The Upper Room

El'endia Starman

12:25 AM

@LeakyNun Because Jesus told them? Because the Holy Spirit told them? Because God told them?

Leaky Nun

@El'endiaStarman interesting

El'endia Starman

There are plenty of instances in the Bible where private words are recorded.

fredsbend

12:50 AM

@LeakyNun Certainly a real person. Had a following at times likely. Killed by authorities because he threatened stability in an extremely unstable area also likely. Everything after that has to be taken with a grain of salt, as the only records of his life are the gospels, clearly a biased source. Then the Gnostic gospels clearly jumping to the realm of myth only a short while later should be enough to cast doubt on the details.

Even John has some of these elements, like the transfiguration.

It reads like a mythological story at times.

Leaky Nun

> 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

1 Corinthians 15

> There is consensus among historians and Christian theologians that Paul is the author of the First Epistle to the Corinthians (c. AD 53–54).

So this would make it date to even earlier than the gospels

@fredsbend what do you think about this?

African Networks

1:53 AM

Hi! Please excuse my ignorance and offtopic/offchat question - is there an active supermoderator who can see/answer "superuser.com" related question ?

Lee Woofenden

@LeakyNun In general, i think Jesus was a historic person. Though the Gospels vary in their telling of his life, and therefore are not likely strictly biographical, I have no problem accepting that the general outlines of what they describe, along with the various teachings, reflect the reality of Jesus' life.

El'endia Starman

@AfricanNetworks Not here, no. Try asking in Root Access?

African Networks

Ok thanks, excuse me for disturbing you.

Leaky Nun

@LeeWoofenden how do you interpret "Christ died for our sins" in the quote above?

fredsbend

3:25 AM

@LeakyNun All the epistles predate the gospels. I think it was @Mr.Bultitude who made a nearly exhaustive list of all the gospel stories that corroborate with the epistles.

This helps date events. Or at least, earliest belief in events.

The problem is that apologetics almost always reverts to "early Christians believed it enough to die for it". That's not convincing enough on two fronts: 1. People will die for all kinds of falsities and have many times in history. 2. There's lots of religious stories that people have died for, early and otherwise, that even the Christians don't believe. That's like special pleading or something.

El'endia Starman

@fredsbend I thought the argument was that early Christians wouldn't willingly die for something they knew to be false. Sure, that mostly applies to people who actually saw and interacted with Jesus, but the martyrdom of multiple apostles' fits that bill.

fredsbend

6:35 AM

@El'endiaStarman Yes, that goes without saying. They did believe it. However, people die for falsities nonetheless.

Their testimony as martyrs doesn't mean much because of this.

fredsbend

8:21 AM

@LeakyNun I joined in an effort to quell a budding skepticism. About a year earlier something happened (would rather not say what) that led me to challenge a fundamental belief: that there is a god who can and will help me in times of trouble and weakness.

I struggled with the fact that though I believed it I had no reason to believe it, and even there was reason to not believe it.

I was frustrated that an omnipotent god that supposedly loves me like a father will only work with me through mysticism (aka, prayer). I was frustrated that even if real and prayers are heard, this was one dimensional, one-way communication.

I eventually called it quits right here in one of the chat rooms.

in Creationism vs. ☐, Mar 7 '14 at 16:01, by fredsbend

So I'm done with that. If He is really omnipotent and all loving then it is totally in His control to reach out to me. Good friends pick up the phone and call once in a while. So I'm waiting for His call, but I'm done leaving messages on His machine.

Before that event a year before joining I had close to no skepticism. I was steeped very deeply in irrational belief; I was even a YEC. In hindsight, I'd have to say that overlooking my unmet craving for a real connection with God as grounds for doubt was simply a delusion.

I find it socially and personally interesting that not only can I mark the exact moment of total loss of faith, but it is forever archived in the interwebs.

I don't know about Hong Kong, but in most of the USA coming out a non believer is probably only second to coming out gay.

I told no one in real life for months. I told my cousin first, also a skeptic, then my brother in law a month after that. I didn't tell my wife of 7 years until 5 months later.

She started to take it poorly at first, but heard me out eventually. She's in delusion as well right now, thinking I'm just "going through a thing" and will come out of it.

Three years later ...

I didn't tell my mother until last year. My sister put the pieces together about a year or two ago, but has never talked to me about it.

Leaky Nun

8:44 AM

@fredsbend what did you think about the story of Job?

fredsbend

I find it equally socially interesting that I can talk it all out here with essentially strangers to avoid social consequences. I believe I would still be tormented in that strange place between belief and doubt if I didn't have this outlet.

Leaky Nun

seriously, fundamentalism is a disease

@fredsbend i'm sure that the xtians here are not so irrational

fredsbend

Also, the irony that participation in a Christian site paved my road to abandon Christian faith is not lost on me.

@LeakyNun There's many more reasonable people here than in real life, for me.

Leaky Nun

@fredsbend certainly.

fredsbend

@LeakyNun It's great, but unsatisfying in the answer department. I love the structure of it, the real and raw nature of Job's struggle, his torment even. It's very human; very relatable.

But God, the character in the book, didn't actually give us an answer. How he answers, I'd expect from a human inspired work. It's all human, through and through. I'd hope a divinely inspired work could actually give us a real and helpful answer.

Leaky Nun

8:59 AM

Do you debate/argue with/talk to your parents/cousins/wife about xtianity?

fredsbend

It feeds the delusion, for those caught in irrational belief. You end up telling yourself at the end "God is bigger than you. There's a good reason, so deal with it."

@LeakyNun Not really. They aren't the debating type. I'm much more versed in forming and attacking arguments, so it never goes well. It often devolves into me explaining why their point is moot and exactly how my response shows that. By then, they check out.

Casual talk is infrequent as well.

Leaky Nun

I see.

fredsbend

Now, how is it you are raised a believer, but do not believe at your young age?

Leaky Nun

-2

A: What is the Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity consisting of different persons?

Encyclopædia Britannica states: “"Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies."” “The Council of Nicaea met on May 20, 325 [C.E.]. Constantine himself presided, active...

downvote and flag plz

@fredsbend my school, although being xtian, has quite an amount of non-xtians, so this is one influence

and I prefer not to discuss my other influence.

oh, and I already started doubting at a young age

I would ask my church counselors (or whatever you call them) loads of questions

They often get annoyed by me ;)

Then I started to watch debates

which made me see the irrationality of my beliefs

fredsbend

@LeakyNun Yep

@LeakyNun Like Hitchens youtube things?

Leaky Nun

9:09 AM

@fredsbend yes, those things

fredsbend

Any particular person or video stand out as "life defining" for you?

Leaky Nun

@fredsbend a video that talked about contradictions in the bible made my eyes open, lol

fredsbend

@LeakyNun Why would there be a lot of non Christians?

Leaky Nun

apart from watching debates between xtians and atheists, I also watched debates between xtians and muslims

and I found Ahmed Deedat to be a good debater although his arguments can be flawed at times

I just like how he always "out-logic"s the xtian opponent

@fredsbend because 1. there are not a lot of xtians in HK and 2. it wouldn't make sense for the school to check whether you are a xtian before letting you in

fredsbend

@LeakyNun More like "why don't they attend secular school". I assume Hong Kong has secular public school.

Leaky Nun

9:14 AM

@fredsbend oh, my school is one of the quite good schools

fredsbend

I see.

Leaky Nun

and I don't think they (the students) really care about the religion of the school

it isn't like you'll die if you enter a xtian school

fredsbend

Was is Catholic?

Leaky Nun

??

fredsbend

The school. What kind of Christian?

Leaky Nun

9:16 AM

Anglican

fredsbend

Didn't they make you do Chapel and bible class? Things that are clearly for believers?

@LeakyNun Close enough.

@LeakyNun So how well does Deedat do against atheists?

Leaky Nun

@fredsbend well, Deedat would just point out the ridiculousness of evolution

@fredsbend we have an assembly every morning, and we begin by singing a hymn and reciting the Lord's prayer; every Wednesday there would be a reverend delivering a sermon; we also have a "religious studies" lesson every week; but we are not very against that

it's not like they force you to believe

seriously, singing a hymn isn't a problem.

fredsbend

@LeakyNun Must be a great education to put up with it.

Leaky Nun

like, if you go to someone else's wedding, you would also sing the hymns, right?

fredsbend

If secular education was comparable, you wouldn't attend.

Leaky Nun

9:21 AM

@fredsbend it isn't really that brainwashing.

fredsbend

@LeakyNun Anglicans are easy going. Others, not so much.

Leaky Nun

@fredsbend perhaps.

fredsbend

@LeakyNun What do you mean? What's ridiculous about evolution?

Leaky Nun

@fredsbend you know, "atheists believe that we came from a soup"

fredsbend

@LeakyNun You don't find the evolutionary explanation of life on earth convincing?

Leaky Nun

9:23 AM

5 mins ago, by Leaky Nun

@fredsbend well, Deedat would just point out the ridiculousness of evolution

I'm telling you what Deedat would tell the atheists.

I do not imply that I agree with his views.

fredsbend

@LeakyNun I suppose not, but does he do it well or convincingly?

Leaky Nun

@fredsbend it isn't convincing for me because I've heard the same argument over and over

fredsbend

@LeakyNun Yes. I find atheist/theist debates mostly the same, despite the participants.

Would you call religion a good thing for the world? Is religion a force of good in the world?

Leaky Nun

> How can you disbelieve in Allah when you were lifeless and He brought you to life; then He will cause you to die, then He will bring you [back] to life, and then to Him you will be returned.

Quran 2:28

This is the verse he quoted

fredsbend

@LeakyNun "Because your God should be powerful enough to work in and out of the gaps of human understanding." My answer.

Leaky Nun

9:29 AM

lol

fredsbend

I mean really, if he actually wanted credit for creation he shouldn't have made it look like life sustains and replicates itself. Why aren't each of us a special creation?

Leaky Nun

you're preaching to the choir now

fredsbend

Would you call religion a force of good in the world? It's a question I'm working through right now. Basically, should I proselytize non-belief? Because I believe that would make the world better?

Leaky Nun

I don't know.

The only thing I'm certain about is this:

47 mins ago, by Leaky Nun

seriously, fundamentalism is a disease

fredsbend

Yes, I can agree, religion can look very bad sometimes. But can it look very good?

Leaky Nun

9:35 AM

1 min ago, by Leaky Nun

I don't know.

fredsbend

Well, it must be before your coffee or something ...

Muse, why don't you.

Leaky Nun

Have you listened to those recitations of the Quran? @fredsbend

fredsbend

They're in Arabic, right? I don't understand them.

No, not more than a few minutes.

Leaky Nun

I see.

fredsbend

But you have?

Leaky Nun

9:40 AM

also not more than a few minutes

fredsbend

Okay ...

Leaky Nun

@fredsbend when did you (de)convert from YEC?

fredsbend

@LeakyNun At the moment of that quote I posted earlier. I threw everything out in that one moment. Cleaned house.

Leaky Nun

@fredsbend when did you become an evolutionist?

fredsbend

I was staunchly YEC, which you can see evidenced in that room beefier that moment, but in my doubting phase, I was consumed with other claims of the religion. YEC and other "science" took a back seat.

Leaky Nun

9:47 AM

I see

fredsbend

@LeakyNun I'm not sure I am now. I think the explanation in the current biology discipline is suitable, but has issues. The most glaring is in abiogenesis explanations.

Leaky Nun

but evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis

fredsbend

Stupid auto correct "beefier" should be "before"

@LeakyNun No, but it sort of does too. Replicating mechanisms are all subject to the principles of natural selection. The most suitable abiogenesis theory I've heard has DNA or RNA existing and replicating without cellular parts. Not living, but still biology and evolution of you ask me.

Leaky Nun

what about evolution itself?

fredsbend

@LeakyNun We've probably got the big parts down. One issue is the argument that mutation is enough to bring about so much life variety. I kind of feel like it's not.

Leaky Nun

9:55 AM

who is "we"?

fredsbend

Not that I'll fill that gap with God, as theistic evolutionists do.

@LeakyNun biologists. The scientific community.

Leaky Nun

why is mutation not enough?

fredsbend

First, it's so often not helpful. In fact, it's often lethal. And when it's benign, it's unnoticed, so very likely not contributing positively to natural selection. Second, one individual in a population cannot add a significant portion to the gene pool. Third, it would have to coincide with an external pressure to prove useful. Coincidences are fun, but unlikely.

To be fair, there's common mutations that mark against points 1 and 2. Polydactyly, for example, clearly is responsible for the common pentadactyl limb structure, and getting a six digit limb is not harmful.

Leaky Nun

Would you like to demonstrate the third point by an example?

fredsbend

But it just makes more questions. Why did pentadactyly form so early and why is five fingets better than four? Is it really? And why aren't there six digit species?

Leaky Nun

10:06 AM

Maybe you would like to see this section here for a response to point 1 and 2.

@fredsbend are you implying that we developed from having four fingers to having five fingers?

fredsbend

@LeakyNun Let's say a mutation occurs that is more beneficial to cooler weather and equally beneficial to current weather. But the weather didn't change. The individual dies without selection helping spread the mutation.

Leaky Nun

@fredsbend no, the gene spreads to the further generations as well.

that is, assuming that the individual carrying the beneficial-to-cooler-weather-and-equally-beneficial-to-current-weather gene reproduced

fredsbend

@LeakyNun Not humans. Some early mammal. All mammals are pentadactyl, as far as I know.

@LeakyNun By genetic drift, which means close to nothing unless the population is quite small (like under 1000). And if we're already at that point, then they're clearly experiencing selection pressures now.

Leaky Nun

I guess I do not view it like that.

The major driving force of biodiversity isn't mutation, although mutation is an essential part.

24 mins ago, by fredsbend

@LeakyNun We've probably got the big parts down. One issue is the argument that mutation is enough to bring about so much life variety. I kind of feel like it's not.

Right. Mutation alone is not enough.

@fredsbend

fredsbend

10:24 AM

@LeakyNun I think I've read this. Meh. Bacteria examples don't help. They play by different rules than the rest of us (gene trading, etc). It just asserts what I challenge in point two. Fascinating stuff, surely, but I think there's still many holes is the exact mechanism of evolution.

@LeakyNun Well, it all has to work in tandem with natural selection. Mutation works with natural selection to propagate through the species.

I don't think that's enough. We're missing a part.

Leaky Nun

@fredsbend there are two human examples there.

@fredsbend you missed speciation.

I think speciation is what may answer your question

fredsbend

@LeakyNun They don't seem to apply ... "super boy" is curious, but hardly an example of anything real. The HIV example doesn't really say what it is, where it is, etc.

Leaky Nun

real?

fredsbend

@LeakyNun It's a lab experiment. There's no super boy population of humans.

Leaky Nun

you missed lactose resistance then

it's the first example

fredsbend

10:38 AM

@LeakyNun Well, yes and no. Speciation is when you get a fork in the evolutionary tree. Some sub population develops, then is sent through unique selective pressures. It helps genetic drift be more effective, for those times when a mutation doesn't coincide with selection, but genetic drift is essentially random, so we should play law of averages here, and call it a wash. It'll help just about as often as it doesn't.

Leaky Nun

do we agree that speciation creates different species?

fredsbend

@LeakyNun Yes I see it. "Lactase persistence", you mean. I'm under the impression that lactase persistence is mostly related to your upbringing (i.e. you drink milk through childhood), making this an epigenetic issue. This illustrates my point. There's a lot more going on than "mutation then selection" that we don't understand.

@LeakyNun It apparently does. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I'm saying the mechanism as we understand it is unsatisfactory.

Leaky Nun

@fredsbend so here is my understanding: speciation creates distinct species which evolve in different ways to be more distinct, which creates biodiversity.

fredsbend

I guess I could call myself an evolutionist, but I don't understand the label, I think. It makes apathetic science into a belief. I'm of the mind that we know far less about it than common population believes.

@LeakyNun Yes.

Leaky Nun

@fredsbend then our question is solved!

@fredsbend well, of course. That applies to any scientific theory/discipline.

fredsbend

10:48 AM

@LeakyNun I never challenged that. The underlying mechanism is still said to be exclusively mutation plus selection. I challenged if that is enough.

Leaky Nun

I do not find it a helpful attitude to ask for examples and then proceeding to say that we cannot verify the example and that it may be due to epigenetics.

@fredsbend I already said that it is not enough. The major driving force of biodiversity in my opinion is different selection pressure, not just selection pressure.

fredsbend

@LeakyNun I'm sure there's plenty of literature on lactase persistence. Verification is likely not an issue. Intellectual laze might be ;)

I think we're talking about different things.

Leaky Nun

@fredsbend so if it is confirmed that lactose persistence is a genetic issue, would you change your mind?

fredsbend

At any rate, I have to get some sleep now. Nice chat.

Leaky Nun

ok bye

fredsbend

11:01 AM

@LeakyNun It would push me closer. It would have to be shown to be a mutation, which propagated through Europeans, and is one lacking in other populations. Further, my understanding about upbringing would have to be proved wrong. It's a simpler issue than polydactyly, hopefully, so it won't just create more questions.

bruised reed

12:08 PM

@LeakyNun Now that that particular answer has been deleted, the link just goes through to your question making "downvote and flag plz" look a little masochistic

Leaky Nun

@bruisedreed lol

El'endia Starman

12:52 PM

@fredsbend I'm...not sure if you got my point. You're saying "They did believe it.", but I'm saying, "They knew the truth and died for falsehoods." (assuming Jesus wasn't God, didn't resurrect, etc). Is that what you had in mind?

TRiG

2:28 PM

> A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it.

Oscar Wilde.

fredsbend

3:58 PM

@El'endiaStarman I understand it. The Apostles claim to have seen risen Christ. They all died for it, except John. I think it's quite possible there weren't 12 apostles. I think it's also possible they didn't die for it. It's strange how the early believers were radical martyrdom cravers.

Apparently, only one or two thought telling the story was worthwhile. But the authenticity of John is easy to doubt (it's almost Gnostic).

Then there's Paul, with all kinds of things that predate the gospels, not in the gospels, and he never knew Jesus. It's easy to see Paul as the originator of nearly all of it.

Perhaps Jesus was not as influential as Christians hope. Maybe more like a fad. Then Paul came along a few years after Jesus' death and took it to another level.

Tacitus kind of talks about him like he was a fad. A strange one, in his eyes. Josepheus a bit too, but he had done meddling with his works, so hard to tell what he originally said.

I think there'd be more talk about Jesus if he was so great, but all the talk is about Christians, those radicals that offend the Empire by not participating in the Imperial Cult and would rather die.

It's easy to interpret history as a strange snowball of events. An unlikely one that created believers that relished martyrdom.

Islam did that too, but with conquest. There's no surprise why that worked.

Somehow, Christianity got rolling based on a guy that wasn't known by anyone and probably never went father than 70 miles from his birth town.

I'll grant that Christianity started uniquely, but there's explanations that don't require it to be true.

Lee Woofenden

5:04 PM

@LeakyNun This sounds like a fine question for the main site. Of course, it would have to ask how Swedenborgians (or Swedenborg) interpret this rather than how I interpret it.

@fredsbend I agree with you about the book of Job. And Swedenborg did not include it as being among the books of the Bible that are divinely inspired.

@fredsbend There are always counter-arguments to every proposition. That, too, doesn't necessarily mean that the original proposition isn't true.

fredsbend

5:34 PM

@LeeWoofenden A fair counterpoint. But we're talking about resurrection here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, not rhetorical arguments.

El'endia Starman

Such a pity that four eyewitness accounts - from a time where a Rome-wrecking fire barely got any mention - doesn't count as "extraordinary proof". :P

Lee Woofenden

@fredsbend I don't think the arguments made for the Apostles preaching something they had actually witnessed are merely rhetorical. Not bulletproof, of course. But not merely rhetorical.

@curiousdannii I have now turned this into a question:

0

Q: What is the biblical basis for the belief that some people will live eternally on earth?

In a well-known passage, the Apostle Paul writes: 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. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds ...

fredsbend

6:54 PM

@El'endiaStarman The synoptic gospels are clearly three versions from the same source. Then there's John. Two. But John is nearly Gnostic and dates very late.

As to them being written by eye witnesses, well, maybe.

I don't know what you mean by Rome's fire.

@LeeWoofenden The claim that they are witnesses is a bit tenuous. Even the claim that all of them existed is tenuous. Who has 12 disciples? 2 or 3 was normal. And 12, one for each tribe? Interesting.

There's only evidence for John and Peter. Then there's Luke and others, admitted non witnesses. Then Paul, with his odd claim.

Might be some curious bits for others, like I remember a bone box that said "James, brother of Jesus" on it. Could be real. I don't remember the consensus.

Why did do many of them not write anything? Or at least have disciples of their own write things, as it seems Peter might have done?

El'endia Starman

7:19 PM

Great Fire of Rome

The Great Fire of Rome was an urban fire that started on the night between 18 and 19 July in the year 64 AD. It caused widespread devastation, before being brought under control after six days. Differing accounts either blame Emperor Nero for initiating the fire or credit him with organizing measures to contain it and provide relief for refugees. In response to the accusations that he was responsible for the fire, Nero blamed the devastation on the Christian community in the city, initiating the empire's first persecution against the Christians. == Varying historical accounts == The varyi...

Lee Woofenden

@fredsbend For one thing, their job was to preach the good news, not to write it. There's a good chance many of them were not even literate. There was no universal schooling in those days, and fishermen didn't need to be able to read and write.

Jesus himself apparently never wrote anything even though the Gospels portray him as literate. I presume there was a reason for that: that the idea was to verbally reach the common people, who were illiterate.

Also, early on many of them apparently believed that Jesus would return within their lifetimes. Why write it down if he's about to come back anyway?

When some decades went back and Jesus didn't reappear, I suspect they started thinking, "Omigosh, we'd better write it down."

*went by

fredsbend

7:40 PM

@El'endiaStarman What do you mean to say, exactly? I'm well aware of the event.

@LeeWoofenden Are Paul's letters not preaching?

@LeeWoofenden Perhaps Jesus never wrote anything because he wasn't too influential by himself.

@LeeWoofenden Writing letters was and still is an extremely effective means for separate communities to communicate.

@LeeWoofenden A perfect time to revise things.

El'endia Starman

@fredsbend One would think that a fire that destroyed much of Rome would be more noteworthy than some decently popular Jew with a few hundred followers at best, yet we have better and more documentation of the latter. Given your statement that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", does that mean you think it's likely the fire never happened?

It always irks me how often people apply far more exacting standards of evidence and reliability to Biblical events than they do to other historical events. Some of this is understandable since Biblical events have a disproportionately large effect on other people due to their influence on millions of people, but I rarely hear it come up on the other side of the coin.

Lee Woofenden

7:57 PM

@fredsbend No. Writing is not preaching. Preaching is a verbal activity.

fredsbend

@El'endiaStarman Fires aren't exactly extraordinary. They happen all the time. Resurrection, not so much. Further, the evidence seems about the same. A handful of people wrote about it. The fire probably has tons of archeology proving it, though.

Lee Woofenden

@fredsbend It seems clear enough that Jesus' method was to propagate his teachings through his disciples.

@fredsbend Sure. But writing letters still isn't preaching. And Jesus' method was mostly to preach and to teach verbally. His disciples clearly followed suit.

fredsbend

@LeeWoofenden Redefine if you want, but Paul's letters are clearly meant to instruct and encourage, the exact propose of preaching.

@LeeWoofenden Now you're just being obtuse and pedantic.

Lee Woofenden

@fredsbend That would be a cynical way of looking at it. A less cynical way of looking at it is that once a few decades had gone by, those who wrote things down focused on what was most important to convey about the life and teaching of Jesus. After all, John ends his Gospel by saying that he couldn't possibly write down everything Jesus did.

fredsbend

@LeeWoofenden You already admitted they had to revise their teachings. Jesus didn't return quickly. So they were like "now what?" They had to revise.

Lee Woofenden

8:03 PM

@fredsbend Preaching is more to encourage than to instruct. Teaching is to instruct. And Jesus' ministry was "preaching, teaching, and healing" - Matthew 4:23, 9:35.

fredsbend

If you're already on that train, it's easier to keep going.

Lee Woofenden

@fredsbend No, it's not just pedantic. If the Gospels are correct, then we know that Jesus could read and write. So why is he never recorded as writing anything (except the obscure incident in which he wrote on the ground)? It was clearly intentional that he relied on the spoken word, not on the written word.

@fredsbend Also "revision" is a skeptical and modern view of things. Today writers of history and biography are supposed to "stick to the facts." That's just not how it was at that time. The point was to convey a moral message about life. The actual historical facts were distinctly secondary. The Gospel writers focused more on conveying the meaning and message of Jesus than on conveying the strict biographical details of his life.

fredsbend

@LeeWoofenden Writing is kind of an older thing to do. Killed at 30 might have been a factor. Frankly, not that influential seems plausible too.

Lee Woofenden

@fredsbend There are always ways to deny anything. But if Jesus was not influential, how the hell did he end out having the largest religion in the world named after him?

Whatever he did, he was phenomenally successful in influencing people.

fredsbend

@LeeWoofenden That's not what I'm talking about. Revision of teachings. "Jesus will return this generation". False, so revise.

Lee Woofenden

8:09 PM

@fredsbend And yet, they didn't revise it. They wrote it down.

In fact, one of the impressive things about the Bible is that in general it doesn't whitewash things. You'd think the Jews would write a more impressive history of themselves if they wanted to make themselves good. But the Hebrew Bible really doesn't make the Jews look very good. This suggests that the text might not just be some cultural history invented to show how great they were as a people.

The very fact that there are contradictions and inconsistencies in the Bible suggests that whatever "revisions" there may have been, they certainly weren't done with an eye to make something implausible look plausible.

Liars try to make their story consistent.

@fredsbend I get the distinct impression that some of the Gospel writers didn't fully understand the sayings they were writing down, but felt that they were important to record anyway, before they were lost.

The Synoptics, especially, read more like people recording things that made a strong impression on their minds than on people generating a false story in order to impress people and win converts. The fact that they didn't all remember it the same way is just human nature.

After all, it was all verbal lore that was eventually recorded. There were no official scribes hanging around writing down everything Jesus said and did.

fredsbend

@LeeWoofenden Does anyone teach Jesus returned then? No? It's been revised. I'm talking about teaching, not the written works.

Lee Woofenden

@fredsbend I thought we were talking about what got written down.

fredsbend

@LeeWoofenden I've said twice now we're talking about teaching ...

El'endia Starman

And here I thought Lee was the pedantic one... :P

A bit of communication to figure out what the other guy is talking about might be in order here.

Lee Woofenden

8:25 PM

@fredsbend We were talking about Jesus vs. what got recorded in the Gospels. The question was whether the Gospels reflect what actually happened, or whether they are just a later gloss or fabrication. Your whole earlier conversation was about how you didn't think the Gospels are in any way a reliable witness to the life, works, and sayings of Jesus.

If you want to talk about how the text got reinterpreted by later Christians, that's a whole different conversation.

fredsbend

8:53 PM

@LeeWoofenden We got sidetracked on something else, and I thought you were trying to engage that topic. No big deal. I forgive you ;)

@LeeWoofenden For the record, I'm not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The gospels are sufficient evidence for me that Jesus lived; had a brief and smallish following; taught various things focusing on right living, "the kingdom of heaven", and social justice; rubbed authorities the wrong way; and was killed for it.

Those are common things. They don't need great evidence. Resurrection and miracles do.

Whatever is the opposite of "throw the baby out with the bathwater" is what Christian apologists try to do. They prove Luke knew what he was talking about with Jericho or something, then say "see, Jesus is God."

They keep the baby and the bathwater.

@El'endiaStarman Does the above seem more reasonable, or do you find it irksome?

Lee Woofenden

@fredsbend I was still on the topic of whether the Gospels reflect what Jesus said and did. But it was a bit of a circuitous route. :-)

fredsbend

I don't think I'm applying harder rules to the gospels in general. Just the harder to believe parts.

El'endia Starman

@fredsbend I do, actually. I'll maintain my beef with others who don't concede that much, though. :)

fredsbend

@LeeWoofenden np. At least I can still pretend I'm right and you're wrong ;)

@El'endiaStarman I'm sorry, which is it? Reasonable or no?

El'endia Starman

@fredsbend Oops. I do find it more reasonable.

Lee Woofenden

9:04 PM

@fredsbend The harder to believe parts will never be provable precisely because they are beyond the reach of any kind of scientific or historical evidence. A person who does not believe in the supernatural will never be convinced by anything that claims to be supernatural.

There are thousands of people today who say they've visited the spiritual world and come back to tell about it. The skeptics say, "It's the product of an oxygen-deprived brain."

fredsbend

@El'endiaStarman It's nice to find common ground. I'll keep the beef with you on those types, however. I know the kind. It is irksome.

Lee Woofenden

So the idea that a skeptic is going to believe a supernatural claim of something that happened 2,000 years ago and was first reported decades or centuries later is just chucking snowballs into the furnace.

fredsbend

@LeeWoofenden Well, oxygen deprivation explains it very well.

Lee Woofenden

@fredsbend No, it doesn't. But it's about as good an explanation as materialists can come up with.

fredsbend

Tomato potatoe

Lee Woofenden

9:07 PM

@fredsbend But back to something like the original topic, whether or not the Gospels are factually accurate has little to do with their message or authenticity.

@fredsbend More specifically in response to yours: If Luke knew something about Jericho, so what? The question is whether or not Luke conveyed something of the moral and spiritual message of Jesus. If he did, then even if he was wrong about Jericho it really doesn't matter.

But also, the Apostles were supposed to be "witnesses to his resurrection" - see Acts 1:21-26. The resurrection of Jesus was, to them, a key fact about Jesus that had to be conveyed by actual eyewitnesses.

They were well aware that people would deny it. So the Twelve had to be people who had been there and had seen the resurrected Jesus with their own two eyes.

From my POV, about the only things in the Gospels that it's critical were "factual" were the actual existence of Jesus as a flesh-and-blood human being, the Virgin Birth, the Crucifixion (or some similar type of martyrdom), and the Resurrection. Take these away and Swedenborg's (and my) doctrine would be in trouble. The rest of what's reported is less critical in terms of its "factual" accuracy.

I put "factual" in quotes because two of these, the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection, are now well beyond any sort of scientific proof or disproof. So they can never be accepted as facts by the reigning Western scientific worldview of today.

Even the existence of Jesus as a historical personage is not exactly scientifically provable, but more a matter of researching the available documentary evidence and drawing the most likely conclusion from it. If it's "science," it's a very conjectural type of science.

I should add that my statement above doesn't mean I think the Gospels are just shooting the breeze. I have no particular reason to believe that they don't provide a reasonable account of the life and teachings of Jesus. And I have no particular reason to reject anything they say as authentic, even if they've been filtered through differing memories and approaches.

If four people go to a Grateful Dead concert and their accounts of it several decades later don't all agree with one another, we don't say that the Grateful Dead weren't really a highly influential rock band with a dedicated cult following, nor did they have songs such as "Casey Jones," "Truckin'," "Fire on the Mountain," and "Scarlet Begonias."

Leaky Nun

10:39 PM

@fredsbend to quote the late Deedat: there is not a single unequivocal statement of Jesus saying in the Bible "I am God", or "worship me".

Leaky Nun

11:44 PM

@LeeWoofenden I don't want to be too specific to Swedenborgians, so I would have to ask "how do the opponents of penal substitution interpret this verse", which would be too complicated, broad, and unnecessary. However, I don't see any better way than your suggestion.

By the way, is this your atonement theory?

8

Q: How do opponents of penal substitutionary atonement theory handle Isaiah 53?

How do opponents of the penal substitution theory of atonement handle Isaiah 53? This seems to describe penal substitution quite well: 4 Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted. 5 But he w...

exegesis isaiah penal-substitution

4

A: How do opponents of Penal Substitution explain God's declaration that He "will not leave the guilty unpunished"?

This answer is given from the perspective of the "Swedenborgian" or "New Church" denominations that accept the Christian theology of Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772). Swedenborg rejected penal substitution as completely false and contrary to the plain teachings of the Bible. The primary question i...

Transcript for