AcesLucky,

I don't understand how you can get that from 1 Thess. 4. It clearly says the Lord will descend from heaven (v. 16), bringing with Him those who have died (v. 14). Jesus is already in heaven whether one takes your view that His was a spiritual resurrection or the orthodox view of the ascension. If it meant the other direction, that Jesus was taking them to heaven, why didn't it include those who are still alive in verse 14? Again, I think most people see it as being quite clear.

mathetes - Sorry, I had forgotten about this thread.

"Let’s begin with Paul’s use of “egeiro.” You need examples from the rest of the NT?"

These are not examples of Paul's use of the term. These are examples of the gopsels use of the term. We are discussing Paul.

"Obviously Paul here is speaking of the physical body.."

Obviously? Obviously?? That is your argument and evidence? What is so "obvious" to you is precisely what is under debate. Paul here says that the body is not what is immortal and that God will do away with it. Obviously? Next.


"Unless, of course, you want to break your own rule; if so, we can all do it."

I am not breaking my own rule because Paul is the same author of both texts.

"That is precisely why it is important to understand that 'egeiro' meant physical raising/rising in that culture. The culture is permeated with that meaning for that word; as I told you, that is how it is used throughout the NT."

But that is not how Paul is using it.

1 Thes 4:13-18 is clear. Those who had died as Christians are "asleep" in the ground. They have not ascended to heaven. When Jesus returns, their spirits will be raised first. They are not coming down with Jesus. Pauls says this here, "God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus." God will bring with Him (to Heaven) those who are "asleep" and accepted Jesus. It does not say that they are coming back with Jesus. God is bringing them with Him to Heaven first, then those who are still alive will be transformed into spiritual bodies (as you said). Again, none of this supports your argument. Paul is still talking about spiritally resurrected bodies, not physical ones.

AcesLucky

"Verse 28 then sets up a prolepsis for the coming of Christ's future arrival in glory, and that prolepsis unfolds in the immediately following pericope of the transfiguration."
---

Yes, again that's right.

I believe RD was referring to the event actually happening at the time of the Transfiguration. If that was what he meant, then you agree with him that Jesus was not referring to the Parousia.

If you read commentaries on this scripture, you will find that none (at least, that I have read) of the commentators interpret verse 28 to mean the Second Coming. The most popular interpretations include the Transfiguration, the event of Pentecost and the birth of the Church, and the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

>>By the way, and please add to or correct my understanding of the following terms:
pericope
noun
°A section of text, especially a passage of Scripture to be read in public worship.
"The reader looked up the Sunday morning pericope.”<<

This was especially necessary before the biblical narratives were divided into chapters and verses. But today, in bible study, pericope is a section of scripture, taken in the context of the larger biblical narrative and compared to similar pericopes elsewhere in the bible. In the Gospels, it involves the study of the accounts of the same events in the other synoptic books, also taken in the context of their larger narratives.

@ RD Rauser

You wrote:

---
"In the theology of Matthew, verse 27 has not happened yet (hence, all Jesus' warnings in chapters 24-25 about his coming)."
---

That's right, and I agree. Then you said:

---
"Verse 28 then sets up a prolepsis for the coming of Christ's future arrival in glory, and that prolepsis unfolds in the immediately following pericope of the transfiguration."
---

Yes, again that's right.

---
27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. 28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Matt 16:27-28 (KJV)
---

So far, all you've said is that when Jesus was talking to his disciples about his second coming, the event of his coming hadn't happened yet.

Then, you proceed to add that that prolepsis unfolds in the immediately following verse of the transfiguration.

Yes, that's exactly right! Jesus tells them about his second coming, and then tells them some will not have died "before" that event. This is exactly what the passage says, (and exactly what I've been saying the passage says).

===
By the way, and please add to or correct my understanding of the following terms:
pericope
noun
°A section of text, especially a passage of Scripture to be read in public worship.
"The reader looked up the Sunday morning pericope."
prolepsis
noun
°The assignment of something to a period of time that precedes it.
°The representation of something which has occurred before its time. I'm a dead man..
===

The usage of these terms changes nothing that I've said, nor improves the meaning of what you've said regarding Jesus' statements in v27 and v28. The "meaning" of the words stated by Jesus is not altered by, as MGT2 puts it, "Understanding the literary implications of pericope and prolepsis is intregal to the proper interpretation of the Gospels, especially."

There is nothing about those terms that change or add understanding to the Gospels whatsoever.

I am in perfect agreement with your interpretation about the meaning of v27 and v28 (even in light of prolepsis [pericope is just a scriptural text]). But it changed no meaning of the words of Jesus.

Jesus said he'd be back (second coming) before some of them died. Your interpretation in no way changed that meaning.

MGT2,

I'll take your advice. In retrospect I was driving without insurance...

RD - I had a nice response typed up and then it disappeared.

I now type my responses in a word document the cut and paste when I am ready to post.

Your response however, is very accurate with regards to understanding the passage. Understanding the literary implications of pericope and prolepsis is intregal to the proper interpretation of the Gospels, especially.

AcesLucky,

Aggh!! (That's not directed at you but at this website. I had a nice response typed up and then it disappeared.)

Now an abbreviated response. You had no fallacious presupposition but rather questions that are, in themselves, inadequate, akin to "Look is the Bible 'true' or not?"

The answer: they're all dead and it hasn't happened yet.

In the theology of Matthew, verse 27 has not happened yet(hence, all Jesus' warnings in chapters 24-25 about his coming).

Verse 28 then sets up a prolepsis for the coming of Christ's future arrival in glory, and that prolepsis unfolds in the immediately following pericope of the transfiguration.

Prolepsis is a common theme in scripture, particularly in the alread/not yet motif that permeates the gospels, and the synoptics in particular.

@ RD Rauser

You stated:

---
You state your question in a fallacious manner, rather like this; "How often a week do you beat your spouse? Please, just give me a number, thanks."
---

Your example presupposes that one beats one's wife when they do not. "How often" would thus be a fallacious question. I totally agree.

Please point out the fallacious presupposition you are accusing me of.

AcesLucky,

You state your question in a fallacious manner, rather like this; "How often a week do you beat your spouse? Please, just give me a number, thanks."

Let me note this however. Thus far we have all been concerned with hermeneutics. What does this passage mean? On that point I would simply commend to you the same basic exercise that I commended to AAN: familarize yourself with the literature. Read some commentaries.

But there is another issue as well. Let's say that Jesus never said that at all, but instead that the text as we now have it is in error in that point. If that were established, it would have implications for one's doctrine of bibliology but not one's doctrine of christology.

So your attempt to falsify Christianity somehow with reference to this passage is double erroneous.

AAN,

I find myself nodding in approval with mathetes. I will just reiterate a point I made earlier. If you met somebody who rejected neo-Darwinian evolution and instead had their own speculations about earth's history, you would be wise to point them to Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins and others. In other worse, they should first familarize themselves with the consensus of expert opinion. After reading your speculations on what Paul possibly could have meant I'd say the same thing. Just read Gordon Fee's commentary on 1 Corthinthians where he discusses chapter 15 for an introduction to the plausible interpretive options.

@ MGT2

I admit, I must have a misunderstanding. That's why I'm asking for these answers according to YOUR interpretation. Thank you for answering the questions. Will you answer now?

AcesLucky, answering "yes or no" will do nothing to clear up the underlying confusion and your msunderstanding of the text caused by thinking that verse 28 is referring to the exact point being made by verse 27.

Verse 27 must be interpreted within the subcontext framed by verses 24 through 27. Verse 28 is in a much larger context, Jesus often spoke in this manner, and must be interpreted likewise.

@ MGT2 and
@ RD Rauser

I apologize; apparently I have something wrong. Please clarify for me:

Jesus said (paraphrasing),
1.) I'll be back, with angels, to judge every man according to his works.

Question: Has this event happened yet, or not?


Jesus said (paraphrasing),
2.) And there will be some of you standing here which will not have died before I do.

Question: Are any of these men still alive?


Please answer each question in turn with a simple "yes" or "no."

I think that would clarify any misunderstanding I may have. Thanks.

AAN,

You wrote: “Read what yourself have cited in addition to its entire context. Paul says that Christ will descend from Heaven and that those who had died a Christian will rise first (and, again, if you want to know what Paul means by rise just go back to 1 Cor. 15 where he says that the spiritual body is risen).”

AAN, you want to use Paul’s letter of 1 Corinthians to interpret his earlier letter of 1 Thessalonians, but you have already ruled out later writings (the gospels) for use in interpreting earlier writings. Unless, of course, you want to break your own rule; if so, we can all do it.

Then you wrote:
“Then, those who are still alive will be caught up in the air. He does not say anything about spirits rejoining their decomposed flesh and blood corpses (if you think he does somewhere else, then cite it). It is not enough for the text to say what you want it to say.”

That is precisely why it is important to understand that “egeiro” meant physical raising/rising in that culture. The culture is permeated with that meaning for that word; as I told you, that is how it is used throughout the NT.

As you wished, here is the entire context as a whole: 1Thes 4:13-18
13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve, as do the rest who have no hope.
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus.
15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, and remain until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep.
16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of {the} archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first.
17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord.
18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.

AAN,
1. Look closely at v. 16 – where is Jesus coming from? Heaven.

2. Now look closely at v. 14 – who is God bringing with Jesus? The spirits of those Christians who have died.

3. Now ask yourself: if they are already with Jesus in heaven, why are they coming back here? See v. 16 – “the dead in Christ shall rise first.” It’s not talking about their spirits rising; it is obviously talking about their bodies rising from their graves. What else could be raised in v. 16 if the Christians’ spirits are descending from heaven with Jesus?

The body must rise, not a body that is natural or corruptible (as Paul said in 1 Cor. 15), but a body that is spiritual – that is, imperishable and eternal – but a body nonetheless.

4. Then notice the living Christians when Jesus returns: their bodies are changed (as Paul said in 1 Cor. 15:51-52 “Behold, I tell you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.”) and they are “caught up together with them in the clouds” (1 Thess. 4:17). Does it say anything about them dropping their physical bodies on the ground and ascending as spirits only? No. Their bodies are changed from natural (flesh/blood) bodies to spiritual (something real and more than flesh/blood) bodies.

This is exactly what happened when Jesus walked His followers out to the Mount of Olives and ascended into heaven: His body had already been changed when He rose from the dead (after which He ate fish, proving it was a physical body), and at His ascension He took His resurrection body with Him.

I really do not know how it could be any clearer than that.

AAN,

Let’s begin with Paul’s use of “egeiro.” You need examples from the rest of the NT? Okay, here are a few.

Matt 8:14-15 And when Jesus had come to Peter's home, He saw his mother-in-law lying sick in bed with a fever. And He touched her hand, and the fever left her; and she arose, and waited on Him.

Mark 2:10-12 He said to the paralytic-- "I say to you, rise, take up your pallet and go home." And he rose and immediately took up the pallet and went out in the sight of all.

Luke 8:54-55 He, however, took her by the hand and called, saying, "Child, arise!" And her spirit returned, and she rose immediately; and He gave orders for {something} to be given her to eat.

I give these examples to show you how the word was used in the cultural context of the first century A.D. You are reading your ideas about a “spiritual resurrection” into the text; that is known as eisegesis. You can see that in each instance (and others), it refers to a physical rising up. Paul himself uses the term in the same way elsewhere in his letters:

1 Cor 6:13-14 Food is for the stomach, and the stomach is for food; but God will do away with both of them. Yet the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord; and the Lord is for the body. Now God has not only raised the Lord, but will also raise us up through His power.

Obviously Paul here is speaking of the physical body, so where Paul uses “egeiro” twice in the last sentence, he intends his readers to understand the physical resurrection of Jesus and Christians, as they would do normally, since that is what the word meant in the first century A.D.

I will address 1 Thess. 4 in my next post.

AcesLucky says “But now you're adding: "However, there is the actual place, spiritual though it may be, but a place."
Uh... actual place? Now it's an actual "spiritual" place? Moving the goal posts, are we?”

No, and if you would stop parsing the dialogue to ignore what is actually said (meaning the import of the comments), you would understand, I hope.

Again, I say, “Just read the various parables on the nature and manifestations of the kingdom.”

You also say, “So when Jesus ascended to heaven... this was not a physical thing, but a spiritual one? Can you see how you just switched grounds to accommodate the problem of the story being false? So now, Jesus didn't physically go to heaven. Is that the story now?”

No, it has always been the story. I do not recall anyone arguing otherwise, even though I can understand how you might have thought so; there is a gap in your knowledge of what the bible teaches. Maybe the following scripture will help.

1 Corinthians 15:40-51 (King James Version)

40There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
48As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
50Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
51Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed

mathetes - I am a bit puzzled at what you take to be argument and evidence. First, you again seem to assume from the start that 'risen' for Paul must mean a physical resurrection, point to a few verses that use the word risen, and then say - See! He is talking about a physical resurrection! Then you go on to claim that Paul says things that he doesn't even say in the very text from which you quote. So here we go:

"So you just ignore what he plainly wrote about 2 kinds of bodies..."

No. Paul's distinction between a natural body and a spiritual body does not change anything that I've said. A spiritual body is still not a physical corpse with flesh and blood.

"What is raised from the dead, body or spirit?"

The part of 1 Thess. that you cite does not answer that question. That is why 1 Cor. 15 is so important for clarifying exactly what Paul meant when says that the "dead in Christ will rise." 1 Thess. does not settle or contribute to this question.

"I have presented evidence that Paul believed that the spirits of deceased Christians are with Jesus already and must rejoin their bodies at the resurrection."

You have done no such thing. Paul does not say that. Read what yourself have cited in addition to its entire context. Paul says that Christ will descend from Heaven and that those who had died a Christian will rise first (and, again, if you want to know what Paul means by rise just go back to 1 Cor. 15 where he says that the spiritual body is risen). Then, those who are still alive will be caught up in the air. He does not say anything about spirits rejoining their decomposed flesh and blood corpses (if you think he does somewhere else, then cite it). It is not enough for the text to say what you want it to say.

"I used my Englishman's Concordance of the Greek NT to check every place "egeiro" is used in the NT. That's how I know."

Wow - really? The fact that Paul himself tells you that he is using the term otherwise doesn't matter because you have a dictionary?

AAN,

"Given what Paul actually says, it is not just a stretch to think that he continued to believe in the bodily resurrection - it is plainly wrong."

So you just ignore what he plainly wrote about 2 kinds of bodies in v. 44? Not a body versus a spirit, but a natural body and a spiritual body. A spirit is not the same as a body.

"I have not shown any lack of understanding I have simply presented how Paul himself draws the contrast. The spirit is not a flesh and bones body that can get up and walk around. We are born into a physical body with a spirit and it is the spirit that is raised, not the physical corpse. I don't know how Paul could make himself any more clear to you what he actually means."

I'm afraid you have; it often happens when skeptics read the Bible and pick one verse/passage to discuss, ignoring the rest. Since you think the gospels were written decades later (did you offer any proof?), we'll just look at 1 Thess 4:16 "For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel's call and with the sound of God's trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first." What is raised from the dead, body or spirit?

It must be their bodies, because their spirits were already with Jesus in heaven: "For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have died." (4:14) Only after the bodies of dead believers are raised will the bodies of the living believers be changed: "Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever." (4:17) Everyone will have a spiritual body: Jesus, the previously dead Christians, and those who were alive at the time and had their bodies transformed. This is what Paul said in the chapter under discussion: "Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed." (1 Cor. 15:51)

I wrote: "'Raised' translates 'egeiro' which, every time it is used in the NT, refers to a physical rising up."

You responded: "You simply asserting it so does not make it so - especially when Paul himself says otherwise. Do you not see why this kind of argumentation is not convincing? Provide evidence from Paul that he actually meant a physical raising up. You have not done so."

So we should accept w/o proof your claim about when the gospels were written, but you want proof of my statement. Before I wrote that, I used my Englishman's Concordance of the Greek NT to check every place "egeiro" is used in the NT. That's how I know. Must I teach you Greek and list every verse for you?

"So, with that statement out of the way you have presented no actual evidence that Paul meant other than what he plainly states other than you think that his word choice should, for no other reason, mean something different."

I have presented evidence that Paul believed that the spirits of deceased Christians are with Jesus already and must rejoin their bodies at the resurrection. Since it is almost universally accepted that 1+2 Thessalonians were written before 1 Corinthians, the bodily resurrection of Jesus is exactly what Paul meant in 1 Cor. 15.

@ MGT@

You wrote: "In one sense, the kingdom of God is already here, in the hearts of believers."

Yes, we've already discussed that and we agree, it's a metaphor. But now you're adding: "However, there is the actual place, spiritual though it may be, but a place."

Uh... actual place? Now it's an actual "spiritual" place? Moving the goal posts, are we?

So when Jesus ascended to heaven... this was not a physical thing, but a spiritual one? Can you see how you just switched grounds to accommodate the problem of the story being false?

So now, Jesus didn't physically go to heaven. Is that the story now?

You wrote: "There will come a time when the rule of God, aka his kingdom, will be fully established. Read Mathetes’ post of December 04,2009, 5:03PM"

In other words, just ignore everything we've just talked about...

AcesLucky says

@ MGT2

“You stated (quoting Jesus): "..the kingdom of God is within you."

Is there really an "actual" kingdom, with actual people and homes and stuff living inside of you? Of course not. You recognize that it's a metaphor, don't you? Because given your answer as to "where" the kingdom was, you acknowledge that it's not a real place, but a metaphorical description of what we put in our hearts. Right? Not a real place!”

Calm down.

The kingdom of God is dynamic and as Jesus said to the Pharisees, it is not something you find by observation. At its foundation, the kingdom of God represents wherever the rule of God is preeminent. As such, it is manifested variously. Just read the various parables on the nature and manifestations of the kingdom. In one sense, the kingdom of God is already here, in the hearts of believers. However, there is the actual place, spiritual though it may be, but a place.

John 14:1-3 (New American Standard Bible)
1"Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me.
2"In My Father's house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you.
3"If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also.

There will come a time when the rule of God, aka his kingdom, will be fully established. Read Mathetes’ post of December 04,2009, 5:03PM

mathetes - Thanks for jumping into the fray.

"Thus, it is no stretch to think that he might have continued to believe in the bodily resurrection of the dead."

Sure. Might. However, the question being examined here is not whether it was possible but whether he actually did. Given what Paul actually says, it is not just a stretch to think that he continued to believe in the bodily resurrection - it is plainly wrong.

"The problem is your lack of understanding of the contrast Paul drew in 1 Cor. 15, between the flesh and the spirit."

I have not shown any lack of understanding I have simply presented how Paul himself draws the contrast. The spirit is not a flesh and bones body that can get up and walk around. We are born into a physical body with a spirit and it is the spirit that is raised, not the physical corpse. I don't know how Paul could make himself any more clear to you what he actually means.

"'Raised' translates 'egeiro' which, every time it is used in the NT, refers to a physical rising up."

You simply asserting it so does not make it so - especially when Paul himself says otherwise. Do you not see why this kind of argumentation is not convincing? Provide evidence from Paul that he actually meant a physical raising up. You have not done so.

"No, Jesus was capable of much more after His resurrection..."

Let's leave the gospels out of this right now and just look at what Paul writes. The gospels were written decades later so Paul would not have read them and shows no knowlege of them anyway. So, with that statement out of the way you have presented no actual evidence that Paul meant other than what he plainly states other than you think that his word choice should, for no other reason, mean something different.

There are other interpretations of Matthew 16:28 in addition to the two we have discussed below:

“This predicted event has been variously interpreted as referring to: (1) Jesus’ transfiguration (17:1-8); (2) His resurrection; (3) the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost; (4) the spread of the kingdom through the preaching of the early church; (5) the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in A.D. 70; or (6) the second coming and final establishment of the kingdom. The immediate context seems to indicate the first view, the transfiguration, which immediately follows (see also Mark 9:2-10; Luke 9:28-36). There, “some” of Jesus’ disciples “saw” what Jesus will be like when He comes in the power of His kingdom. This interpretation is also supported by 2 Peter 1:16-18, where Peter equates Jesus’ “glory” with His transfiguration, of which Peter was an eyewitness. At the same time, interpretations (2), (3), and (4) are also quite possible, for they are all instances where Jesus “came” in the powerful advance of His kingdom, which was partially but not yet fully realized. Some interpreters think that Jesus is more generally speaking of many or all of the events in views (2) through (4). View (5) is less persuasive because the judgment on Jerusalem does not reflect the positive growth of the kingdom. View (6) is unacceptable, for it would imply that Jesus was mistaken about the timing of His return.” (ESV Study Bible notes)

Whether this clears things up or muddies the water, it does show that the possible interpretations are not limited to the two discussed below (metaphorical and #6 above).

@ MGT2


You stated (quoting Jesus): "..the kingdom of God is within you."

Is there really an "actual" kingdom, with actual people and homes and stuff living inside of you? Of course not. You recognize that it's a metaphor, don't you? Because given your answer as to "where" the kingdom was, you acknowledge that it's not a real place, but a metaphorical description of what we put in our hearts. Right? Not a real place!

And so the 2nd coming of Jesus FROM that kingdom is from that place (make sense?)... not an actual place but a metaphorical one. This is why when we look for Jesus to return, Christians keep waiting, and waiting, and waiting (2000 years and counting).

Once taken as metaphor, everything falls into place. Like why He hasn't showed up, like why prayer fails, like why a loving god allows evil, like why all those people who have "found god or Jesus" still can't agree, and why they all still hate each other and preach hatred against each other in spite of the fact that they have all supposedly found God! It's not real; it's a metaphor.

You see, once you take it for what it is, it all makes perfect sense.

@RD Rauser

You stated: "That's one way to falsify the claim but obviously not the only one."

You continued: "A series of letters dating from the first century are discovered written from John to Peter outlining an elaborate plot to steal Jesus' body and stage a resurrection. Such letters, if genuine, would provide yet another way to falsify the claim. I will leave it to you, the skeptic, to think of still other ways to falsify the claim."

I cannot see how this is a response to your choice of (paraphrasing) "Find the body of Jesus and that will be proof that he wasn't resurrected."


My statement was that 1. We wouldn't know it was his body if we did find it, and 2. if he didn't exist we would never find his body. And so your method of "find the body" cannot work in any case, found or not. Your method cannot, therefore, serve as a proof against his resurrection.

Now, how does your reply above answer that? Are the letters supposed to be an alternative? I'm not understanding your reply at all. This was all in regard to:

"What evidence would you accept that would conclusively and unequivocally prove that Jesus, as described in the bible, was a false (untrue) narrative?"

In other words, what (in your mind) would conclusively PROVE that the biblical narrative is false?

(I'm asking for something genuine, not something you know cannot be proved -- like, finding the body -- which you already know can never be a proof.)

AAN,

Regarding the Essenes, if they did indeed write the Dead Sea Scrolls (still being debated), there is some indication that they might have believed in the resurrection of the dead. “One doctrine on which Pharisees, early Christians and, possibly, the community of the scrolls would have agreed was the resurrection of the dead.” (Davies, Brooke, Callaway – The Complete World of the Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 61).

This brings us back to Paul. Paul did not abandon every belief he had held as a Pharisee. Even after his conversion, Paul still believed in one God, one Holy Spirit, one set of inspired Scriptures, the sinfulness of man, etc. Thus, it is no stretch to think that he might have continued to believe in the bodily resurrection of the dead.

The problem is your lack of understanding of the contrast Paul drew in 1 Cor. 15, between the flesh and the spirit. Remember, Paul started this chapter with the statement, “and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:4, NAS). “Raised” translates “egeiro” which, every time it is used in the NT, refers to a physical rising up. Did Jesus have a typical human body after His resurrection? No, Jesus was capable of much more after His resurrection: entering a locked room; appearing/disappearing from view; etc. Still, Jesus had a physical body and demonstrated it by eating a piece of fish (Luke 24:42-43, NAS) Paul and the others recognized this difference and they tried to explain that this change will happen in all believers who are raised from the dead. As Paul wrote, “it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.” (15:44, NAS) Also, “Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.” (15:50, NAS)

Paul is saying the natural man, born once in a natural, normal human birth, cannot enter the kingdom of God. To enter the kingdom, a man must be born a second time in a spiritual birth by the Holy Spirit of God. This is what Jesus told Nicodemus, a Pharisee: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” (John 3:5-6). The resurrected body of a believer will be a Spirit-enlivened body that will resemble that of the resurrected Jesus. John put it thus: “Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we shall be. We know that, when He appears, we shall be like Him, because we shall see Him just as He is.” (I John 3:2, NAS)

RD - You have? I don't think you have.

"...the testimony Paul reproduces there gets us to within months of the events."

What "events" does Paul specifically place himself in relation to? What does the text say?

"It describes Jesus as risen when the word 'egeiro' for a Jew only meant bodily raised. Paul then goes on to tie Jesus being raised to our hope of anastasis (resurrection) which again is bodily."

To be sure, it is not evident that all Jews believed that risen meant a physical body. The Essenes - a Jewish sect - seem to have not. Nevertheless, Paul was a Pharisee and there is no question with them. However, Philippians 3 is quite illuminating as here Paul describes his break from his Pharisee past. Your conclusion simply assumes that Paul must have brought with him the idea of a bodily resurrection from the Pharisees despite his dramatic converstion experience. Paul tells us otherwise. He equates confidence in the flesh with the Pharisees but he himself has lost all confidence in the flesh (3:3). When Paul was a Pharisee he persecuted Christians (presumably because they thought otherwise) but then he had a vision of the risen Lord that changed his mind and must have led to his rejection of that Pharisaic doctrine. What had been unthinkable was now the only possible thought.

This is clearly confirmed by what Paul actually says in 1 Cor. 15. "It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body." He goes on to say that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. "For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed." The imperishable body is explicitly contrasted against the phyiscal body just as earthly things are contrasted against heavenly things. The resurrected body is therefore not a physical body but some kind of ethereal, heavenly, or spiritual body that is quite distinct. The entire chapter is a drawn out theological argument attempting to explain to the Christians in Corinth what the resurrected body is like. It should be quite revealing that Paul does not simply point out that the disciples saw Jesus walking around, even touched him and ate with him, that there was a missing corpse, etc. Rather, he simply appeared to the others had he had to Paul - in a vision. Since Paul does not distinguish Christ's appearance to himself from any of the others he cites we cannot assume otherwise.

That's what the text says.

RD - Thanks for the book notice. I will check it out over break.

AAN says

"Methinks you doth protest too much."


Thats it?

I give you Jesus' words explaining what the kingdom is as stated in Mattew 16:28, Jesus' words, not mine. Not my interpretation, Jesus'explanation...and that is what your reply is?

I guess the truth IS unassailable.

AcesLucky says

"you let the truth speak for itself.
Since I follow the Holy Spirit of Truth, I naturally follow option two; that's all."

Well, Luke 17:20-21 is not my words, and I am sure you are not saying it is not the truth. So I guess I am following the Holy Spirit of Truth, no?

@ MGT2


You stated:

---
"Aces, the problem with your reading of scripture is that you generalize from a few isolated verses. Scripture interprets scripture, and the "difficult" verses such as Matt. 16:28, often become clear with proper study, guided by the Holy Spirit."
---

The Holy Spirit of Truth has been guiding me all along! Note: There are over a thousand different Christian denominations in the U.S. alone, each interpreting and believing something different! Are you suggesting none of them are guided by the Holy Spirit? Because if they are (unless the Holy Spirit is confused), they'd all have the same interpretation, correct?

So which one is correct?

I suggest that since there are a thousand different ways to add your own interpretation (each putting a different set of words into the mouth of Jesus), we add NO additional words into the mouth of Jesus and accept them at face value for what they actually say! After all, if God came down and looked you in the eyes and said, "Don't eat soup." Would you interpret that to mean "don't eat soup on Monday's"?

The problem is, what happens when we take a sin-free infallible god-man at his word and they turn out to be false?

Answer: Your presuppositions regarding said person fails! And you find yourself looking directly at the foundation of your faith. So you 1.) start looking for ways to account (apologetics, interpretation, metaphor, context, parable, zeitgeist, etc.) or; 2.) you let the truth speak for itself.

Since I follow the Holy Spirit of Truth, I naturally follow option two; that's all.

Intervarsity Press just published "The Historical Jesus: Five Views" with contributions by Robert Price, John Crossan, Luke Timothy Johnson, James D.G. Dunn and Darrell Bock (in other words as stellar a lineup across the spectrum of opinion as one could muster, from Price's radical skepticism to Bock's conservative evangelicalism).

MGT2 - "So I show you how to read, understand, and interpret biblical texts, and you cover your eyes and ears with the canard of biblical inconsistency."

Who is covering his eyes and ears here? There is no canard here. You pointed out where the gospels are inconsistent. Your method of reading the text in those situations seems to be to choose the passage that you like better than the offending passages and declare that one to be right for all.

Methinks you doth protest too much.

RD - "Good gosh man, would you find that to be evidence for anything?"

I presented it only as evidence that your statement was wrong (as a side note, Carrier has graduated and is working on a book on the subject but I digress).

Thanks for the additional comments clarifying your statements about Paul. I should have more to say later.

AcesLucky,

"Rauser, how could anyone prove it was the body of Jesus? Because...

(1.) Even if the actual body were produced there would be no way to know it, and;
(2.) if Jesus DID NOT exist, there could never be a body found!

Therefore your (and Paul's) answer keeps you insulated from any possible truth whatsoever! Is this on purpose, or an accademic oversight?"

That's one way to falsify the claim but obviously not the only one. Golly, use your imagination! How about this. A series of letters dating from the first century are discovered written from John to Peter outlining an elaborate plot to steal Jesus' body and stage a resurrection. Such letters, if genuine, would provide yet another way to falsify the claim. I will leave it to you, the skeptic, to think of still other ways to falsify the claim.

beetle496,

"The stories (narratives) associated with all three figures (Jesus/Mohammed/Kind Arthur) are all too incredible to be taken at face value."

Well yeah, and the idea that the table my desk sits on is composed of vibrating packets of energy with empty space between them is just too incredible to be taken at face value as well. So let's not look for the evidence for anything that strikes us as too incredible. Better just to dismiss it.

oops, I meant Carrier said he doesn't believe Jesus existed, though presumably he doubts God as well.

Here's AAN's full post:

RD - "No historian of ancient history considers Jesus a mythical figure."

Well, gee, someone might want to tell the ancient historian Richard Carrier that:

"Jesus Never Lived, Speaker Says - Questions about Jesus and his life have dominated popular culture in recent weeks...In this climate of religious dialogue, Richard Carrier, a graduate student in ancient history at Columbia University, told members of the student group Rational Thought that Jesus never existed in a speech last night at the Math Building."

Now my response:

Okay, so Carrier said in the math building of Columbia that he doesn't think God exists. Fine, there's one statement from one person. I was wrong. But let's keep things in perspective. Let's say that you declared "No geologist believes the earth is six thousand years old" and then I cited the following in response:

"Mr. So and So, a graduate student in geology at Columbia University, told members of the student group 'The Creation Club' that the earth is 6000 years old in a speech last night at the Math Building."

Good gosh man, would you find that to be evidence for anything?

AAN,

You write: "So, why don't you provide us with evidence that Paul built his own Christian beliefs on a "historical resurrection" that happened in his recent past."

I have. 1 Corinthians 15 establishes that there is no time for legend since even as skeptical a scholar as John Crossan (he's not even a theist)believes the testimony Paul reproduces there gets us to within months of the events.

So then, what does the text say? It describes Jesus as risen when the word "egeiro" for a Jew only meant bodily raised. Paul then goes on to tie Jesus being raised to our hope of anastasis (resurrection) which again is bodily. So they believed that the body was raised and if the very same body was raised, then the tomb was empty. That is logically entailed.

Next, the text (again, originally dating to within months of the purported events) lists that a number of people who believed Jesus died cursed by God then flipped 180 degrees after they reported seeing him alive again. Among these was his brother James.

What explains all this? A conspiracy or hoax of some kind? The disciples stole the body and then dozens of people had a mass hallucination? Jesus didn't really die on the cross? The fact that post-Enlightenment scholarship over the last two hundred years has utterly failed to provide a natural explanation of all the facts is telling.

AnAtheist.Net says,

"MGT2 - "So here is an instance where the coming of the kingdom is not a public event as in the parousia."
So you've just pointed out where the gospels are inconsistent with each other. Good for you."

So I show you how to read, understand, and interpret biblical texts, and you cover your eyes and ears with the canard of biblical inconsistency.

Unbelievable! But expected.

You are afraid of what you may REALLY discover: GOD IS in this place and you never knew it. I think that deep down, somewhere inside, you DO know it.

Crannog - "I hear you, but you obviously miss my point which tends more towards virtue and character."

I don't believe that you made such a point.

MGT2 - "So here is an instance where the coming of the kingdom is not a public event as in the parousia."

So you've just pointed out where the gospels are inconsistent with each other. Good for you.

Aceslucky asked:

"Where exactly did you say that kingdom was, again?"

I'll let Jesus answer as he did when others asked about the kingdom.

Luke 17:20-21 (New International Version)

20 Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation,
21 nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you."

So here is an instance where the coming of the kingdom is not a public event as in the parousia.

Aces, the problem with your reading of scripture is that you generalize from a few isolated verses. Scripture interprets scripture, and the "difficult" verses such as Matt. 16:28, often become clear with proper study, guided by the Holy Spirit.

@ mathetes

You wrote:

---
"In addition to what MGT2 wrote, there's also the sense in which the kingdom of God/kingdom of heaven is wherever God rules. Specifically, the kindgom has come when God rules the heart of a person."

"And yes, there were who heard Jesus speaks the words in Matthew 16:28 who were still alive when the Spirit came."
---

That's a beautiful metaphor. Of course if you mean it literally then Jesus has already come (angels and all) and "the Son of man coming in his kingdom" already happened 2000 years ago.

So what's all the fuss? The end of the world as we know it has already happened and every man has already been rewarded according his works.

But there's a small problem with that picture... nobody noticed.

PS: Look around the world and notice all the religious violence and intolerance from so-called God loving people. Where exactly did you say that kingdom was, again?

@ MGT2

You wrote:

"I think the best way to understand this verse is to see it in the light of the expectation of the Jews for what a messiah should be and Peter’s response... etc., etc."

I think the best way to understand this verse is to take it as meaning what it says. Never mind the fact that it is already in perfect context with the preceding verses, your interpretation adds a ton of words into the mouth of Jesus. Mine add none.

If we cannot take Jesus at his word, then who's word are we taking?

I apologize for the typos; it's late. Please allow me change the next to last sentence to read:

And yes, many who heard Jesus speak the words in Matthew 16:28 were still alive when the Spirit came less than two years later.

Aces,

In addition to what MGT2 wrote, there's also the sense in which the kingdom of God/kingdom of heaven is wherever God rules. Specifically, the kindgom has come when God rules the heart of a person. Hence Paul could write in Colossians 1:13-14, "For He delivered us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."

For Paul, it was something that was already accomplished, past tense, in the heart of a follower of Christ. So when the Holy Spirit came in Acts 2, God dwelt in and ruled in the hearts of men. And yes, there were who heard Jesus speaks the words in Matthew 16:28 who were still alive when the Spirit came.

This interpretation is not new: it was the subject of Augustine's The City of God.

AcesLucky

Verses 27 and 28 must be seen in the context of the dialogue Jesus had with his disciples, especially verses 21 through 28.

To that end, each verse, 27 and 28, is addressing two different ideas within that context. Therefore, verse 27 is addressing the reward of those mentioned in verses 24-26. Verse 28 is not talking about the event of Jesus’ Second Advent being imminent or that some would live for thousands of years.

I think the best way to understand this verse is to see it in the light of the expectation of the Jews for what a messiah should be and Peter’s response to Jesus’ words about dying in verses 21-23, and combine the message conveyed in verses 24-27.

So I interpret verse 28 to be saying that because Jesus requires one to “die” in order to follow him, for some to do this, they would have to see him come back with the angels as he will in that second coming. It is more an idiomatic expression than it is a statement that a person will live until he returns.

@RD Rauser

I asked:

---
"What evidence would you accept that would conclusively and unequivocally prove that Jesus, as described in the bible, was a false narrative?"
---

You replied:

---
Paul provides a good example in 1 Corinthians 15. Christianity is built on the historical resurrection of Jesus. So if you can provide the body, presumably Christianity is falsified.
---

Well...

Paul is wrong, and I know from your posts that you have the intellectual capacity to see through this.

Rauser, how could anyone prove it was the body of Jesus? Because...

(1.) Even if the actual body were produced there would be no way to know it, and;
(2.) if Jesus DID NOT exist, there could never be a body found!

Therefore your (and Paul's) answer keeps you insulated from any possible truth whatsoever! Is this on purpose, or an accademic oversight?


Clearly, your "proof" retains no possibility of falsification whether a body is found or not. Ergo, it could hardly satisfy as a proof. (Would you like to try again?)


And since a belief based on unfalsifiable assumptions cannot be tested against emperical evidence, the foundation of the Jesus narrative remains an article of faith.

This is why I suggested testing the narrative against the veracity of the narrative claims! It tests the narrative against itself! Once again, here it is:

In the words of Jesus:

27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. 28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Matt 16:27-28 (KJV)

Rauser: the narrative says, "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

Note: "...coming in his kingdom!" (That answers that "common interpretation argument you tried to offer before.)

Are any of them still alive [today], never having died since Jesus is yet to be seen "coming in his kingdom"?

Roughly 2000 years later and still... no Jesus. And they are ALL long gone!

So even if the story actually happened during that time, the words thus spoken in the story are demonstrably false and/or the narrative is false. If Jesus was Resurrected, he'd be here today or those people would still be alive. Ergo, the narrative must be historically false!

- AnAtheist

'Except that is about as gross a simplification of the actual circumstances that I have ever seen'

I hear you, but you obviously miss my point which tends more towards virtue and character.

RD - "No historian of ancient history considers Jesus a mythical figure."

Well, gee, someone might want to tell the ancient historian Richard Carrier that:

"Jesus Never Lived, Speaker Says - Questions about Jesus and his life have dominated popular culture in recent weeks...In this climate of religious dialogue, Richard Carrier, a graduate student in ancient history at Columbia University, told members of the student group Rational Thought that Jesus never existed in a speech last night at the Math Building."

http://www.stanforddaily.com/cgi-bin/?p=1021320

> No historian of ancient history considers Jesus a mythical figure.

Okay, I am sorry I pick words that raise your hackles, since you keep knocking dow straw men rather the larger points.  How about “legendary” figures instead, like Mohammed or King Arthur? 

The stories (narratives) associated with all three figures (Jesus/Mohammed/Kind Arthur) are all too incredible to be taken at face value.  Do your really think Jesus “get picked on” any more than King Arthur?

RD - Just to be sure, I don't want this conversation to devolve into some kind of contest of scholarly citations. My point was not to win you over by listing a bunch of names. My point was simply that I am not as 'uninformed' as you would like to make me out to be. Speaking of which...

"I think the second sentence evinces an uninformed opinion. "

I would not have put forward my opinion if I did not have reasons for doing so that were in some way informed. Nevertheless, reading it again I would revise my statement to read, "There probably was an historical Jesus. The gospels are not reliable historical documents and, therefore, cannot offer much in the way of establishing who such a person was with much confidence."

"It is also possible that Paul was visited by aliens from another dimension."

Yes, well, your alien thesis is clearly just as probable as any that draws instead on Greek culture and philosophy. Your requests for specific evidence is well taken. I think that (a) is certainly true and (b) probably true and worth an examination. As for (c), the evidence available is only indirect at best.

But then you go on to claim that "Christianity is built on the historical resurrection of Jesus" and that "Paul provides a good example in 1 Corinthians 15" - I would like to see if you can meet your own standards of evidence. Paul does not talk about the resurrection of Jesus in historical terms in 1 Corinthians. The best evidence that he can provide to the people of Corinth to convince them that they need to believe in the dying and rising Lord is that (1) he and many others claimed to have had, at least, some kind of vision of the risen Lord and (2) the (Jewish) scriptures somehow foretold this. That some women followers of Jesus found an empty tomb outside of Jerusalem guarded by no less than an angel(s) [boy dressed in white] doesn't even seem to cross his mind.

So, why don't you provide us with evidence that Paul built his own Christian beliefs on a "historical resurrection" that happened in his recent past.

Crannog - "So you and I are travelling together and we come upon a fork in the road."

Except that is about as gross a simplification of the actual circumstances that I have ever seen. The choice is not between just two clearly defined paths with certain outcomes. As ConverseAtheist illustrates, human culture and imagination has produced a multitude of 'paths' with no real evidence that any of them actually lead to where they claim to lead. Have fun with that choice.

titus,

Thanks, but I did say not just doubt about the plays authorship but more specifically that Christopher Marlowe was the author. Anyway your factoid raises an interesting question. Isn't 90% of scholars sufficient to speak of a consensus?

AAN,

On your list of historians, I find Richard Carrier very interesting. His theories about the Gospel of Mark and ancient Greek myths are very clever, but they have not won widespread support among New Testament scholars. Ehrman provides a great example of a very clever individual who makes some very misleading statements. For instance, Ehrman talks about there being more variant readings among ancient NT manuscripts than there are words in the NT. But he knows that (a) most of these variations are trivial typos and (b) this is in large part a factor of the enormous number of Greek and Latin manuscripts from the early church. If we had only one manuscript we would have no variant readings. While Ehrman uses this "fact" as a means to cast doubt on the NT manuscripts, it actually establishes their over all veracity.

Anyway, I can list a number of scholars with PhDs in science from a number of leading universities who reject Darwinian evolution. Are you going to take their opinions seriously too? Of course not. Because you don't agree with them. So consensus in scholarship only matters when it is a point that you agree with?

AcesLucky,

"What evidence would you accept that would conclusively and unequivocally prove that Jesus, as described in the bible, was a false (untrue) narrative?"

Paul provides a good example in 1 Corinthians 15. Christianity is built on the historical resurrection of Jesus. So if you can provide the body, presumably Christianity is falsified.

Paul Maier's book "A Skeleton in God's Closet" is a novel by a first rate historian predicated on just such a scenario.

AAN,

"There probably was an historical Jesus. The gospels are probably not a good guide to whoever that was."

I think the second sentence evinces an uninformed opinion. Read, for instance, Richard Bauckham, "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses".

AAN,

"You asked why Paul, given his Jewishness, could have possibly had anything other than a bodily resurrection of a historical person in the recent past in mind when talking about the dying and rising Lord. Well, there is one answer. We are talking about a prevalent mythic formula. This is not a proof. But it is neither unsubstantiated nor out in left field."

I am not that interested in what is *possibly* true. It is also possible that Paul was visited by aliens from another dimension. I am interested rather in evidence that dying and rising God myths (a) predate the New Testament, (b) were extant in Palestine and Tarsus and (c) influenced the beliefs of Paul and other early Christians. How come the demand for evidence evaporates when it concerns Christianity so that any sort of speculation is to be treated with seriousness?

beetle,

In response to the query why does Jesus get picked on you respond "3.Jesus is not really subject to any more scrutiny than other mythical figures."

This illustrates my point. No historian of ancient history considers Jesus a mythical figure. That just shows your biases.

But let's be kind. Let's imagine that you could identify a historian who considers Jesus to be mythical. Would it follow that this was a reasonable position? If it would then likewise one scientist who believed the earth is 6000 years old would be sufficient to establish the rationality of that position.

A fork in the road?

But to the left, is a third road, not forked at all because it was never part of the other two. Always in view but seldom worn, and so it didn't at first look like a road at all.

More like a path and it is marked with a sign that says: "Truth -- it offers no false promises, but you can keep whatever you find!"

And for those who hold truth higher than superstitions, bribes of eternal life in bliss, threats of eternal hell in pain, and oaths of eternal servitude to invisible masters, the followers of this path seek only to know one thing; the truth.

Why? -- because the truth is equivalent to knowledge! Because, from truth, we can produce the greatest good. We follow truth so that we can become better masters of our fate. We follow truth so that we can create a progressively better world for those that come after us. And they, them. And they, them.

We respect all life, but we are responsible for ourselves. And so there can be no greater quest, and no greater return. It is the only thing on which we can ultimately depend, whether we are aware of it or not.

Contrary to what the opening paragraph here suggests there are a significant number of English professors who consider the true identity of the author of the Shakespeare works an open question. Approximately 1 in 10 according to a New York Times poll: see http://tinyurl.com/yhkmd4f
As well, significant number of people of note, including recently two US Supreme Court Justices, have a signed an online petition stating that there is reasonable doubt as to the author's true identity: see http://www.doubtaboutwill.org/

Flat Earthers would be a better example to use or maybe, to be more current, climate change deniers.

ConverseAtheist-

I just want to say I like your analogy, a lot, it gives me something to masticate. Unfortunately I
might not get back to you today. Just one quick question, are there any atheists at the table?

We have no original works of Socrates. A handful of contemporaries mention him, but the primary source of what we know of him comes through Plato's works. And even then, it's generally agreed that by the later Dialogues, Plato's putting a lot of his own words into his mentor's mouth.

It's quite reasonable to believe that Socrates existed. It's no stretch to assume that he espoused positions pretty close to the ones described in the early Dialogues. That the Dialogues accurately describe real historical events is much more doubtful, in that the discussions probably didn't happen in that way or combine several different events.

I don't see it as a stretch to think that a Yeshua existed and stirred up some trouble in Judea back then. Establishing that miracles happened is a much taller order. (Consider - what evidence would you need to conclude that the miracles attributed to Mohammed actually happened in the way described?)

Crannog: "So you and I are travelling together and we come upon a fork in the road. One way is marked 'rough trail, supernatural assistance rendered, life guaranteed,' and the other is marked 'equally rough, no chance of help except by fellow travellers, life extinguished at end of trail, guaranteed!'"

It's more like there's a long table with smiling faces lining one side of the table -- as you walk along the table there is a different book in front of each smiling face.

You approach the first, a smiling Mormon looks back at you with a Book of Mormon in front of him and says, "Joseph Smith was a prophet of God -- I know this because I get a warm fuzzy feeling inside when I read this magic book I have in front of me... Just think, we could be right! Give 10% of your income, a few hours a week of your time..."

The next smiling face is a Sunni Muslim who looks at you with the Koran in front of him and says, "Mohammad was a prophet of God -- I know this because I get a warm fuzzy feeling inside when I read... etc., etc."

The next smiling face is an evangelical Christian who looks at you with a KJV Bible in front of him and says, "Jesus was born of a virgin -- I know this because I get a warm fuzzy feeling inside when I read... "

You look down the length of the table but you cannot see the end -- there are so many smiling people and books. Each one with a warm fuzzy feeling waiting for you -- each with a minor commitment like... thousands of dollars a year and a possible shot at eternity with ice cream and cake!

You shout to those that can hear you, "Oy! You all can clearly get warm fuzzy feelings from your books. You also make a bunch of claims about reality ::wave your arms about, gesturing at reality:: It is obvious that most of you have been fooled by this warm fuzzy feeling into thinking your book actually tells you something real. Do any of you have any evidence that what you're saying is remotely true?"

When religions make mutually exclusive claims, at most one can be right. You also know that the majority of people have fooled themselves into following a book full of claims that are false.

Personally, I'd prefer trying to figure out reality than to settle for the first book that gives me a warm fuzzy feeling -- but this is perhaps where we part ways.

AnAtheist.Net --
Ummm, I'll take that chance. Just as I (and presumably you) will take that same chance with all of these
other holy books and religions that make claims about my alleged (but never proven) after life.

So you and I are travelling together and we come upon a fork in the road. One way is marked 'rough trail, supernatural assistance rendered, life guaranteed,' and the other is marked 'equally rough, no chance of help except by fellow travellers, life extinguished at end of trail, guaranteed!'

You, having considered the options, opt for the second and I the first. You look at me and say, "Listen, that's obviously a lie so you might as well take this route with me. There's no hope but sure, we'll have a good time along the way.". I reply, "Yes and we can also have a good time travelling this trail as well and, what the heck, maybe something really cool might happen."

What you're saying is that you, my friend, would choose the second and happliy convince me to keep you company?

Damn, I haven't seen a comment crackle like AA.net's in a while. Zing!

Inquiring minds will always question easily-held assumptions. This is how progress has been made in the past and will continue to be made. I am not a scholar but I stand with the following outstanding writers, thinkers, actors, directors and statesmen of the past who have expressed doubt that Mr. "Shakspere" wrote the works of William Shakespeare:

* Mark Twain
* Henry James
* Walt Whitman
* Charles Dickens
* Ralph Waldo Emerson

* Orson Welles
* Leslie Howard
* Tyrone Guthrie
* Charlie Chaplin
* Sir John Gielgud

* William James
* Sigmund Freud
* Clifton Fadiman
* John Galsworthy
* Mortimer J. Adler

* Paul H. Nitze
* Lord Palmerston
* William Y. Elliott
* Harry A. Blackmun
* Lewis F. Powell, Jr.

I think sir if you examine the subject with an open mind, you will find the evidence strong that someone other than the man from Stratford is the most likely author of the plays and sonnets.

Also many inquiring minds have questioned the historicity of Jesus including Albert Schweitzer who challenged both the secular view of Jesus as depicted by historical-critical methodology current at his time in certain academic circles, as well as the traditional Christian view.

While I do not necessarily subscribe to the revisionist ideas about Jesus, as a thinking individual, I am pledged to keep an open mind and examine all the evidence as it appears. This has nothing to do with matters of faith or with my strong belief in God or a purposeful universe.

RD - My irritation was directed at what I considered the overly dismissive tone of this post.

"Do you ignore the consensus of Darwinian scholarship and speculate about the possible truth of Lamarckianism and/or vitalistic life forces?"

Given the facts of genetics, etc., there is no room for any reasonable doubt concerning the possibility of inheriting acquired characteristics (and "vital life forces" is not even a scientific idea). Not so with the issues being discussed here. Sorry.

Needless to say, I am not simply sitting in my armchair and blowing steam. I have read numerous scholars that range across the spectrum from conservative to liberal. Lee Strobel and the multitude of evangelical experts that he interviews in his books and videos. I have watched videos by Habermas and Craig in addition to reading some of their writing online, as well as some others that Christians have pointed me to in the past. I have listened carefully to what these people, including yourself, have to say. Additionally, I have read material by Bart Ehrman, Steven Harris, Tim Callahan, Burton Mack, Earl Doherty, G. A. Wells, Randal Helms, Robert Price, and Richard Carrier, who range from liberal to moderate (I am particularly impressed by the work of Carrier - who IS an ancient historian). No doubt I have come across others as well in some capacity online. That in addition to other scholars who work primarily in Judaism and the Old Testament like Israel Finkelstein, Neil Shubin, Mark Smith, Michael Coogan, William Dever, Richard Friedman and others.

While I nevertheless do not come here as a scholar in any of these fields I do come here as a reasonably informed individual who is not impressed by the claims that Christians make either theologically or historically. And speaking of majority consensus, I feel reasonably confident pointing out that the majority consensus among ancient historians and biblical scholars is that the miraculous resurrection of Jesus can NOT be validly or historically inferred from the evidence available.

Sadly, I won't have time to respond to this interesting thread today -- we have a Christmas concert and Edmonton's "Festival of Trees" to attend today. I will join in tonight or tomorrow as time allows.

I must say it is a high calibre of discussion as always.

That said, one quick response to AnAtheist.Net's palpable irritation. Note first that I do continue to respond to queries and speculations. But the point of the present post was to take a step back and put these in perspective.

Since you obviously don't care for the literary analogy, here is a scientific one: Do you ignore the consensus of Darwinian scholarship and speculate about the possible truth of Lamarckianism and/or vitalistic life forces? I suspect that no, you don't take these seriously. If you're like most educated people, you instead defer to the experts. (If you do entertain Lamarckianism and vitalism, please let me know.)

I'm only pointing out that in the realm of ancient history, most of your conjectures are of an equivalent status, so I wonder why in this case you don't take into account the majority opinions of scholarship?

"Why does Jesus always get picked on?"

What evidence would you accept that would conclusively and unequivocally prove that Jesus, as described in the bible, was a false (untrue) narrative?

You see, it's not so much picking on Jesus, but the veracity of the biblical narrative as historically valid. And so the question above regarding the evidence is not rhetorical, but gets to the root of all we are discussing. Is that narrative true?

Thus the question, which deserves a careful thought-out answer:

"What evidence would you accept that would conclusively and unequivocally prove that Jesus, as described in the bible, was a false (untrue) narrative?"

I suppose I should answer your question..."Why does Jesus always get picked on?"

Because nobody is making any historically tenuous or fantastic miracle claims about Shakespeare and alleging that what I believe about those claims will supposedly have a monumental effect on me. My enjoyment of Shakespeare's plays will not be diminished one bit whether or not Shakespeare actually wrote them. Outside of some academic curiosity, I really couldn't care less.

Crannog - "To those whose goal is to debunk the Bible and destroy it as a source to us please be absolutely certain you are correct otherwise you Chance destroying us both."

Ummm, I'll take that chance. Just as I (and presumably you) will take that same chance with all of these other holy books and religions that make claims about my alleged (but never proven) after life.

This post hardly merits a response. If you really can't discuss the issues that I raise then just say so. But I forcefully reject any accusations of engaging in wild and unsubstantiated speculations. I have offered reasons for every claim that I have made - reasons which you evidently have just ignored. If the point of this blog is to engage in discussions, then let's discuss. If this is how you plan on "responding" to comments which evidently challenge the received view of things - then count me out.

"Let's speculate then that the resurrection is a legend co-opted from the dying and rising messiah in Greek mystery religions."

Paul didn't live in a vacuum. You asked why Paul, given his Jewishness, could have possibly had anything other than a bodily resurrection of a historical person in the recent past in mind when talking about the dying and rising Lord. Well, there is one answer. We are talking about a prevalent mythic formula. This is not a proof. But it is neither unsubstantiated nor out in left field.

"Or let's suppose that the early Christians did not believe in a bodily resurrection."

A future bodily resurrection of all the dead or the physical bodily resurrection of Jesus? Because I have been talking about the latter.

"Or let's suggest that Greek terms like 'egeiro' and 'anastasis' are consistent with the body remaining in the tomb."

What tomb? We are talking about Paul here, aren't we?

"While we're at it, let's raise a doubt or two that Jesus even existed"

There are plenty of doubts to be raised, but I am mostly agnostic on that question. There probably was an historical Jesus. The gospels are probably not a good guide to whoever that was.

> Why does Jesus always get picked on?
Presumably, he can take it.

A benefit of having absolute power is not being threatened by belief or unbelief. It also enables unconditional love.

Crannog: "To those whose goal is to debunk the Bible and destroy it as a source to us please be absolutely certain you are correct otherwise you Chance destroying us both."

RD: "Your final warning is, in my view, a very important one."

I don't start with the notion that "ok, this Bible book has to be wrong. Let's see how I can support this view of mine." (which seems to be the opposite to how the faithful read it -- ie 'this book is true, so let's figure out why...').

I survey the landscape of holy books -- the Koran, the Bible, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Upanishads, the Book of Mormon and I am equally impressed with all of them. That is -- they all seem to have human authors that claim divine recitation or inspiration and none of those books suggest anything other than purely human authorship. Must I be absolutely certain that the Koran is not the recitation of the angel Gabriel's message from God before I point out its mistakes? Are you certain that the Koran is not the message from Allah, Crannog?

> Why does Jesus always get picked on?

1. Presumably, he can take it.
2. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
3. Jesus is not really subject to any more scrutiny than other mythical figures.

> I believe we can also have direct experience and knowledge of the risen Christ.

This is not so different from some of your other assertions.  Your critics are on pins and needles waiting for some actual evidence to this end!

> The justification for holding a belief transfers from brilliant people who have first-order justification for the belief … to lay Christians who can trust their testimony.

I should think those brilliant people are a little anxious not that there are so many skeptics nowadays that have the impunity to point out the frail foundations.

Crannog,

"For most that essentially means the Bible. Deferring to the above we MUST argue on even in our ignorance."

I'll make two responses here.

First, I don't think that the community of faith is quite this bad off. The reason is due to the notion of justification transfer. In short, the justification for holding a belief transfers from brilliant people who have first-order justification for the belief (e.g. New Testament historians who have looked at the manuscript data) to lay Christians who can trust their testimony.

This is NOT special pleading for Christians. Justification transfer is a ubiquitous phenomenon. For instance, I heard some people saying "Don't get the H1N1 vaccine!" But I got it and believe I was justified in doing so because of the testimony of Health Canada, the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, and many other authorities. The lay Christian can believe in the historicity of the resurrection in like manner by trusting the informed authorities within the Christian community.

Second, I believe we can also have direct experience and knowledge of the risen Christ. I know people who have never cracked a theology textbook and do not know any Koine Greek who have a knowledge of acquaintance of Christ far deeper than mine. This is the issue of proper basicality which I discussed at some length in this blog.

Your final warning is, in my view, a very important one.

RD

Hello again. A couple of points here:

there are no essential consequences in being ignorant of or misled about Shakespere. There are profound consequences in being right or wrong about God. We have to defend ourselves to have any comfort at all (otherwise it's best not to think about it so - as you notedin an earlier post - most don't)

most of us haven't the time or inclination to immerse ourselves in scholarship so we have to make sense of the important on what sketchy information we have. For most that essentially means the Bible. Deferring to the above we MUST argue on even in our ignorance. Hopefully each discussion can help at least one of us coder to the truth. For me and many like me the Bible and what few pulp commentaries we can get our hands on is all we have to both form and challenge our faith.

To those whose goal is to debunk the Bible and destroy it as a source to us please be absolutely certain you are correct otherwise you Chance destroying us both.