lead to Christianity.
Good day,
Lemonzzzz
E
EricFilmer
Guest
Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, Windfish. Nevertheless, you did not cite your actual sources, so I really can’t comment on them. But here are some examples from my personal library that address this issue:
“As with Mark, Luke and John, the first Gospel nowhere mentions its author. The attention of the Gospel is focused wholly on Jesus Christ and his inauguration of the kingdom of heaven.”
- Scott Hahn & Curtis Mitch, *The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: The Gospel of Matthew *(Ignatius Press: San Francisco, 2000), 13.
- Robert J. Karris, O.F.M. (ed.), *The Collegeville Bible Commentary: New Testament *(The Liturgical Press: Collegeville, Minnesota, 1992), 862 ff.
From the introductory material of the New American Bible, we read: “The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience…”
usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/intro.htm
And we see the same sort of thing in the NAB’s introductions to the other three gospels.
Moving on, *The Navarre Bible *states that authorship of all four gospels is attributed to tradition along with textual style and historical content:
“We know the names of the four evangelists through the testimony of Christian tradition, which from the beginning unanimously attributed these four books respectively to St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke and St. John. In addition to Tradition, critical analysis of the literary features of the text and historical references in each Gospel support the unanimous, precise testimony of Tradition.”
- Jose Maria Casciargo (ed.), The Navarre Bible: St. Mark (Four Courts Press: Ireland, 1999), 32.
What Charlemagne has presented here is a good example of the critical analysis mentioned in my above quote from The Navarre Bible.
I don’t think there needs to be any fuss either. But the idea of the gospels’ authorship is part of the OP, so based on that alone it is probably worth looking into in a little detail. But let me be clear to everyone as to why I am posting this information. This is simply presented as a description of why the four gospels are attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Even if the earliest copies of the ancient manuscripts do not bear these names, it is really not an issue. In my opinion, Christian tradition is a good enough reason for the belief. And even if we did not have those names from tradition (and the gospels were simply called something like Gospels 1, 2, 3 & 4), the important thing is that the four gospels come to us from the Apostolic Deposit of the Faith. Therefore, they represent what the Apostles taught concerning their experience with Jesus, and what Jesus told them to teach.There simply is no other credible candidate. So why all the fuss that there is?
P
Pieman333272
Guest
LD, what or who are your sources for these claims and interpretations?
A) The kingdom established on Earth following the Second Coming
B) An afterlife.
Note some believe he used it for both interchangeably. He also used heaven, which certainly meant an afterlife. Note one can believe him on the earthly kingdom but not the post-earthly one, but I choose to believe him on both.
He healed mental diseases and physical. This holds no credibility if you are using the Gospels as a basis for this claim because he actually gave sight back to the blind man and atcually removed the symptoms of Leprosy from the lepers. His teaching may have been on coping, but his actions were undeniably on healing.
That is correct according to some, but it depends on who you ask. He either meant it as
A) The kingdom established on Earth following the Second Coming
B) An afterlife.
Note some believe he used it for both interchangeably. He also used heaven, which certainly meant an afterlife. Note one can believe him on the earthly kingdom but not the post-earthly one, but I choose to believe him on both.
Nothing to disagree with you on here. But it is, however, clear he taught neither focusing or only on political morals and philosophy.
Of course Jesus’ Resurrection has parallels in the OT! One of the primary reasons early Messiah Claims for him increased after his Resurrection was because of it’s similarity to Jewish Scripture! This does far more to help Jesus’ divinity than harm it.
OK, it’s fine if Jesus represented some political viewpoint in Israel, but it is clear his focus is not on political philosophy.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
lemon
I actually place Jesus with the group of Cynics. The way of living for these people was to live life in virtue, which they do by rejecting wealth, power, and fame. This allows them to live a simple life, much like Jesus did. This idea makes a lot of sense because ancient Greek teachings impacted early Judaism which would lead to Christianity.
But Augustine says that the Cynics had, “in violation of the modest instincts of men, boastfully proclaimed their unclean and shameless opinion, worthy indeed of dogs.”
I actually place Jesus with the group of Cynics. The way of living for these people was to live life in virtue, which they do by rejecting wealth, power, and fame. This allows them to live a simple life, much like Jesus did. This idea makes a lot of sense because ancient Greek teachings impacted early Judaism which would lead to Christianity.
But Augustine says that the Cynics had, “in violation of the modest instincts of men, boastfully proclaimed their unclean and shameless opinion, worthy indeed of dogs.”
E
EricFilmer
Guest
Verily, Charlemagne!Eric
*As far as I’m concerned, everyone believes in God, it’s just a question of when. *
Now or at the hour of our death.
“For it is written, ‘As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise to God’.”
(Romans 14:11, based on Isaiah 45:23, and echoed once more with glorious Christological overtones in Philippians 2:10-11)
L
lemondiesel
Guest
This holds no credibility if you are using the Gospels as a basis for your claim, which is what the OP is mentioning.
The “Kingdon of Heaven” was a way to live life on Earth. It is mankinds ability of free will that will shape the global society either into a heaven or a hell.
A) The kingdom would be established after civilization falls, and it will cause all the survivors to be meek and poor, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
B) I believe the notion of the afterlife wasn’t created until after Jesus’ death. Since Jesus he wasn’t there to teach his own message, the writers of the Gospels made his message last eternity, by making Jesus himself eternal.
Morality is the fundamental component for the start of a constitution. If you believe his teachings were not influencing political philosophy, then perhaps a more humanistic read of the Gospels is necessary.
Going back to your first statement, “but his actions were undeniably on healing”, if you claim that these miracles were true, then there would have been no confusion when Jesus resurrected. Why do I say this? Because Jesus rose two other people from the dead, wouldn’t it just be assumed that he would do this to himself after his death? If I was an eye-witness to one of his “rising from the deads,” I would be waiting outside his tomb, knowing he would be raised.
His goal is equalitarism, which is entirely political philosophy.
P
Pieman333272
Guest
OK, then what are YOU using? That’s what I want to know, because I’ve noticed that almost all “personal interpretations” fall when one looks at the actual philosophy, theology, and history behind the traditional ones. Seriously, this is my own research and observations coming into play. No bias intended, this is what I’ve observed.
Jesus, even if you cut out the supernatural parts, very clearly believed in an afterlife and very clearly believed he had a significant role in said afterlife. The Kingdom may have meant a form of enjoyable life on earth, but that doesn’t halt Jesus’ teachings on an afterlife and God. Also, the authors clearly got their ideas of an afterlife from his own teaching, not fabricating his views on it to help him live after they died.
I’m not saying that it didn’t INFLUENCE political philosophy, I’m saying his FOCUS was not on political philosophy. If you want to interpret the Gospels as political humanism, that’s fine, but Church history and philosophy shows better what he meant.
They probably thought he actually died and wouldn’t come back. He said that he would be dead himself, and they knew he wasn’t exactly wanted afterwards. Also, note that his resurrection of others is different because somebody did it to them, but nobody, besides himself and God, could have done it to him. The Doubting Thomas story does a good job of showing they didn’t plan on him coming back.
L
lemondiesel
Guest
The author of Matthew wrote his Gospel especially for **Jews **and emphasized the theme of Christ as King. John Mark, a close associate of the Apostle Peter, wrote his Gospel for the Christians in Rome and focused on the theme of Christ as Servant. Penned by Dr. Luke, the Gospel of Luke primarily addresses non-jews and stresses Jesus as the Perfect Man. The Gospel of John, written by the Apostle John, addresses a more general audience, depicting Jesus as God in human flesh.
What does this tell us?
The writers were influenced by their location in the Mediterranean World.
Well, this actually brings up a whole new conversation. What is this afterlife he teaches?
This is far much more political than you realize. Hopefully, you stick around, this is a hawt discussion.
Let’s just work on the above statements first.
P
Pieman333272
Guest
They were influenced in their presentation and commentary, but not the stories they told. How do I know? Because first of all, many claims all the Gospels share are contradictory at first to most Greco-Roman and/or Jewish teachings. Why would they fabricated a dysfunctional miracle if they wanted power or fame?
Well, if you agree with the Gospels, as I do, it translates into the “heaven/hell (possibly purgatory but I’m not getting involved in that)” afterlife system. If you hold some more… liberal… views, you might argue he was making a case for Buddhist Reincarnation or New Age views. But those are easily discredited, from my humble observations.
I highly doubt it. And even if it were political, that doesn’t harm our belief in Jesus’ knowledge of other forms of philosophy/teaching/religion and his claims to divinity, miracles, and resurrection.This is far much more political than you realize. Hopefully, you stick around, this is a hawt discussion.
L
lemondiesel
Guest
Greek culture depicted their Gods as men, able to come down from the heavens and interact. Lets use that relationship to correlate the Gospels John, Mark, and Luke. These three Gospels could (imo) all have been influenced by the Gospel of Hebrews. If this is the case, Matthew wrote this book. We now have a relationship between them.
Where does that leave us? Rome, Greek and Jewish cultures went into the creation of the Gospel of Hebrews.
In my opinion he is preaching of an infinite bliss. Always existing, being used for some other purpose. Being a part of God.
Anytime you raise the masses that disagrees with the cultural norm, you have a political issue.
P
Pieman333272
Guest
The earliest the GoH could have been written is 70 A.D., if it is even first century. This makes it after most (all) of Paul, and possibly Mark (maybe Matthew but I don’t think so). So, cultural context in the stories of Jesus predated the GoH (again presuming authenticity) by at least 10 Years.
OK, but GoH still follows Paul’s work, at least (written from Jewish perspective w/ multiple targets). The thing is, Greco-Roman theology actually denies resurrection, especailly post-Plato where it was considered a curse. This is the biggest problem with the pagan aimed resurrection stories - they were shooting the wrong story at the wrong culture in the wrong time!
OK, that’s a fine interpretation, disagreeing with it as I do. I feel no obligation to push my ideas on Jesus’ afterlife teaching further.
OK, what I’m trying to say isn’t that Jesus stayed out of politics or that his teachings are strictly non-political, I’m saying his original reasons for this type of work and his original teachings are NOT political philosophy but either healing, moral theology/philosophy, general philosophy, and/or theology. Note this can be in addition to being God('s Son), so me saying the historical Jesus was really a Jewish theologian in no way says I don’t believe him to be God Incarnate.
T
twb1621
Guest
I do not want to seem evasive so Refer to post #497 in which I previously suggested researching more recent “Eucharistic Miracles”. Even youtube has clips you can start with and follow up from. As far as obtaining the information on the resources such as forensic criminal labs utilized, experts and their credentials and so forth, the information and those resources can be obtained and verified on line. Perform a search and you will find the information. To make a point, no forensic criminal lab is going to intentionally falsify its findings when every criminal case it serves makes or can permanently destroy its reputation in every court of law. Although I have personally done such research, I do not intend to provide that here as then it is only considered my own words, rather than your determination and it is your findings of the specifics that are important in how you consider such events. Again, It is not my intention to suggest miracles as a base for Faith, that is not the case. My suggestion is to those who question the miracles in Scripture according to the Works of Christ and have doubts based on 2000 years of time passed. If a non-believer falls into this catagory, such recent events should offer further support for supernatural events no less miraculously occuring today. If you have difficulty locating the information, PM me and I will try to assist you. BUT DO NOT BASE FAITH ON MIRACLES, CONSIDER WHAT YOU ACCEPT AS A MIRACLE BASED ON YOUR KNOWLEDGABLE FAITH.
T
twb1621
Guest
Provide those resources by all means.
J
Joseph_Kemp
Guest
You wrote: “My claim is that there is insufficient evidence to accept that the magical parts of the Jesus stories are true.”
Of course. I have difficulty understanding how ANY evidence could establish that “the magical parts of the Jesus stories are true.” This doesn’t mean that we have sufficient grounds to dismiss them as impossible. It just means that we don’t have enough evidence to signify them as true BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
Contemporary eyewitness accounts, in the end, would mean pretty much nothing. They would not prove or disprove anything. Just people saying more words. And there would be no objective way of verifying if what they say is true or not.
There is plenty of latitude for believing that the miracles of Jesus are true. This is one of those areas where factual progress does not seem strictly possible. The lack of other contemporary accounts means nothing.
You wrote: “Yes, the fact of the matter is that ancient histories describe magical and supernatural happenings that we, today, do not accept. Read histories of other Roman emperors, Roman generals, and other charismatic leaders…you might be surprised at how much magic is ascribed to them.”
This also means nothing. Correlation does not prove causation. Just because is a correlation between the accounts of magic in the histories of Roman leaders and the accounts of miracles in the Gospels does not mean that the Gospel miracles are false. This is not proof.
You wrote: “Now, this event (the resurrection, people rising from the grave), if it actually happened, is the kind of thing that we would expect to see reported by other contemporary sources. And yet, curiously, there is absolutely no record of any contemporary person reporting anything of the sort.”
Plenty of major things have happened in history without “any contemporary person reporting anything of the sort.” The first submarine attack in history, for example.
The world’s first supposedly workable submarine was called the “Turtle.” It looked like a huge wooden acorn with propellers. But there was no proof that this machine ever existed. Plenty of engineers believed it could NEVER have existed. The wrong proportions, and so on. It could never have worked, and must have been physically impossible to operate. And no major historian ever recorded the fabled “first attack” of this machine on an English sailing ship. It was assumed to be a colossal, physically impossible myth.
Finally, though, contemporary historians reconstructed the Turtle. And it worked just fine. It was capable of doing everything it was said to have done in the “myth.”
So I have learned not to trust reports from “contemporary persons” – or the lack thereof - too much. They mean virtually nothing. It is almost impossible to state definitively what went on in history just because somebody did or did not report this or that.
So it is still possible to believe in the miracles of Jesus.
Of course. I have difficulty understanding how ANY evidence could establish that “the magical parts of the Jesus stories are true.” This doesn’t mean that we have sufficient grounds to dismiss them as impossible. It just means that we don’t have enough evidence to signify them as true BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
Contemporary eyewitness accounts, in the end, would mean pretty much nothing. They would not prove or disprove anything. Just people saying more words. And there would be no objective way of verifying if what they say is true or not.
There is plenty of latitude for believing that the miracles of Jesus are true. This is one of those areas where factual progress does not seem strictly possible. The lack of other contemporary accounts means nothing.
You wrote: “Yes, the fact of the matter is that ancient histories describe magical and supernatural happenings that we, today, do not accept. Read histories of other Roman emperors, Roman generals, and other charismatic leaders…you might be surprised at how much magic is ascribed to them.”
This also means nothing. Correlation does not prove causation. Just because is a correlation between the accounts of magic in the histories of Roman leaders and the accounts of miracles in the Gospels does not mean that the Gospel miracles are false. This is not proof.
You wrote: “Now, this event (the resurrection, people rising from the grave), if it actually happened, is the kind of thing that we would expect to see reported by other contemporary sources. And yet, curiously, there is absolutely no record of any contemporary person reporting anything of the sort.”
Plenty of major things have happened in history without “any contemporary person reporting anything of the sort.” The first submarine attack in history, for example.
The world’s first supposedly workable submarine was called the “Turtle.” It looked like a huge wooden acorn with propellers. But there was no proof that this machine ever existed. Plenty of engineers believed it could NEVER have existed. The wrong proportions, and so on. It could never have worked, and must have been physically impossible to operate. And no major historian ever recorded the fabled “first attack” of this machine on an English sailing ship. It was assumed to be a colossal, physically impossible myth.
Finally, though, contemporary historians reconstructed the Turtle. And it worked just fine. It was capable of doing everything it was said to have done in the “myth.”
So I have learned not to trust reports from “contemporary persons” – or the lack thereof - too much. They mean virtually nothing. It is almost impossible to state definitively what went on in history just because somebody did or did not report this or that.
So it is still possible to believe in the miracles of Jesus.
A
alongexpected
Guest
I admit that the fact that many died for their belief in Christ, like Stephen and others was pretty compelling. Until I I read where someone brought up David korresh and the branch davidians, and the Jonesboro cult. A great many people died for, I’m sure we’d both agree, nothing. I think the same thing happened with the apostles.
P
Pieman333272
Guest
But they died in different ways for different reasons, and may not have had full knowledge of what they were doing.
J
Joseph_Kemp
Guest
My post above is all one needs to rationally deal with these questions. Nothing else.
AntiTheist’s inquiries are questions of logic. Explainability. They verge on the Criteria of Adequacy. They are NOT psychological questions. They are not even specifically religious questions. They concern the logic of adequate explanation and reasonable doubt. They should be treated as such.
AntiTheist’s inquiries are questions of logic. Explainability. They verge on the Criteria of Adequacy. They are NOT psychological questions. They are not even specifically religious questions. They concern the logic of adequate explanation and reasonable doubt. They should be treated as such.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
AntiTheist
The eyewitness testimony of these people is insufficient to accept these claims – so, obviously, anonymous non-eyewitness testimony written decades after a supposed supernatural event is insufficient to accept that the supernatural event took place.
Then what you are saying is that the Gospels are a pack of lies. Not myths. Lies.
This is a hard nut for you to crack because everything in the gospels indicates the importance of telling the truth about a remarkable man who rose from the dead. Peter and Paul and John, who encountered Jesus in various ways, testify to his existence and to the miraculous aspects of his life and death. Their testimony was given before the gospels were written, but there is every reason to believe that the first gospel, Mark’s, was an account of the life of Jesus dictated to him by Peter, with whom Mark was closely associated at Rome. Notice too that Peter is at the center of each other Gospels as the apostle Jesus most trusted to carry on after he was gone.
There were surely enough people living who had heard the stories of the life of Jesus to contradict the Gospel accounts as soon as they began to be written (shortly after the deaths of Peter and Paul). There is no record of such an upheaval or accusations of unbelievable miracles attested to in the gospels. This is because the followers of Jesus had to have been already familiar with the wonder worker from Nazareth.
Anyone, if he chooses to, can believe that the Gospels are all a pack of lies. But such a belief should be called what it is … the accusation of a pack of lies … not a myth. Then, after you have **first **read the gospels, ask yourself if the evangelists sound to you like a pack of liars.
The eyewitness testimony of these people is insufficient to accept these claims – so, obviously, anonymous non-eyewitness testimony written decades after a supposed supernatural event is insufficient to accept that the supernatural event took place.
Then what you are saying is that the Gospels are a pack of lies. Not myths. Lies.
This is a hard nut for you to crack because everything in the gospels indicates the importance of telling the truth about a remarkable man who rose from the dead. Peter and Paul and John, who encountered Jesus in various ways, testify to his existence and to the miraculous aspects of his life and death. Their testimony was given before the gospels were written, but there is every reason to believe that the first gospel, Mark’s, was an account of the life of Jesus dictated to him by Peter, with whom Mark was closely associated at Rome. Notice too that Peter is at the center of each other Gospels as the apostle Jesus most trusted to carry on after he was gone.
There were surely enough people living who had heard the stories of the life of Jesus to contradict the Gospel accounts as soon as they began to be written (shortly after the deaths of Peter and Paul). There is no record of such an upheaval or accusations of unbelievable miracles attested to in the gospels. This is because the followers of Jesus had to have been already familiar with the wonder worker from Nazareth.
Anyone, if he chooses to, can believe that the Gospels are all a pack of lies. But such a belief should be called what it is … the accusation of a pack of lies … not a myth. Then, after you have **first **read the gospels, ask yourself if the evangelists sound to you like a pack of liars.
- Status