Originally posted by frogstompWhatever,
After you have read his next post, ask me again, and I might tell you why I won't...... that is, if you already haven't figured it out.
Some people say that the rock upon which the Christian church is built is Peter - the stone.
To say that Christ's church is built on the Devil Satan is an idea only the most dull of readers could imagine.
Originally posted by jaywillTell that to Whodey , or better yet try understanding the NT yourself.
The person who asks if the Christian church is built upon Satan is not really interested in understanding the New Testament. I think such a person is interested in misunderstanding the writing of the New Testament as thoroughly and as extensively as possible.
Originally posted by frogstompYour right, I mean, just because everyone else on the face of the planet does not read the NT the way you do in no way reflects the possibility that you might be wrong. 😛
Tell that to Whodey , or better yet try understanding the NT yourself.
Originally posted by jaywillI agree. The church needs more rock hard Peters.
Whatever,
Some people say that the [b]rock upon which the Christian church is built is Peter - the stone.
To say that Christ's church is built on the Devil Satan is an idea only the most dull of readers could imagine.[/b]
Originally posted by frogstompSince you're much clearer on the NT than I am help me by giving me at least three passages attributed to the speaking of Jesus where He Himself tells us why He is to die.
Tell that to Whodey , or better yet try understanding the NT yourself.
Could you give me three passages where Jesus Himself explains why He must die?
Originally posted by jaywillYes, but that is beside the point. Here's what I mean:
Is there some basis upon which you think N.T. authors, on general principle, should not be considered?
Zander 88 asked: "Are there any other books/sources beside the bible that record Jesus's history?"
To which Brimon replied: "Yes, For example, Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian, wrote of Jesus; so did Cornelius Tacitus, a Roman historian - amongst others."
So my question to him was what others?
Now to be accurate, Zander 88 didn't specify that the sources had to be contemporary accounts, but I think he implies it with his followup question: "Do we know without a doubt that Jesus did in fact exist?"
The answer is no, we do not know without a doubt, from the perspective of historicity. In fact, from a strictly historical perspective, as others have noted, we can't state without a doubt anything about the past.
What we can treat of are probabilities. That is, we can say that based on the evidence available and what we believe to be the best framework of historicizing/interpreting it, it's probable that x occurred.
And no, Jaywill, here x means the variable. It's not a fearful stand-in for "Jesus."
In order to have the best shot at determining probable history, you want evidence that exhibits the following three characteristics to the greatest extent possible:
1. You want evidence/source material that is as close time-wise to the purported events as can be had. By this measure, the Gospel of Mark (probably initially written around 30 years after Jesus's death) is a better historical source for the life of Jesus than the Gospel of John (written around 60 years after Jesus's death). The further away from the events you get, the greater the likelihood that inaccuracy is introduced.
2. You want evidence/source material that is independent of other sources. That is, you want the eyewitness accounts to be free of borrowings from other accounts. Again, Mark's a better source than the other gospels. The typical scholarly view is that the author of Matthew redacted the Gospel of Mark. That is, he borrowed some source material from Mark's Gospel and incorporated into his own writing. Matthew is thus not an independent source in those instances where the two Gospels tell the same story, and it would fail this test. Mark fares better in this test, but likely was not written by someone who witnessed every event narrated therein.
3. You want evidence/source material that is unbiased toward a particular slant on the events. One reason that Josephus gets trotted out in these discussions is that from what little we know he was not a Christian, but neither did he have any particular grudge against them. He comes across as comparatively balanced. The N.T. authors, on the other hand, were believers, and were writing for believers, often with the explicitly stated purpose of bolstering their faith. As an analogy, consider the typical internal newsletters sent by a corporation to its employees. To be sure, there is important information there, and things that will benefit the reader. The goal, though, of writing and distributing such a document is to promote harmony and community (or productivity, to extend the bidness analogy) among those who read it. It's an "Up with Our People" kind of effort. The public message delivered by the CEO in that newsletter concerning the health of the corporation is very likely different from that which an independent consultant might provide in a private review of the company. In that sense, the newsletter would fail the test of bias. So do the texts of the New Testament.
Now, there's little chance that any one document from this time will satisfy all three criteria perfectly. The aim remains the same, though. Historians are in the business of establishing what probably happened in history, and to do that they must deal in certain kinds of evidence.
Back to the point: the New Testament gospels were written decades later by people who borrowed from each other and who wanted to build the faith. Some would say that these facts don't impinge on their theological value (i.e., their usefulness for the purposes of faith and godliness). As historical sources, though, they are problematic.
Does that make sense?
Originally posted by blakbuzzrdWell we can't "prove" that smoking causes cancer either but being a little honest with ourselves combined with a little common sense does wonders in coming to the conclusion that it causes cancer. That is, of coarse, unless you really, really, really enjoy smoking or enjoy the porfits you get from selling cigaretts. In such a scenerio, it is increasingly likely that you will come up with arguments to counter the notion that smoking causes cancer and we see it today.
Yes, but that is beside the point. Here's what I mean:
Zander 88 asked: "Are there any other books/sources beside the bible that record Jesus's history?"
To which Brimon replied: "Yes, For example, Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian, wrote of Jesus; so did Cornelius Tacitus, a Roman historian - amongst others."
So my question to him was what o rical sources, though, they are problematic.
Does that make sense?[/b]
Originally posted by whodeyTrue, but I'm not falling back on the whole "how can we know anything with our human perception" argument.
Well we can't "prove" that smoking causes cancer either but being a little honest with ourselves combined with a little common sense does wonders in coming to the conclusion that it causes cancer. That is, of coarse, unless you really, really, really enjoy smoking or enjoy the porfits you get from selling cigaretts. In such a scenerio, it is increasingly li ...[text shortened]... come up with arguments to counter the notion that smoking causes cancer and we see it today.
The smoking analogy isn't valid here: the assertion that smoking causes cancer is a present-tense declaration. You're saying x does y, right now. You can produce empirically verifiable evidence in a laboratory to support your suggestion that smoking causes cancer. With the proper tools, environment, and expertise, you can conduct the experiment yourself if you don't believe someone else's report on it.
Fundamentally, saying "smoking causes cancer" is making a different type of truth-claim than saying "2000 years ago, a Jewish rabbi healed a blind guy and fed 5,000 people." Miracles aside, you just can't reproduce the events. There's no empirically reproducible data to be had.
Originally posted by jaywillMaybe you can discern his words from these quotes.
Since you're much clearer on the NT than I am help me by giving me at least three passages attributed to the speaking of Jesus where He Himself tells us why He is to die.
Could you give me three passages where Jesus Himself explains why He must die?
one: O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me:
nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
two: But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?
three: My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
But as I say, Maybe you can't.
Frogstomp
But as I say, Maybe you can't.
The question really is - Can you? As evidenced from your answers below.
one: O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me:
nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
I don't see any explanation from Jesus in this passage as to WHY He must die. I see Him saying that it is the Father's will that must be done. But I think you could find a clearer verse pertaining to WHY this will of the Father must be that He die.
Thanks for your efforts anyway.
two: But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?
I see not much reason here either as to why Jesus must die. It does say that the scripture must be fulfilled. But there is no reason in this passage as to WHY this fulfillment of scripture in Christ's death is to be actualized.
Thanks again for your efforts.
What's your third example?
three: My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
That's simply a prayer of Christ asking why God has forsaken Him. There is no explanation there as to why He must die.
I don't think your three samples are that good. At most all one could ascertain from them is:
one: Jesus died because He had to "drink the cup" so to speak. That doesn't tell us much.
two: Jesus died so the Scriptures would be fulfilled. That doesn't really tell us much about the why.
three: Jesus died because God His Father forsook Him.
That doesn't tell us much about the why.
There are much clearer verses from the mouth of Jesus explaining why He has to die.
Originally posted by jaywillLuke 22:31 has Jesus telling Peter that Satan desires to sift him like wheat but Christ prayed for him that his faith would not fail him. So if Peter is Satan, why is Peter trying to sift himself from himself, and/or why would Christ pray that Satan not be able to sift himself?
Whatever,
Some people say that the [b]rock upon which the Christian church is built is Peter - the stone.
To say that Christ's church is built on the Devil Satan is an idea only the most dull of readers could imagine.[/b]
I don't really think froggy believes this, I think he just enjoys messing with us.
Originally posted by blakbuzzrdHave it your way. Evidence is only as good as it is able to be empiracally reproducable. However, I do not concur.
True, but I'm not falling back on the whole "how can we know anything with our human perception" argument.
The smoking analogy isn't valid here: the assertion that smoking causes cancer is a present-tense declaration. You're saying x does y, right now. You can produce empirically verifiable evidence in a laboratory to support your suggestion that smok ...[text shortened]... ust can't reproduce the events. There's no empirically reproducible data to be had.
blackbuzzrd,
I'm likely to reply in a couple of seperate posts.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
1. You want evidence/source material that is as close time-wise to the purported events as can be had. By this measure, the Gospel of Mark (probably initially written around 30 years after Jesus's death) is a better historical source for the life of Jesus than the Gospel of John (written around 60 years after Jesus's death). The further away from the events you get, the greater the likelihood that inaccuracy is introduced.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I read from Norman Geisler that there are ten non-Christian sources who attested to the existence of Jesus within 150 years of His life on earth. There are nine who attest to the life of Tiberius Ceasar within 150 years of his life. Would you say the there is as ample attestation to the historicity of Jesus as there is to the Roman Emporer during his time, Tiberius Ceasar? Remember, 10 for Jesus verses 9 for Tiberius Ceasar (within 150 years of the respective lives).
The latter authorship of John’s Gospel than Mark’s does not necessarily have to mean John was fuzzier on the details and introduced mistakes.
If Christ did rise from the dead and continued to be experienced by the disciples (as Jesus taught would be the case), John’s deepened and matured experience of the resurrected Christ may have caused him to emphasize certain aspects of Christ’s life which Mark did not. He chose his material for a specific reason and acknowledges that there are volumes of other things he could have written. These other things probably included matters which Mark had already covered:
”And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that not even the world itself could contain the books written” (John 21:25)
The cataclysmic impact of the deeds and words of Jesus on John caused him to admit that he could not possibly write all of the wonderful things that Jesus did. The world itself could not contain all the books written. He has carefully selected some of these deeds and words to emphasize his point:
”Many other signs therefore Jesus did before His disciples, which are not written in this book. But these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:30,31)
John also tells us that some things done by Jesus were not appreciated by the disciples until latter. He says that at the time they did not understand a matter spoken by Jesus. It is possible that as they matured in their spiritual walk in latter years they were enlightened more concerning matters that Jesus spoke.
We do the same thing. One man might relate details about his experience in summer camp as a 13 year old one way at the age of 15. At the age of 45 greater insight may be had on events that ocured and he now elaborates on those events. The gospel writers were as a team. That a senior member recollected some different details to an earlier recollection does not have to mean that the latter’s memory was fuzzier. He may have his own reasons for emphasizing details previously unmentioned by another.
In addition, it is quite possibly the case that John late in life finally wrote down accounts which he verbally uttered for years previous. While Mark was writing his gospel John may have been verbally preaching on his own recollection of those three and one half years. All we know is that he WROTE it down after Mark wrote his account down.