Evidence of Authenticity of Gospels

Originally posted by jaywill
[b] In all its shapes and forms, Judaism has always adhered to a concept of redemption which sees it as a process that takes place publicly, on the stage of history and in the medium of the community; in short, which essentially takes place in the visible world, and cannot be thought of except as a phenomenon that appears in what is already visible. Christia ...[text shortened]... ss of obedience to the indwelling Christ.

I don't think your paragraph here is defensible.

[/b]Yes, your point is well-made. Scholem was not a scholar of comparative religion, and was likely responding to some personal-salvationist view (which also exists within Christianity), as opposed to what I would take as the more orthodox world-redemption view. That’s why I made my comment about these writers perhaps not understanding Christianity any more fully than most Christians seem to understand Judaism.

Similarly—although this is strictly my personal view—I don’t entirely agree with Ariel’s statement about the divinity of messiah; but that is only because I am closer a more non-dualistic Hasidic/Kabbalistic view of the matter, which, to use those terms, would say that everything is pervaded with divinity and that all things are emanations/manifestations of ein sof. Ariel’s view may be the majority one, but the minority is not an insignificant one. I would simply say that messiah is not singularly divine.
_____________________________

I wanted to revise my remarks about messianism in Judaism, because I’m not sure I put them quite accurately. I might say that Judaism is not specifically about “personal messianism,” in the sense that messiah must be a single particular person. Messiah may be person, or persons—or an archetype, which I think may be the most common view. Nevertheless, ideas of the redemption of the world as process and challenge, and concepts such as ha’olam ha’ba—most often translated as “the world to come,” although I prefer the Hasidic understanding of “the world that is always coming”—would seem to be elements of a messianic architecture of thought.

I just realized that I had probably put the point sloppily.

Now I’ll let you get back to the main focus of the thread... 🙂

Originally posted by jaywill
Where am I cutting and pasting this stuff from?

I'm not cutting and pasting. I am re-writing what I have read from a number of sources. That includes my own study of the New Testament.

Maybe it amazes you that some of us think its worthwhile to seriously study the New Testament ?

Where are you cutting and pasting your question from anyway ???

Enjoy your great big belly laugh.

Some publication of Witness Lee and the Living Stream Ministry. Are you seriously claiming that this crap isn't plagiarized?

Originally posted by jaywill
My concern on this thread, is the inclusion of information in the gospels which suggest candor, authenticity, genuine testimony to typical human behavior etc. (or behavior taught by Jesus) is less likely to have been included had a coordinated effort to deceive the world taken place.

You are making the fallacy of assuming only two possible scenarios.
1. The writers were genuine and everything they wrote was authentic.
2. The writers were hellbent on deceiving the world.

You are ignoring the possibility that they believed the basic philosophy but were making a lot of stuff up as a form of parables or simply to fit the prophesies from the old testament etc.

You also dont explain how all the bits you claim would not have been included (if deception was intended) as they would shed doubt on the documents did not in fact get interpreted as shedding doubt on the documents.

[edit]
And you are ignoring a whole range of other possibilities.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are making the fallacy of assuming only two possible scenarios.
1. The writers were genuine and everything they wrote was authentic.
2. The writers were hellbent on deceiving the world.

You are ignoring the possibility that they believed the basic philosophy but were making a lot of stuff up as a form of parables or simply to fit the prophesies f ...[text shortened]... ng doubt on the documents.

[edit]
And you are ignoring a whole range of other possibilities.

Exactly right.

Mere candour and honesty do not prevent the gospel writers, or anyone else, from being mistaken.

Hence, to prove that the Gospels are not mistaken, it does not suffice to show that they were largely written with candour and honesty.

Candour and honestly on the part of gospel writers may have been necessary conditions for the accuracy of the gospels, but they are certainly not sufficient conditions.

Originally posted by jaywill
As for the comment of me making myself look like a fool. I have decided that I will be a fool for Jesus Christ.

Whose fool are you? Oh, don't tell me you are nobody's fool.

Eventually, everyone has to trust somebody. Really it boils down to that. You eventually will put your trust in someone. You are therefore potentially that person's fool.

Ah ...[text shortened]... , I have decided to be a fool for Jesus Christ and to trust Jesus Christ. Whose fool are you?

When you say you are Jesus's fool, do you mean that you are voluntarily abandoning the use of reason for Jesus's sake, or do you mean something else?

If the former, why should anyone listen to you?

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
When you say you are Jesus's fool, do you mean that you are voluntarily abandoning the use of reason for Jesus's sake, or do you mean something else?

If the former, why should anyone listen to you?

I do not mean I am voluntarily abandoning the use of reason.

It means that in my reasoning process I am including rather than excluding the Person, the power, and the presence of God.

Rather than reasoning without taking what God is and can do into account, I reason taking into account what God is and what God can do.

Originally posted by vistesd
Yes, your point is well-made. Scholem was not a scholar of comparative religion, and was likely responding to some personal-salvationist view (which also exists within Christianity), as opposed to what I would take as the more orthodox world-redemption view. That’s why I made my comment about these writers perhaps not understanding Christianity any mor ...[text shortened]... ably put the point sloppily.

Now I’ll let you get back to the main focus of the thread... 🙂[/b]

I don't think there is a need for anyone to pit one aspect of Christ's salvation against the other. It is exceedingly thorough and complete. It has the personal aspect and goes beyond that to include the nation of Israel, the world, and the universe.

His full salvation starts with the spirit of man, extends outward to the soul and personality of man, to the physical body of men and women, to the environment eventually as far as the entire creation. It includes the keeping of age old promises to the nation of Israel and of the surrounding nations on the earth. It inludes the natural world and the astronomical bodies.

I am wary of attempts either by evangelicals or skeptics to constrict that biblical salvation for any reason, friendly or antagonistic. Romans chapters 8 through 11 should be enough to prove that God has left nothing out in the carrying out of His full salvation.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Some publication of Witness Lee and the Living Stream Ministry. Are you seriously claiming that this crap isn't plagiarized?

You're ignorant and really don't have much to contribute to this discussion. I guess one more troll can't hurt the dialogue.

If you don't want to carry on a discussion but would rather just read where I am deriving some of my information, go purchase a copy of I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Athiest by Giesler and Turek.

However, there are other sources which I recall which influence my writing on this discussion, some of which I do not have before me to copy and paste even if I wanted to. Does it surprise you that Christian writers might write similiar things to be found in more than one source?

A General Introduction to the Bible by Giesler and Nix is also an influence on my thinking as well as All About the Bible by Sidney Collett.

No, it is not by Witness Lee, ignoramous.

I have no shame in repeating Witness Lee though. And if you'd like, for you personally, I'll signal you when I am repeating something I learned from Witness Lee. Though I don't ask you to reference all your comments. Neither do I think it is necessary to do so.

But for the record, if you are trying to make a distraction and steer the conversation to be about Witness Lee, why don't you open up another discussion devoted to that subject?

Originally posted by jaywill
You're ignorant and really don't have much to contribute to this discussion. I guess one more troll can't hurt the dialogue.

If you don't want to carry on a discussion but would rather just read where I am deriving some of my information, go purchase a copy of [b]I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Athiest by Giesler and Turek.

However, the ...[text shortened]... be about Witness Lee, why don't you open up another discussion devoted to that subject?[/b]

If you are directly quoting a source, you should cut and paste (if possible) and give the source. If you are deriving almost all of your points from a source but changing the words around a little bit, you should still give the source. I'm sorry you're not aware of these rules, but anything else is giving the false impression that you are doing your own work.

The Gospel writers certainly did not try to make a convenient teaching for themselves. Myth makers I would expect to remove difficulties from their lives rather than add them.

Here are some things again which they attributed to their Master which would not make life easy for themselves:


1.) Thinking about a sin is sinful, implicating everyone. This would implicate the gospel writers themselves as perhaps not capable to be disciples of their own Teacher

2.) The recorded Christs stringent standards about divorce and marraige. This would not be in the best interest of the men who "concocted" such a teaching and attributed it to Jesus.

3.) It is against natural tendencies to love our enemies. If the disciples were inventing a religion they sure were not inventing a convenient one. Jesus probably did speak such things. And He Himself was the only one who could live up to it.

Therefore the rest of us need to be saved and need His Holy Spirit. I think the teaching of turning the cheek and loving the enemies argues for the authenticity of the gospel.

4.) The accumulation of financial wealth is an extremly natural tendency. Christ was recorded as saying much against the anxiety of accumulating wealth. To concoct such a teaching would not be easy on the inventors. It suggests authenticity of the actual teaching of Jesus.

He taught to be rich toward God and lay up treasures in heaven via the righteous life lived as His disciple.

5.) "You therefore shall be perfect even as your heavenly Father is perfect"

I believe that was an authentic and radical statement from Christ and not the concoction of hoax makers to be passed on as a new religion.

It also suggests that one has to be born of the perfect Father in order to develop into perfection via the Father's perfect life now within His children. Otherwise perfection is not attainable to fallible human beings naturally.

And for Maurader, now that's been repeated by Witness Lee in many different messages. Happy now?

6.) Pray for our enemies. This is likely an authentic and radical statement of Jesus. Peter tried to slice the head of an attacker with a sword. And John and James wanted to call fire down from heaven to burn up a belligerent city.

My vote is that Jesus really taught it.

If you are directly quoting a source, you should cut and paste (if possible) and give the source. If you are deriving almost all of your points from a source but changing the words around a little bit, you should still give the source. I'm sorry you're not aware of these rules, but anything else is giving the false impression that you are doing your own work.

I have no interest in passing on these points as my original writings. Neither do I always demand that you or any other of the half dozen skeptics refer me to Infidel's Internet or True Origins so I can see from where you are getting your information.

I am not selling anything. And if you have any further complaint about my not providing extensive footnotes to every post take it up with the moderators of this Forum. If they want to ban me, that's fine with me.

I reserve the right to not have to extensively footnote every idea which I may have derived from my years of studying the Christian faith and the Bible. Take it to the moderators.

At times I have refered people to writings. I am not here trying to impress you with "Look at me everybody. I can say something original !!"

If you have counter arguments, make them. If you don't and you want to start a discussion on plagerizm or on Witness Lee, go open up another thread.

Originally posted by jaywill
If you are directly quoting a source, you should cut and paste (if possible) and give the source. If you are deriving almost all of your points from a source but changing the words around a little bit, you should still give the source. I'm sorry you're not aware of these rules, but anything else is giving the false impression that you are doing your own w you want to start a discussion on plagerizm or on Witness Lee, go open up another thread.

Another reason to credit your sources is that many people don't feel like debating someone who only uses cut-and-pastes instead of their own words. If you clarify which words are yours and which ones are not, people have fair warning, and they tend to believe your own words are really yours. If you do not, it will eventually be discovered that you're using borrowed words and nobody will take your posts seriously. (There are some damn good researchers on here, so it's only a matter of time!)

Originally posted by jaywill
The Gospel writers certainly did not try to make a convenient teaching for themselves. Myth makers I would expect to remove difficulties from their lives rather than add them.

Here are some things again which they attributed to their Master which would not make life easy for themselves:


1.) Thinking about a sin is sinful, implicating everyone. T ...[text shortened]... n from heaven to burn up a belligerent city.

My vote is that Jesus really taught it.

Not a single one of those precepts is terribly original; everyone is present in Eastern traditions that existed centuries before Jesus was born (and probably pre-date even that).

Of all of the 'points' made so far, how many can also be found in the Qu'ran. If so does this point towards the authenticity of the Qu'ran?
What about other 'scriptures' from other religions /sects?

Originally posted by jaywill
I do not mean I am voluntarily abandoning the use of reason.

It means that in my reasoning process I am including rather than excluding the Person, the power, and the presence of God.

Rather than reasoning without taking what God is and can do into account, I reason taking into account what God is and what God can do.

Do you mean that your reasoning processes presume God exists?

Why is that rational?