No Stomach for N.T. Wright (but what about J.P. Holding?)
N.T. Wright on page 290 of The Resurrection of Jesus Christ seems to be admitting the obviousness of a biblical contradiction that many biblical inerrantists (like J.P. Holding for instance) seem loathe to admit. Before reading the passage from N.T. Wright one needs to know which verses he is referring to. They are from a Pauline letter and one of the earliest New Testament discussions concerning what "resurrection" meant, i.e., Paul wrote in 1st Corinthians 6:13 & 15:50, "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God," and, "Food is for the stomach, and the stomach is for food; but God will do away with both of them." About such teachings N.T. Wright wrote:
"There is that about the body which will be destroyed; in the non-corruptible future world, food and the stomach are presumably irrelevant. So, for that matter (since food and stomach point metaphorically here to sexual behaviour and sexual organs) will human reproduction be irrelevant. Paul is again treading a fine line here, since he wants to say simultaneously both that the creator will destroy the bits of the body which are being touted by some in Corinth as those to do what they like with and that there is bodily continuity between the present person, behaving this way and that, and the person who will be raised to new bodily life."
To comment on Wright's comment, one need only note that the two last Gospels (Luke and John) abandoned Paul's earlier teaching and depicted scenes in which the resurrected Jesus "ate fish" and declared himself "not a spirit," but one "having flesh and bone." Which makes one wonder whether Paul might not have found such late Gospel depictions of the resurrected Jesus "heretical" had Paul lived long enough to read them.
Speaking again of N.T. Wright, in his latest book he preaches that Christians will be resurrected in a new body to live on a new earth, which raises all sorts of questions. Will people be raised with or without sex organs? Will resurrection bodies have the anatomy of Barbie dolls? (In which case, how "PG-rated," finally a "family friendly creation!") Why have that stuff between your legs for eternity if it's to be of no use?
On the other hand, Christians like C. S. Lewis hoped there would be "sex" in the afterlife. And we'd probably require organs of some sort if we were resurrected in "physical bodies" and inhabiting a "new earth." Of course some people might not like being stuck with the same physical organ they once had on earth, either because of its size or shape, or they might like to imagine trying out a different sex organ entirely rather than only having had the experience of one. And what about people born in the old creation with a bit of both sexual organs, the "inter-sexed?" Will God reassign them a gender specific organ after they are resurrected? (Again, a nice PG-rated cosmos, safe from any gray or blurry areas.)
And speaking of a "family friendly" cosmos, how "family friendly" will it be if you can't raise families in it? If new creation resurrcted bodies have sexual organs can the gonads function and conceive children? "Post-resurrection new creation babies?" Such babies wouldn't be born in a fallen cosmos but would have all the advantages of being born in a "new creation" -- all the food, love, and daily miracles anyone might ever hope to see from birth onwards. A bit of an advantage I'd say over all the damned in hell born after Adam's fall.
Of course if giving birth is NOT an option in the "new creation," then God has sterilized the chosen for eternity. (Which is a bit funny after all the lessons Christians keep telling us on earth that sterilization is wrong.)
CONVERSATION OF A SEMI-REBELLIOUS QUESTIONING CHRISTIAN WITH GOD AFTER BEING RESURRECTED IN THE NEW CREATION: "Hey God! Thanks for the resurrected body! Glory! Hey where's my? Oh wait, I've still got it (whew). Does it still work? Yes? But I'm shooting blanks for eternity? I can't make babies? In the old creation You told us to procreate and to have kids which were a tremendous blessing. Now you want us to have sex for pleasure with no baby-making even possible? Weird how you reversed the rules. Almost sounds like a resounding wet dream victory for Hugh Hefner and the sexual revolution. Can we have cosmic orgies too? No? I see. So we have to do it for eternity with one spouse, or "spouses" if we'd thought ahead like king Solomon and married a couple hundred while living in the old creation. What if we died without choosing a partner but were still looking for one? Can we date in the new creation? Is heavy petting an option in the new creation? Can we continue dating till eternity ends without settling on any one partner? Oh, and thanks for sterilizing me, since the only children I WAS able to conceive never "came to Jesus" and are now roasting down below. No point risking letting me conceive more souls to fill hell, I guess. So thanks for the blessing of knowing that the only kids I will ever be able to conceive throughout eternity are suffering horrible pains forever."
Then Adam steps up and whispers in my ear, "Tell ME about it."
"There is that about the body which will be destroyed; in the non-corruptible future world, food and the stomach are presumably irrelevant. So, for that matter (since food and stomach point metaphorically here to sexual behaviour and sexual organs) will human reproduction be irrelevant. Paul is again treading a fine line here, since he wants to say simultaneously both that the creator will destroy the bits of the body which are being touted by some in Corinth as those to do what they like with and that there is bodily continuity between the present person, behaving this way and that, and the person who will be raised to new bodily life."
To comment on Wright's comment, one need only note that the two last Gospels (Luke and John) abandoned Paul's earlier teaching and depicted scenes in which the resurrected Jesus "ate fish" and declared himself "not a spirit," but one "having flesh and bone." Which makes one wonder whether Paul might not have found such late Gospel depictions of the resurrected Jesus "heretical" had Paul lived long enough to read them.
Speaking again of N.T. Wright, in his latest book he preaches that Christians will be resurrected in a new body to live on a new earth, which raises all sorts of questions. Will people be raised with or without sex organs? Will resurrection bodies have the anatomy of Barbie dolls? (In which case, how "PG-rated," finally a "family friendly creation!") Why have that stuff between your legs for eternity if it's to be of no use?
On the other hand, Christians like C. S. Lewis hoped there would be "sex" in the afterlife. And we'd probably require organs of some sort if we were resurrected in "physical bodies" and inhabiting a "new earth." Of course some people might not like being stuck with the same physical organ they once had on earth, either because of its size or shape, or they might like to imagine trying out a different sex organ entirely rather than only having had the experience of one. And what about people born in the old creation with a bit of both sexual organs, the "inter-sexed?" Will God reassign them a gender specific organ after they are resurrected? (Again, a nice PG-rated cosmos, safe from any gray or blurry areas.)
And speaking of a "family friendly" cosmos, how "family friendly" will it be if you can't raise families in it? If new creation resurrcted bodies have sexual organs can the gonads function and conceive children? "Post-resurrection new creation babies?" Such babies wouldn't be born in a fallen cosmos but would have all the advantages of being born in a "new creation" -- all the food, love, and daily miracles anyone might ever hope to see from birth onwards. A bit of an advantage I'd say over all the damned in hell born after Adam's fall.
Of course if giving birth is NOT an option in the "new creation," then God has sterilized the chosen for eternity. (Which is a bit funny after all the lessons Christians keep telling us on earth that sterilization is wrong.)
CONVERSATION OF A SEMI-REBELLIOUS QUESTIONING CHRISTIAN WITH GOD AFTER BEING RESURRECTED IN THE NEW CREATION: "Hey God! Thanks for the resurrected body! Glory! Hey where's my? Oh wait, I've still got it (whew). Does it still work? Yes? But I'm shooting blanks for eternity? I can't make babies? In the old creation You told us to procreate and to have kids which were a tremendous blessing. Now you want us to have sex for pleasure with no baby-making even possible? Weird how you reversed the rules. Almost sounds like a resounding wet dream victory for Hugh Hefner and the sexual revolution. Can we have cosmic orgies too? No? I see. So we have to do it for eternity with one spouse, or "spouses" if we'd thought ahead like king Solomon and married a couple hundred while living in the old creation. What if we died without choosing a partner but were still looking for one? Can we date in the new creation? Is heavy petting an option in the new creation? Can we continue dating till eternity ends without settling on any one partner? Oh, and thanks for sterilizing me, since the only children I WAS able to conceive never "came to Jesus" and are now roasting down below. No point risking letting me conceive more souls to fill hell, I guess. So thanks for the blessing of knowing that the only kids I will ever be able to conceive throughout eternity are suffering horrible pains forever."
Then Adam steps up and whispers in my ear, "Tell ME about it."
48 comments:
As a healthy heterosexual, I find it very strange that Jesus (whether straight or gray) would not have masturbated or at least had wet dreams (he might as well had, but it was just omitted as "sinful"). Although the Gospels try and portray Jesus as asexual, the reality of his very human nature must have at least given Jesus some type of sexual drive which had an emotional outlet.
In Matthew 5:28 Jesus states in: “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” is very problematic for the heterosexual male, but easy to understand if one is indeed gay. Fact is, Jesus never condemns homosexuality, plus Jesus himself is found in a compromising situation in in Gethsemane as recorded in Mark 14: 50-52 : “And they (his disciples) all left Him and fled. And a certain young man was following Him, wearing nothing but a linen sheet over his naked body; and they sized him. But he left the linen sheet behind, and escaped naked.” Exactly why this “young man” was there at Gethsemane and why he was naked (covered only with a shirt σιδονα επι γυμνος or translated as “shirt upon nakedness“). This event leaves open the question of whether Jesus himself was indeed not only gray, but involved with teenage boys as the Greek term “νεανισκος” certainly leaves open. Also, it’s not an angel in the tomb in Mark 16:5, but again, a νεανισκος / young male wearing only a white rob that greets the women. Although there are a number of problems with Morton Smith’s “Secret Gospel of Mark”, the relation with Jesus and the male gender remains very troubling and even more so by the way evangelicals use the Bible to attack the gay community.
Ed- I, too, have wondered how the Bible deals with intersex individuals. After all, many of the rules are different for men and women- how do they apply to people with, say, Turner's or Klinefelter's syndrome?
This is, of course, part of a larger problem: when should people be held responsible for their actions, and when should they be exculpated? As has been pointed out on other threads here at DC, there is no easy line to draw. This problem alone constitutes a defenestration of the concept of "sin", imho- there simply is no way any given action by any given person can be defined as either being "sinful" or being "not sinful".
We relativists don't have that problem, but we do have the practical problem of drawing lines: laws must be formulated, criminals must be judged, hard decisions must be made. Religions, in my view, are not any different in this regard: they, too, draw lines to get the work of building society done. The only real difference between religious and secular laws, is that religion says the laws are absolute, and are enforced by a Big Guy in the Sky. This has the advantage of giving a bigger stick to the Lawgiver, if people are credulous, but has numerous disadvantages too, obviously.
Now Christianity is being debunked because some are upset about the apparent lack of sex in the new age...?
Are you serious?
Jason: yes, Christianity is debunked because of the apparent lack of sex in the new age. It's one of thousands of entry points which, when considered with all of its ramifications, can be developed into a good argument against Christianity.
Here's another, a quote from The Last Battle by C.S. Lewis, at the end of the book when all the good children are in Heaven and marveling at the wonderful fruit: "And there were no wasps". I guess there were no figs, either, unless God fertilized them himself.
It may seem strange to you to consider such concepts as debunkers, but they are giveaways for a worldview that is concocted of good (and bad) dreams, and is riddled with internal contradictions, as dreams are.
If either of us was inclined to think in those terms, I'd attribute it to divine providence that you posted on this almost simultaneously with me posting about Jesus' response to the Sadducees' question about marriage and the resurrection. I hope that this conversation and the one I hope my own post will generate can intersect in interesting ways.
lol And how exactly does the lack of sex in the kingdom "debunk Christianity"?
It seems Jesus had an incorruptible stomach when he was resurrected and ate food, but Wright says that in a world where we all have the same sort of resurrected body that Jesus had, then stomach and food would be irrelevant.
Clearly stories of Jesus eating and drinking just did not exist when Paul was writing, or else he would never have claimed that stomach and food would be destroyed.
Jason- lack of sex in the Kingdom debunks Christianity because the Kingdom is supposed to be perfect, and how can a world without sex be perfect?
How can a world without sex be perfect??? This is the most ridiculous argument against Christianity I've ever heard. Bar none. The lack of sex in the Kingdom doesn't make anything imperfect. It simply means sex is no longer necessary.
You guys must be out of brilliant ideas.
While I think the notion that the ramifications of this somehow could be used (in any way) to discredit Christianity to be rediculous, it is an interesting conversation. If one takes a look at the medieval church there were all sorts of odd conversations concerning what the ressurected body would be like (I even had to write a paper on the possible "options" that were discussed. Anyhow, as I say, interesting stuff. The historian Catherine Bynum has written a fair amount about the different views.
Jason- do you know of any physical pleasure greater than sex? I sure don't. How can the Kingdom be perfect if the greatest of all physical pleasures is lacking? And just saying that sex is "unnecessary" is ridiculous. You may not be aware of this, but it's quite possible to have sex without having children, so how can sex be considered "unnecessary"? Life is "unnecessary" too.
Zilch,
So you're debunking Christianity by arguing the non-existence of physical pleasure in the Kingdom. In other words, because you can't have sex whenever you want, Christianity is a myth. Is that about it?
Would it surprise you if there were people out there who valued things more the sex, such as, say, immortality or happiness?
No, Jason, I don't claim that Christianity is a myth because I can't have sex whenever I want. I'm not that unashamedly greedy- every once in a while is enough for me. I just think that God has done a surprisingly poor job designing Heaven if there's no sex there.
And no, it doesn't surprise me that there are people who value happiness more than sex- I'm one of them, seeing as sex is only a small part of happiness. As far as immortality goes, I would value that too, if I thought that it existed. But since I don't, I don't.
Zilch,
Christians believe immortality exists and they also seem to be just fine with the Kingdom as described in the Bible, sans sex. You don't. That's fine. But Christianity isn't being debunked with this. Your opinions on the value and necessity of sex and how you think the Kingdom should be setup aren't valid arguments based on evidence. It's conjecture. Hence my expression of surprise at the fact this topic is even being discussed.
Hi Jason,
My main point was as Steven Carr pointed out, the difference between Paul's early view of the resurrection "spirit body" and the view found in the lattermost two Gospels that depict Jesus in all too physical terms, not a spirit at all, but having flesh and bone and eating fish.
My secondary points were that Christians do not agree whether or not there will be "sexual" contact in the afterlife. They may agree that marriage is no more, but what about sexual contact? C. S. Lewis argued in favor of it. *smile*
And the other points I made were comparing the "reversals" in the afterlife. The afterlife is all PG-rated apparently, and you cannot bear children, and according to N.T. Wright sex also will be off the menu. So we'll all be sterilized by God and even neutered after spending a lifetime on earth being told by our religious leaders of the importance of creating families and of the blessings of having plenty of children.
First Of all, I see I go away for a minute and you anti-Christ advocates are still “gone wild” with hatred over the TRUE Lord and Savior (Jesus Christ) the one that even your knees will bow to and your stammering tongue will confess.
In light of your hatred, Harry you ought to be ashamed...You refrence Mark 14:50-52 and "suggest" that Jesus was a Pederest. You say the word "νεανισκος" leaves open the mystery of Jesus sexual appetites.
In truth, the word "νεανισκος" or "neaniskos" referred to a servant or attendant. This could have been any one of the disciples not called by name. So I will agree that we don't know who specifically he is, but there is no reason to make the leap that you do...Like Fido trying to get a bone...
In order to make a convincing argument the word used would have to be "paiderfastis" or a variation of "arsenokoit" which are the words of the NT that indicate homosexuality and more specifically if this were talking about a young male prostitute or sexual servant, the word "malakos" would have been used as it was in 1 Cor. 6:9 by Paul.
So in short your argument is VERY unconvincing and not based on any good interpretive that would have been used and more commonly addressed the issue. Jesus wasn’t a sissy!
So far as the "Secret Gospel Of Mark" it was way too late, out of place historically and full of all kinds of contradictions within itself. The very notion that women have to be “changed” into a man in order to be pleasing to God is clearly taught in the verses, is an incredulous idea and something that you find no place in scripture. No scholar believes that the Secret Gospel Of Mark makes any convincing arguments in any shape towards Christianity or Christian practices. Other than the High Christology that it holds it has nothing to do with the Jesus of the NT. Just another gnostic gospel.
Jason...I TOTALLY agree, the whole premise of this argument is based on sex in the future promised kingdom...That's the most RIDICULOUS argument against Christianity I've ever heard...There’s no way an argument like that debunks anything.
Mr. Ed~ I'll be nice and only suggest that Paul was 100% correct, and contrary to your arguments, there is no conflict or problems. Former atheist C.S. Lewis had all right and reasons to be hopeful for the future.
Why?
I Cor. 2:9 ~ “But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him” which is a restatement of
Is. 64:4 ~ “.For since the beginning of the world men have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him” and
Is. 65:17~ “For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.”
Sex or no sex, the Christian has a GREAT hope of wonder. The Atheist has NOTHING.
The real argument here is the part about ..."Flesh and Blood" It seems that when you atheists finally leave the church you either forget or didn’t know basic Bible.
Simply “Flesh and Blood” will not and does not inherit the kingdom of God...but "Flesh and Bone" does. You seem to miss the symbolism and retreat to a literal position here. The teaching is based on a common understanding that both the Pharisees had and that Jesus taught and Paul (being a Pharisee affirmed) a bodily, physical resurrection from the dead. Paul said what he said because he knew exactly what Jesus knew...the scriptures that Life after the flesh was in the blood.
Lev. 17:11a~ "For the life of the flesh is in the blood".
“Blood” is not an essential element of the resurrection life
I Cor. 15: 51-53 ~ “Behold, I shew 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 trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.”
Corruption is in the “blood” or the life of the flesh. Our resurrected state does not consist of that corruption.
You point out that Jesus ate etc. as an indicator of his fleshly desires, but the scriptures did not say that he ate because he was hungry. (Chew on that)He ate for identity and commonality with his disciples as he had done for over 3 and a half years. You also failed to point out what Jesus said in Lk. 24:38-39 to agnostic Thomas,
“And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.”
Then he goes on to eat etc.
A resurrected body is not a spirit, but it is a spiritual body. Jesus displays this clearly. There is a difference.
Personally, I don’t need all questions answered before hand, I’m going to be glad to unfold the mystery one step at a time. One thing we know
I John 3:2 “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.”
My future is bright, what about yours backslider?
This one is so that I will be aware of your followup. Thanks
The corruption is in the blood?
What is this?
The resurrected Jesus had no blood in him?
Evidence please.
Paul says 'the last Adam became a life-giving spirit'.
I guess all Christians can do is jump up and down and shout that Jesus was not a spirit.
And when Paul became a Christian, he remained a Pharisee, and had Pharisaical beliefs.
Such is the logic of Christians.
How can somebody be both a Pharisee and a Christian, as Mr. Burnett claimed Paul was?
I can only imagine the laughter of Christians if Muslims tried to claim there was a huge distinction between 'flesh and blood' and 'flesh and bone' to try to cover up a contradiction in the Koran.
Do Christians realise just how stupid they make themselves look by all this word-splitting?
Hey, Harvey! How's tricks? You say:
"First Of all, I see I go away for a minute and you anti-Christ advocates are still “gone wild” with hatred over the TRUE Lord and Savior (Jesus Christ) the one that even your knees will bow to and your stammering tongue will confess."
Now, I won't presume to answer for Harry or anyone else. But this comes up again and again: believers accusing atheists of hating God. Now, there are probably people who believe in God and hate Him, and there are certainly atheists who hate the concept of God, or religion, or what religion does. But in order to hate someone, you must believe they exist, or the whole thing is ridiculous. Do you hate the Tooth Fairy?
Let's say that I claim to have an improbable object- say, an ostrich egg. You say that you don't believe this ostrich egg of mine exists. I say that you hate my ostrich egg. Isn't this silly of me? By the way, I do have an ostrich egg- of course, just the hollow shell. And while it's perfectly reasonable of you, even if you happen to be wrong, to not believe in my ostrich egg, it would be unreasonable of me to claim that you hate what you don't believe exists.
The same is true of God: while I may be mistaken if I say He doesn't exist, you would be unreasonable to say that I hate Him.
Talking about what Jesus was like according to Scripture is a different issue altogether. While I might say that I find Harry Potter to be admirable, and Voldemort to be despicable, I don't "love" Harry or "hate" Tom, because they are characters in fiction.
Steven Carr~ You said, "The corruption is in the blood?
What is this?"
I'm sorry that you weren't introduced to these concepts (if you were a Christian) but it all goes back to the what Jesus said,
"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of 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. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." John 3:5-7
Couple this with Lev. 17:11a~ "For the life of the flesh is in the blood".
It should be easy to understand. Bllod is ONLY for this existence, NOT the spiritual or resurrected existence.
Steven Carr~ The resurrected Jesus had no blood in him?
[Obviously not...I'd like to know where you got the idea that he did]
Steven Carr~ Paul says 'the last Adam became a life-giving spirit'.
I guess all Christians can do is jump up and down and shout that Jesus was not a spirit.
[Quite to the contrary the dialogue actually goes like this, "So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." I Cor 15:42-45
["Spiritual" body deals with the resurrection. this is NOT Spirit body. His spiritual body as evidenced could appear/dissapear/be touched/feel/ eat/walk through walls etc. the verse you took out of this portion of scripture deals with, in context, the whole of both Jesus natural life and resurrection, but does not identify a physical form. That is addressed earlier as I've stated.]
Steven Carr~ And when Paul became a Christian, he remained a Pharisee, and had Pharisaical beliefs.
[Maybe we're talking past each other here or maybe you don't know Paul's own testimony. It goes like this to the Phillipians,
"Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. 8Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ," Phil. 3:4-8
or his testimony to Agrippa:
"My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews; Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee. And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers:" Acts 26:4-6]
Steven Carr~ "Such is the logic of Christians."
[Yes. Such is the logic of Christians to be able to set forth a coherent argument and support it. By the way there is a GREAT distinction between flesh and bone and flesh and blood and the evidence is set forth in scripture. Jesus told Thomas Carr...to touch his body, NOT feel or see his blood.
The notion that blood is necessary or even implicated as being present in the resurrection is ridiculous...THAT'S LAUGHABLE!]
Zilch~ I'm gonna have to read more to understand what you're saying...All I get is that you're an atheist, who says that you don't hate God because he doesn't exist and that you can't hate what doesn't exist.
Now what you're saying couldn't be true because the atheist can't say with complete certainty that God doesn't exist unless he excercises faith to do so, and at that point he is excersing faith against something that he really believes in.
So I'm at a loss in your contradictions.
All I know is that God DOES exist and you hate the very though that he does.
IF Harvey Burnett said Jesus said blood was corruption, it just means that both he and Jesus were talking rubbish, not just him.
Flesh and bones cannot pass through walls.
Anybody who says otherwise is living in a fantasy world, and is not worth talking to.
Paul, of course, regarded his Pharisee beliefs as 'garbage' after he converted.
This is why he said Jesus became a spirit, and that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.
'So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit."'
Of course, all of those 'it's are not there in the Greek.
Christians change the words of Paul, who said Jesus became a spirit, and never said one word about corpses rising.
Paul preached the destruction of the body, not its salvation.
2 Corinthians 5 'For we know that if our earthly dwelling, a tent, should be destroyed, we have a building from God, a dwelling not made with hands'
Paul preached the destruction of the body, because he knew that corpses were not raised.
Hence his claiming that Jesus became a spirit.
And Paul trashed the idea that resurrected beings are made from the dust that corpses dissolve into 'The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven. I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God...'
Paul regarded heavenly things like a resurrected being as being as different to earthly things as a fish is different to the moon.
Paul gives a whole host of categories of different things - man, animals, birds, fish, the sun, the moon - none of which turn into each other, to stress to the Corinthians that a resurrection did not involve a corpse turning into a resurrected being.
Steven Carr~ "IF Harvey Burnett said Jesus said blood was corruption, it just means that both he and Jesus were talking rubbish, not just him."
[Ad Hominem - Then rubbish it is]
Steven Carr~Flesh and bones cannot pass through walls.
[Maybe not in your antisupernaturalist world, but it happened Lk. 24:36, Jn.20:19, Jn. 20:26. Only way Jesus could get in with the doors closed is either to walk through a wall or a closed door (effectively a wall)]
Steven Carr~ “Anybody who says otherwise is living in a fantasy world, and is not worth talking to.”
[Ad Hominem]
Steven Carr~ “Paul, of course, regarded his Pharisee beliefs as 'garbage' after he converted.”
[Not entirely accurate, he regarded what he had gained by way of earthly accolades, recognition, and desires to achieve as dung.
Phil. 3:7-8 ~ "But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,"
This is the modern day equivalent of a promising CEO of a multi-billion dollar company, quitting his job spontaneously to do something totally different with his life. He didn't loose his mind, but he did have to trash some of his Pharisaic beliefs and teachings in order be what Christ wanted him to be.]
Steven Carr ~ "This is why he said Jesus became a spirit, and that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God."
[Flesh and blood can't, so I don't know what the problem is.]
Steven Carr~ “ Of course, all of those 'it's are not there in the Greek.”
[And the POINT is???? Doesn’t matter…meaning is NOT changed]
Steven Carr~ “Christians change the words of Paul, who said Jesus became a spirit, and never said one word about corpses rising.”
[The passages in question are generally agreed both by conservative, liberal and skeptic scholars to NOT be interpolations. Well maybe you haven’t read them but Paul talked about Jesus corps rising:
First, Phil. 3:10 – "That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;"
There’s no need to use word "resurrection" if there is no death.
Secondly, Paul Believes in believers corpses rising,
I Thess. 4:16 “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:”
Third Paul recounts Jesus's death and RESURRECTION and states others who’ve witnessed the same.
I Cor. 15: 3-7 “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles."
Steven Carr~ you said, "Christians change the words of Paul, who said Jesus became a spirit, and never said one word about corpses rising."
[As I’ve demonstrated, that statement and others you’ve made to the same affect are NOT accurate. To be precisely accurate Paul taught that the body was ALREADY dead because of sins...
Rom. 8:10-11 "And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you."
Ooh, there is yet ANOTHER reference to resurrection in that verse also. "raised up CHRIST from the DEAD".
By the way N.T. Wright has written one of the MOST definitive works on this subject, The Resurrection Of The Son Of God (Fortress 2003). He turned down ALL of Bultmann's fallacious arguments and all of the current popular criticisms quite handily.]
Thanks fellas, I'll see you round the way!
Zilch~ I'm gonna have to read more to understand what you're saying...All I get is that you're an atheist, who says that you don't hate God because he doesn't exist and that you can't hate what doesn't exist.
So far, so good, Harvey. However, I would not claim 100% certainty that God doesn't exist, just as you cannot claim 100% certainty that Santa Claus does not exist. But I don't believe in God, just as you don't believe in Santa.
Now what you're saying couldn't be true because the atheist can't say with complete certainty that God doesn't exist unless he excercises faith to do so, and at that point he is excersing faith against something that he really believes in.
With all due respect, Harvey, I think a course in remedial logic might be in order here. How is the atheist "exercising faith against something he really believes in"? Does your doubt about the existence of the Tooth Fairy mean that you "really believe" in Her?
So I'm at a loss in your contradictions.
You're at a loss at my contradictions? I'm flabbergasted at yours.
All I know is that God DOES exist and you hate the very though that he does.
Maybe Santa does exist after all, and you are him. Do you know when I am sleeping, when I am awake, when I've been bad and good too? If not, where do you come off claiming to know that I hate the thought that God exists? I've certainly never said so, and unless you can read my mind, you are just spouting nonsense.
I'm sorry to be so blunt, and you might be a very nice person for all I know, but when you claim to know my thoughts, that's just arrant arrogance.
Zilch ~ "So far, so good, Harvey. However, I would not claim 100% certainty that God doesn't exist, just as you cannot claim 100% certainty that Santa Claus does not exist."
[Now, Santa may not be the best possible refrence, because a person Saint Nicholas Of Myra that was called Santa one time existed. So I believe that he existed BASED on the evidence.
That leads me to my next statement, I KNOW that God exists BASED on consideration of ALL the EVIDENCE which includes the historical record, the record of testimony, independent historagraphical evidences, cosmology, the ontological record, archaeological record, the biological record, the record of personal testimony and witness (which CANNOT) be excluded {----although you atheists love to do except when YOU'RE the one testifying}...and a whole host of other evidences.
In this list, there are disputed evidences, but they cannot be thrown out because of "supposed" conflicts without considering cross-testimony, which for over 2,000 years has been done and arguments against such evidence has been amply REFUTED. Does Dr. Simon Greanleaf ring a bell?
So in short, my 100% certainity is based on consideration of ALL available evidence, critical examination of that evidence, reasonable interpretation of that evidence and a trust aka faith STEP.
In order to be an atheist, you must be omniscient and omnipresent, but since you are not, you must excercise FAITH against ALL evidence that your position is viable. Your less than 100% assurance is evidence that whatever percentage is left is the percentage of FAITH for you. Therefore it takes MORE faith to be an atheist than to be a Christian. C.S. Lewis had an epiphany of the same proportions...this is one reason he left atheism to become one of the greates Christian evangelists. Lee Strobel the same.]
Zilch~ "But I don't believe in God, just as you don't believe in Santa."
[Aaaahaaa! You were wrong!-LOL)
Zilch ~ "I'm sorry to be so blunt, and you might be a very nice person for all I know, but when you claim to know my thoughts, that's just arrant arrogance"
[I know exactly what you're feeling and saying now, only that we do want this forum to remain free of profanities-LOL!]
Later Zilch...I'll catch you 'round the way.
Okay, Harvey. You may have noticed that I did not say "St. Nicholas", but rather "Santa Claus". You know, the one with the elves and the reindeer. That's the default Santa Claus in normal conversation, so you are being disingenuous. What if I told you that chocolate is god, but not tell you that I mean the Swedish word "god", which means "good"? Or do you believe in Santa Claus (and Rudolph) after all?
You may be 100% certain that God exists, but so what? That's not what we were talking about. You claimed that I hate the thought that God exists, and that since an atheist cannot say with 100% certainty that God does not exist, that means that he "really believes" in Him. Both these claims are ridiculous, as I pointed out. And they're both ridiculous, regardless of whether God exists or not. And I'm sure God would back me up on this.
Harvey stated: “So far as the "Secret Gospel Of Mark" it was way too late, out of place historically and full of all kinds of contradictions within itself. The very notion that women have to be “changed” into a man in order to be pleasing to God is clearly taught in the verses, is an incredulous idea and something that you find no place in scripture.”
I have not been at this post in awhile and I now find our religious nut, Harvey Burnett, running wild and throwing out proof texts totally out of context everywhere.
Harvey, where did you get your copy of the Secret Gospel of Mark? Morton Smith never reveled his copy and it proved to be his down fall as for as his credibility on the subject.
Secondly, you have totally have confused the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas with Smith’s Secret Gospel of Mark. In the closing section of Thomas (Logia 114) Peter ask Jesus about Mary going to Heaven with the men and Jesus responds that he will make Mary a man so she can enter the Kingdom.
“Simon Peter said to them, ‘Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life’.”
“Jesus said, ‘I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven’”.
As for a Jesus sex life goes, I’ll do a new post on it.
Harry M~ "I have not been at this post in awhile and I now find our religious nut, Harvey Burnett, running wild and throwing out proof texts totally out of context everywhere."
[Ad Hominem,Ad Hominem,Ad Hominem,Ad Hominem,Ad Hominem,Ad Hominem,Ad Hominem,Ad Hominem,Ad Hominem]
say that real fast and you'll sound like you're speaking in tongues...try it again...
[Ad Hominem,Ad Hominem,Ad Hominem,Ad Hominem,Ad Hominem,Ad Hominem.]
Harry my pal you ARE correct. I misspoke, I was thinking of "The Gospel Of Thomas" and the sex-change information when I accredited that to Morton Smith's Gay affirming, never produced, version of "The Secret Gospel Of Mark" which most scholars do not believe to be authentic in any way.
But I love it when you talk to me like that...makes me feel warm and fuzzy all over!
Look forward to the next post so I can generate more heartfelt feelings...
Peace Out Harry!
Sorry if this is a double posting, but the first one seems to have disappeared into the void.
-Harvey Burnett wrote:
"That leads me to my next statement, I KNOW that God exists BASED on consideration of ALL the EVIDENCE which includes the historical record, the record of testimony, independent historagraphical evidences, cosmology, the ontological record, archaeological record, the biological record, the record of personal testimony and witness (which CANNOT) be excluded {----although you atheists love to do except when YOU'RE the one testifying}...and a whole host of other evidences...So in short, my 100% certainity is based on consideration of ALL available evidence, critical examination of that evidence, reasonable interpretation of that evidence and a trust aka faith STEP."
Dear Harvey,
If you're 100% convinced that these old fables are true, based on 3rd and 4th hand testimony from ancient and ignorant men, then it would appear that you are very gullible indeed.
Coincidentally, I just happen to own a bridge which I need to sell rather quickly, and which I'm prepared to let go at a very reasonabe price...
“Flesh and Blood” will not and does not inherit the kingdom of God...but "Flesh and Bone" does...“Blood” is not an essential element of the resurrection life...Corruption is in the “blood” or the life of the flesh. Our resurrected state does not consist of that corruption."
Are you seriously suggesting that the resurrected Jesus was a bloodless zombie?
I have another more plausible theory.
Maybe Jesus just needed to have a blood transfusion en-route to his heavenly abode, in order to 'juice himself up' with the right stuff before he got home.
After all, imagine Jesus travelling all the way up to heaven, and then discovering that his dad wouldn't let him back in the house because he had 'bad blood'. What a wasted trip that would have been! :D
LOL. I've read some pretty whacky apologetics in my time, but yours just about takes the cake. Please don't stop, I need the laughs.
Dingo~ "If you're 100% convinced that these old fables are true, based on 3rd and 4th hand testimony from ancient and ignorant men, then it would appear that you are very gullible indeed."
[Not exactly Dingo...I'm 100% convinced based on ALL the evidence as I said...In addition, you're 3rd and 4th hand refrences, (whoever they might be) aren'tpart of the foundation of Christianity...we have eyewitness testimony and FIRST hand accounts, by people of all educational and social statuses. So your statements are discernably and historically inaccurate, which is dissapointing since you've heard so many apologists setting the record straight...Now, I have some swamp land in Az. that maybe you,d like to do a land swap with me for that bridge, it'll only cost you a easy $50,000.]
Dingo~ "Are you seriously suggesting that the resurrected Jesus was a bloodless zombie?"
[Where did you get that from Dingo? I certainly don't believe in zombies, but most movies I've seen they at least bleed and do not communicate other than bite...Jesus certainly was never portrayed as a zombie...except by atheists like you.
I'm still trying to figure out why any of you think blood is needed in heaven?...NOW THAT'S A LAUGH MR. ATHEIST]
Harvey Burnett wrote:
"we have eyewitness testimony and FIRST hand accounts, by people of all educational and social statuses."
I defy you to show me even one eyewitness testimony.
and,
"Now, I have some swamp land in Az that maybe you,d like to do a land swap with me for that bridge.."
Sorry Harvey, but I'm not buying at the moment.
and,
"Jesus certainly was never portrayed as a zombie...except by atheists like you."
I beg to differ. Read this.
John 20:
[26] Eight days later, his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. The doors were shut, but Jesus came and stood among them, and said, "Peace be with you."
[27] Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing."
So the resurrected Jesus invited Thomas to poke a finger into his post-mortem wounds (which still hadn't healed), yet you are claiming that he was not some kind of re-animated zombie?
If the resurrected Jesus was not some kind of freakish zombie, then just how would you describe a zombie?
You and the Bible have described a bloodless corpse walking around asking people to stick their fingers into his murder wounds, and yet this wounded, undead creature is somehow not a zombie?
Pull the other leg Harvey, it plays jinglebells.
and,
"I'm still trying to figure out why any of you think blood is needed in heaven?...NOW THAT'S A LAUGH MR. ATHEIST"
Oh for crying out loud Harvey, it was a joke. I no more believe that Jesus flew to heaven (with or without his blood), than I believe that Dorothy and Toto followed the 'Yellow Brick Road' to visit the Wizard of of Oz.
You asserted that a person's resurrected body would be made of flesh and bone, but without any of their tainted blood.
To my mind, that conjures up images of bloodless zombies wandering around the Earth asking people to stick their fingers into their stab wounds.
Besides which, I didn't say it, the Bible did. I'm just pointing out to you what the Bible actually says. And if you don't believe me, then simply re-read the verse from the gospel of John which I posted just above this.
Dingo ~ "I defy you to show me even one eyewitness testimony."
[Dingo, I don't have much time but I'll only reference. Lk. 1:1-5 "1-Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2-Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3-It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4-That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed"
What we learn from study and research is that what Luke received was from the "eyewitness" Peter.
Further Matthew is an "eyewitness" and John, who could be John the Elder, is an eyewitness and yet there are countless others who received direct testimony from eyewitnesses.
Even Papias Pre-100AD traces what he received and perpetuated back to "eyewitnesses"
Look, Richard Bauckham laid it out excellently in "Jesus and The Eyewitnesses"(Erdmans Publishing 2006)... That will be one of the best current refrences, not to mention older writings by Dr. Simon Greanleaf and more current ones by Dr. Philip Johnson who were both lawyers.
There's AMPLE eyewitness testimony.
You also yet hold on to the claim that Jesus was portrayed as a zombie.
In my research it is said that a Zombie is one that has died and been reanimated with a loss of free-will and speech...Miriam-Webster 2006 as confirmed through Wickipedia.
As you said the scripture quotes are these: John 20:
[26] Eight days later, his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. The doors were shut, but Jesus came and stood among them, and said, "Peace be with you."
[27] Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing."
1- Jesus is RESPONDING to comments that Thomas made BEFORE he was physically present in the room. 2- Jesus is communicating (TALKING)greeting them in a hospitable and customary manner. and 3- He interacts within the conversation and is not under a divination or control of someone else.
Your use of Zombie is INACCURATE and does not match up to the actual evidence and testimonial record of events in ANY way, shape or form.
Finally, since there is no parrallel, the body of Jesus is more akin to how Paul described it, "a mystery", both with physical and immaterial aspects.
My God man...if someone were trying to hand you a check for $100,000 would you fight that as much?
This may blow away your preconceived notions or false assumptions that you've been taught, but we sometimes learn something new everyday.]
Also you may want to study this because FYI zombies are metaphysically impossible.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/8lr2335344255316/
As I said Jesus WAS NOT a zombie. Neither did he need blood.
Thanks, I'm out.
Harvey, that 'proof text' from Luke doesn't help your case at all. Read the verse again carefully.
Luke doesn't claim to be an eyewitness. All he's claiming is that the stories he's about to tell were purported to have been handed down in the beginning by eyewitnesses. He doesn't tell us who any of these supposed original eyewitnesses were, or how he came about his information, how many hands these stories had passed through before they got to him. He's simply passing on heresay.
He also says that "many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us". Many others? How many others, and how long ago? This is nothing more than hearsay evidence at it's very weakest.
"What we learn from study and research is that what Luke received was from the "eyewitness" Peter."
Wrong Harvey. The legends spread about by early catholic bishops asserted that Mark was a follower of Peter, not luke. Luke is supposed to have been a follower of Paul. Of course there is no evidence produced for this beyond hearsay, and even this is disputed among Bible scholars.
"Further Matthew is an "eyewitness" and John, who could be John the Elder, is an eyewitness and yet there are countless others who received direct testimony from eyewitnesses."
Wrong again Harvey.
Nowhere does Matthew claim to be an eyewitness, and modern Bible scholars nearly unanimously agree that Matthew was not in fact an eyewitness. We have no idea who wrote the gospel of John. Bible scholars generally agree that the gospel of John was written somewhere around the end of the first century. The author could not possibly have been an eyewitness. Moreover, the hypothesis that the author of the gospel of John, was 'John the Elder' is pure speculation with absolutely no evidence to back it up beyond even later hearsay.
"Even Papias Pre-100AD traces what he received and perpetuated back to "eyewitnesses"
Wrong yet again Harvey. Papias was merely passing on hearsay information like everyone else you have referred me to. In fact Papias was proclaimed, even by some of his close contemporaries, as being a notoriously unreliable source of information. Most of what we know about Papias, comes from the early church historian and propagandist Eusebius.
"Eusebius held Papias in low esteem, but accounts of his motivation differ... Eusebius calls Papias "a man of small mental capacity" (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.13), who mistook the figurative language of apostolic traditions."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias
Another problem you have with producing Papias as a reliable source of information is that he lived far too late to have gotten any of his information from eyewitnesses. "Eusebius,... suggests that he wrote about AD 115. It has been usual, however, to assign to his work a date c. 130-140, or even later." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias
Anyway, to further answer to your claim about Papias having access to eyewitnesses, please read these short extracts.
Papias describes his way of gathering information:
"I will not hesitate to add also for you to my interpretations what I formerly learned with care from the Presbyters and have carefully stored in memory, giving assurance of its truth. For I did not take pleasure as the many do in those who speak much, but in those who teach what is true, nor in those who relate foreign precepts, but in those who relate the precepts which were given by the Lord to the faith and came down from the Truth itself. And also if any follower of the Presbyters happened to come, I would inquire for the sayings of the Presbyters, what Andrew said, or what Peter said, or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which Aristion and the Presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, were saying. For I considered that I should not get so much advantage from matter in books as from the voice which yet lives and remains." Thus Papias reports he heard things that came from an unwritten, oral tradition of the Presbyters, a "sayings" or logia tradition that had been passed from Jesus to such of the apostles and disciples as he mentions in the fragmentary quote." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias
About the origins of the Gospels, Papias (as quoted by Eusebius) wrote this:
"Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor
accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." It is questionable, however, that the documents which Papias knew as the Gospels of Matthew and Mark are the same ones that we have today: Matthew is a narrative, rather than a sayings gospel with commentary, and most modern scholars reject the thesis that it was originally written in Hebrew. The Gospel of Mark is most certainly chronological, and so it
cannot be the same document which Papias is describing unless it has been heavily edited." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias
As is evidenced in the extract quoted above, we do not even have Papias' own words on the matter. Here he is being quoted by the equally notorious early church historian Eusebius who's writings date from around 300 AD.
"There's AMPLE eyewitness testimony."
Only in your own mind Harvey.
"1- Jesus is RESPONDING to comments that Thomas made BEFORE he was physically present in the room. 2- Jesus is communicating (TALKING)greeting them in a hospitable and customary manner. and 3- He interacts within the conversation and is not under a divination or control of someone else. Your use of Zombie is INACCURATE and does not match up to the actual evidence and testimonial record of events in ANY way, shape or form."
I've been taught that jesus always acted in accordance with the will of his father in heaven, and was in fact raised from the dead by his father in Heaven. Wouldn't that suggest that this DID put him under the control of someone else? But I'll let you split that particular hair for yourself.
Good effort Harvey, but I'm still not buying what you're selling, I'm afraid that it smells a bit off.
To Dingo ~
Brother, you’re really crampin’ my style. I had not intended to get in a drawn out convo on this issue, but since you persist, I’ll at least give you one or two more passes.
First of all, let’s deal with Luke. You said "Luke doesn't claim to be an eyewitness. All he's claiming is that the stories he's about to tell were purported to have been handed down in the beginning by eyewitnesses."
[That’s what I said. Since Luke is repeating the story he is affirming that it is the same story which was delivered from the beginning to THEM (HIM) by the eyewitnesses DISCIPLES. V.2- "Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;" The word "beginning" (autoptai) or "eyewitnesses from the beginning" (ap’arches autoptai) which a word phrase used to indicate "that an eyewitness had been presented throughout the events from the appropriate commencement of the author’s history onward." (Jesus and The Eyewitnesses, R. Buckham , Eerdmans 2006 pg. 119)
Ie: the current scholarship affirms this was based on a FIRST HAND observer of events or those with personal FIRSTHAND experience. Further "Luke’s first phrase in v.2, almost certainly refers to a single group of people, not two groups." J.A. Fitzmyer, "The Gospel According To Luke I-IX"(Ab 28-New York Doubleday 1981)pg 294...
Let’s explain another nugget here, Luke’s "investigation" (parekolouthekoti) v. 3 DOES NOT indicate that Luke had to go on some mission to find information. Careful study of the use of the word in parrallel literature, especially the same word used by Josephus, indicates that (parekolouthekoti) was used to confirm that one "thoroughly understands" what one is setting forth. - Moessner, (“The Appeal”, 84-123) This amptly affirms Luke’s intent and reliability of the information of which he is writing (has written).
But let’s not stop there, let’s look at the second half of Luke, or Acts 1:21-23. It reads,
"21-Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. 23And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias."
Lets go out a little further shall we?...When looking for a replacement disciple, they (the current disciples) wanted someone 1- who had been there from the beginning (went in and out among us) 2- and were a "eyewitness" to the resurrection. V. 23. said they looked out and called 2 men, Justus and Matthias...the word "beginning" is (Arxamenos) is used often to indicate what it indicates here, a sure connection and link back to the ministry of Jesus himself while he was yet alive in Galilee. This same word is used again in Acts 10:36, and John 15:26-27 (in variation) which basically carries the same meaning that "beginning" indicates those with historical knowledge or experience of a situation. (I paraphrased that definition)
Eyewitnesses of Jesus were not an all inclusive group of 12 disciples exclusively. There were AMPLE "eyewitnesses" as I stated and by this discourse have proven. There is no reason to have an extremist view as you have along this line of reasoning. The text in multiple places could not be more plain.]
Dingo~ “He also says that "many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us". Many others? How many others, and how long ago?”
[Although these are unessential elements and questions to the verification that HE...LUKE...received "eyewitness testimony" it should help expand you idea that the multiple people mentioned here could have been also "eyewitnesses" of the events since they also set forth to tell what they knew. Further information is clearly explained in my previous commentary]
Dingo~ “Wrong Harvey. The legends spread about by early catholic bishops asserted that Mark was a follower of Peter, not Luke. Luke is supposed to have been a follower of Paul. Of course there is no evidence produced for this beyond hearsay, and even this is disputed among Bible scholars.”
[One thing I will give you is that you are correct and I had it wrong, and I do that from time to time. (not on purpose however, but trying to move too fast) By tradition Luke traveled with Paul and was in Jerusalem in probably 61 to 62 AD to write this narrative, however what is missed is partially what I’ve discussed earlier. It is unreasonable to believe that he (LUKE), was a “Johnny-come-lately” and unfamiliar with the historical Jesus and “eyewitnesses” before Paul’s 2nd and 3rd missionary journeys. More reasonably, he (Luke) came to Paul already seasoned in both the tradition, historical narratives and information that Paul would consequently use in ministry during the journeys.
Any lack of evidence for this is not problematic as those points do not address the issues at hand, as the record clearly states that it was not a daily journal or all inclusive historical account of the complete life of Jesus.]
Dingo~ “Nowhere does Matthew claim to be an eyewitness, and modern Bible scholars nearly unanimously agree that Matthew was not in fact an eyewitness.”
[ “…Matthew,like Mark received unanimous testimony in the early church as to it’s authorship,” “…if the impulse to ascribe authorship to an apostle could overcome conscience, this still doesn’t explain why Matthew’s name is always assigned to the first Gospel. After all, he was not a major disciple. Why then is his name-and only his name- associated with the Gospel that stands first in the New Testament. Unless we want to be totally selective picking and choosing from the Fathers we like and don’t like, we might want to give them the benefit of the doubt in these matters" "Reinvinting Jesus" (Komo, Sawyer, Wallace, - Kregel 2006) pg. 139-140.
Additionally, "That this Gospel was written by the apostle Matthew there is no reason to doubt. Seventeen independent witnesses of the first four centuries attest its genuineness." William Smith; revised and edited by F.N. and M.A. Peloubet, "Smith’s Bible dictionary Logos Library System", (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 1997
Yep, debated, but not nearly as bad as you and critics like you make it seem. Are you a sensationalist too? Because your argument is not based on the best available facts]
Dingo~ “Eusebius calls Papias "a man of small mental capacity" (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.13), who mistook the figurative language of apostolic traditions."
[Now you are duped like most critics into believing that Eusebius was calling Papias dumb, but you totally overlook what Eusebius was saying. Notice the end, “who mistook the figurative language of apostolic traditions."...What were those traditions that Eusebius thought that Papias did not understand or misinterpreted?
Primarily, Papias was a millenarian who expected a paradise on Earth at the second coming of Christ. 2- probably because Eusebius didn’t like some of what Papias wrote about NT origens. (R. Bauckham “Jesus and The Eyewitnesses” (Eerdmans 2006) Pg. 12-13)
In other words Eusebius wasn’t saying that the man was dumb…he was saying that his was “simple” in his expectations and what he consequentely set forth.
Atheists always mischarecterize this in order to deemphasize what Papias actually said because he was in a good place (location) (early time) and set forth information regarding Matthew and Mark that do not exist elsewhere and more importantly traces their writings back to FIRST HAND WITNESS...THE DISCIPLES THEMSELVES.
More? Papias was associated with one of the daughters of Deacon Philip who was one of the 7, and as a third generation Christian learned the stories of the Apostles from Philip himself(Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.9)
We know that Papias was active during the reign of Trajan 98-117 CE and before Ignatius suffered martyrdom in 107CE. Papias quotes from 1Peter, 1 John and The Gospel of John there’s no need to date his narrative any later than 110 CE conservatively. If , by virtue that you still argue a later date for Papias writings (130 CE), (which we know approximately how old he was when written) this would have to place Papias’s birth as early as 50 CE which would clearly make him personally accessible to eyewitnesses and other 1st generation Christians. Either way your assessments and dogmas are unresearched and are based on partial truths and do not add to a full understanding of the best possible reconstruction of actual historical events]
Dingo~ “I've been taught that jesus always acted in accordance with the will of his father in heaven, and was in fact raised from the dead by his father in Heaven.”
[Dingo, I’m glad that you were taught something that at least you remember correctly...Hurray!...I’m so proud!”]
Dingo~ “Wouldn't that suggest that this DID put him under the control of someone else? But I'll let you split that particular hair for yourself.”
[Actually, Dingo that made Jesus "submit" and "humble" himself to the will of the Father which he did even BEFORE he died on the cross and was raised. Good references are
Jn. 4:34 “Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.”
And
Phil. 2:8-11 “And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9-Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10-That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11-And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
And
1 Cor. 15:28, “And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.”
Now, the bloodless wounds (which you can’t quite seem to get over) were for identification. If Jesus had shown up with no wounds YOU and EVERY ATHEIST in the world and every Muslim by the way, would have said...I TOLD YA SO...HE WAS NEVER CRUCIFIED WHERE ARE THE WOUNDS?
Jesus took away your argument without bleeding all over the place...because there would never need to be another blood atonement EVER!]
Dingo~ “Good effort Harvey, but I'm still not buying what you're selling, I'm afraid that it smells a bit off”
I don’t know what off “smells” you have over there but I hope the truth has cleared the air…Just so you’ll know, I’m not prude so I get the jokes and I do appreciate the exchange of ideas.
Dear Harvey,
I appreciate all the effort you've gone to in researching this stuff, but you still have yet to produce any undisputed eyewitnesses.
Much of what you wrote in your previous post is based upon pure speculation, or later Catholic traditions.
What reason do I have for trusting a bunch of ancient Catholic Bishops about who may or may not have written the gospels? After all, they aren't known for having been particularly thorough or honest in much of their scholarship.
The vast majority of contemporary academic Bible historians (ie. those working in university positions) agree that we have no eyewitness testimony for any of the gospel stories, and that none of our current gospels were written by eyewitnesses. I am aware that some New Testament authors claimed that their stories originated from eyewitnesses, but that doesn't neccessarily make it so.
For example, if Matthew really was an eyewitness, then why did he feel the need to borrow most of Mark's (earlier) gospel, and incorporate it into his own?
If Luke was really working from eyewitness testimony, then why did he feel the need to do the same?
Dingo~ Thanks and I appreciate the additional points that you've made.
One observation, when we discuss historical narratives such as this we often superimpose our western view of society and culture on the texts. I've done it before and at times have to step back, do the best to place myself in the "shoes" and understanding of the 1st century Jew so that I can better appreciate what was actually being done or said.
I guess what I'm trying to say with this is that it is important for us to know that Oral history and tradition DID NOT function like Roman oral tradition (which was given to great embellishments) and that there was a higher local standard on certain aspects of living as a Jew in that day than we have traditionally given credit as we read the bible.
Preservation of "eyewitness testimony" was a big thing to the Jew because it was their history. This type of preservation was common to many eastern religions and is not an exclusive trait of Judaism or early Christianity. This is why the modern scholar can proceed to apply the same standards to the Jews and early Christians.
Since we know that the first Christians were primarily Jews, it would be unreasonable to believe that they were any less faithful to their methods of preserving information although their traditions were undergoing change.
Form criticism does not take this into account when making their assessments of the record. Their are many things both done and said historically that if we look at form only we will not get a complete or full understanding, BUT when we place the cultural value to the situation, it makes sense.
Eyewitness Testimony was that way. It was a valuable and essential and part of the preservation of the story and cultural history and helped things make sense...writing books and taking credit WAS NOT as important thing to do in that day as it is in western culture.
Hearing the story from a first hand perspective was the RAGE and was preferred over written material which did not offer the inflection, mood, and other expressions that drove home the significance of what actually happened.
Now, these are observations based on ongoing study in the field. There is an overwhelming wealth of information that is arising. so the points I'm making are more than just speculation and offers a better and more accurate reconsrtuction of history than previous notions have offered. whether this is in favor of Christianity or not, don't we want the most accurate possible reconstruction of history?]
Dingo~ "What reason do I have for trusting a bunch of ancient Catholic Bishops about who may or may not have written the gospels?"
[I understand the sentiments, but what reason do you have to disbelieve what they historically asessed? I mean under what basis do we essentially "throw out" evidence that helps add to uncovering the truth? In seeking truth we can't just arbitrarily pick and choose evidence, it all must be taken into consideration.]
Dingo~ "The vast majority of contemporary academic Bible historians (ie. those working in university positions) agree that we have no eyewitness testimony for any of the gospel stories, and that none of our current gospels were written by eyewitnesses."
[As I've said and proven (by referring to some of the BEST in the field currently) that is inaccurate. There are some such as the Jesus Seminar and other liberals who gather to disagree, but the majority of Christian Scholars agree that the gospels and biblical records have a high level of "eyewitness" testimony. In addition, as I've said Dr. Simon Greanleaf (former)Harvard University and Dr. Philip Johnson are among the leaders as it pertains to testimony and eyewitness accounts. Both were lawyers and their arguments are highly persuasive and are foundations for many of the understanding that we currently have regarding the testimony of eyewitnesses.]
Dingo ~ "I am aware that some New Testament authors claimed that their stories originated from eyewitnesses, but that doesn't neccessarily make it so."
[Those "authors" that you refer to are Leading Scholars in the field. The liberals who oppose are certainly NO MORE credible than the scholars who agree...What makes a negative position more credible? It's a faulty assumption that liberals should be given a more or better benefit of the doubt. That approach, once again, is not how evidence is gained or accurate scenarios are reconstructed historically.]
Dingo~ "For example, if Matthew really was an eyewitness, then why did he feel the need to borrow most of Mark's (earlier) gospel, and incorporate it into his own?
If Luke was really working from eyewitness testimony, then why did he feel the need to do the same?"
[This is a completely different issue and one that I will not debate here only to say that what you infer is that there was common material and experience that was shared...
Look at this for a minute...I am active in my community on many differnt fronts. One day not long ago, I was asked to give 2 television interviews and a radio interview...all were regarding the same topic...NONE of the interviews were the same. In fact one station got way more information than another and the radio got even different information. They were on the SAME topic. In all of that, there was some common information because I was the source. The details varied but there was some common information.
Did the reporters share inforamtion with each other? NO.
Would we expect some of their reporting to be the same? Yes, because it was from the same source.
Would we even expect some of their words to be the same? Yes, because the language was the same even though the people were different.
Now, top this off with having each report translated into another language. Do you think that some of the translators would use the same or similar words in translation as it pertained to highly similar inforamtion and occurances?
The stories show, common material, similarities that we would expect, and dissimilarities that we would expect to see also.
What most atheists suggest is that the gospels were a scheme or grand conspiracy. This does not line up with the historical record we find not only in the text, but elsewhere and aside from all that, if it were a scheme, they obviously weren't smart enough to cover their tracks. These assumptions are absurd.
Once again, this is extreme criticism and is unwarranted unless there was a reason to be extreme...that reason would be because of a presuppositional bias against the narrative and against any eventual evidence that would be uncovered.]
Thanks Dingo. I'll wait for your last word here and we'll rap again.
Harvey Burnett wrote:
"In addition, as I've said Dr. Simon Greanleaf (former)Harvard University and Dr. Philip Johnson are among the leaders as it pertains to testimony and eyewitness accounts. Both were lawyers and their arguments are highly persuasive and are foundations for many of the understanding that we currently have regarding the testimony of eyewitnesses."
Simon Greenleaf? The same Simon Greenleaf who died in 1853?
Phillip Johnson? Do you mean the fanatical creationist lawyer who works for the 'Discovery Institute', and who tried to sneak creationism into public school science classes under the guise of 'intelligent design', and who is responsible for the infamous 'Wedge Document'? Give me a break Harvey. He's hardly a credible source for accurate, dispassionate historical analysis. These guys aren't Bible scholars, they're lawyers who also happen to be fanatical religious apologists. Their 'scholarship' is on a par with the likes of Josh Mcdowell and John Warwick Montgomery. I hope you'll excuse me if I ignore their opinion when it comes to matters relating to Christian origins and the formation of the New Testament cannon, as they're hardly qualified to offer any kind of worthwhile opinion on the subject.
"Those "authors" that you refer to are Leading Scholars in the field. The liberals who oppose are certainly NO MORE credible than the scholars who agree...What makes a negative position more credible? It's a faulty assumption that liberals should be given a more or better benefit of the doubt. That approach, once again, is not how evidence is gained or accurate scenarios are reconstructed historically."
I believe they are more credible. A lot more credible in fact. The historical method, much like the scientific method is a very effective tool for sorting out fact from fantasy.
The historical method is how we go about sifting what is probably true from what is probably false. It is precisely how evidence is gained and historical scenarios are reconstructed accurately. Your understanding of the historical method seems to be 180 degrees backwards Harvey. I fear that you have allowed your religious convictions to overide your rational judgment.
"I guess what I'm trying to say with this is that it is important for us to know that Oral history and tradition DID NOT function like Roman oral tradition (which was given to great embellishments) and that there was a higher local standard on certain aspects of living as a Jew in that day than we have traditionally given credit as we read the bible."
Early Christians were not given to great embellishments? You've got to be joking! Please consider this little example of legendary embellishment. From Papias no less.
"Papias apparently recorded the most outlandish claims as if they were true, such as the fact that Judas' head bloated to greater than the width of a wagon trail and his eyes were lost in the flesh, and that the place where he died maintained a stench so bad that no one, even to his own day, would go near it (from book 4 of the Expositions, quoted by Apollinaris of Laodicea, cf. footnote 23 in M p. 53)." - Richard Carrier 'The Formation of the New Testament Cannon'
If that doesn't count as a 'great embellishment', then I'll be buggered sideways and hung with a wire rope.
Ancient writers were given to relating all sorts of fantastic tales, and the early Christians were no exception. Have you conveniently forgotton about all the apocryphal gospels, all the apocryphal acts of the apostles, all the fabricated letters, and all the other blatant forgerys which were falsely penned in other peoples names (Pseudopigrypha). These kinds of spurious writings absolutely flooded the literature of early Christianity. That's the very reason why the Catholic Bishops felt that they had to put a stop to it by setting a definative cannon in the first place.
"What most atheists suggest is that the gospels were a scheme or grand conspiracy...if it were a scheme, they obviously weren't smart enough to cover their tracks. These assumptions are absurd."
I didn't say the gospels were a scheme, but I do believe that they were written to be propaganda documents rather than history.
And yes, I do believe that they weren't smart enough to cover their tracks.
Dingo~ Thanks man for the debate. You raised a few new points in this post that weren't on topic but I'll be glad to debate those later. Namely,
1- Historical Critical method...Come here (paste link below)and I'll be glad to have an extensive debate with you on that any time.
http://dunamis2.wordpress.com/antisupernaturalism-historical-critical-methodology/
2- Also about the Pseudopigrypha, and cannonization of scriptures, I'll be glad to open a forum at T-Web so we can get a good one going there. I don't currently have any plans to write about that at any one of my sites so we could open a totally new forum.
Anyway, let me know what you think and if I see a message on my site, we'll have at it then.
Thanks and God Bless...Yes I did say GOD!
Dear Harvey,
Thank you for the link to your website. I accepted your invitation to visit, and I would encourage other readers to do likewise. It's very well done and I must say that I'm impressed with all the work that you've put into it.
I read your articles entitled 'The New Ant-Christ Advocates', 'Anti-supernaturalism & Historical Critical Methodology Pts 1 and 2', and 'The Resurrection, A Historical Fact'.
In the comments section of 'The New Ant-Christ Advocates' article you wrote:
"That's how and what these people think. Ehrman believes Jesus was a real person but believes the written record we have is not only corrupt but late. Carrier, Doherty and others are so far out in left field, they say almost ANYTHING, just to make their point, and sell $$$ in books. They're NUTS!"
Those are strong words Harvey. Have you actually read all the arguments put forward by the likes of Richard Carrier, Robert Price and Bart Ehrman, or are you simply relying on what others have told you about them? I must confess that I find their arguments to be far more plausible and convincing than any religious apologetics I have ever read, including yours.
Assuming that you have actually read their work, then my question to you is, why do you feel so confident about rejecting their evidence, their arguments, and their conclusions?
I also noticed that you reject the principles of the 'Historical Critical Method', with it's accompanying 'Methodological Naturalism' (which I'll shorten to MN for the sake of convenience).
In one of your articles you describe MN as, 'an extreme a priori rejection of the supernatural'. You wrote: "the presupposition of historical-critical methodology or metaphysical naturalism is a system that leaves much to be desired if the objective is truth and discovery of actual historical events". :-O WTF? Surely you can't be serious?
If you reject the principle of MN, then you are rejecting the only tool we have for sifting fact from fantasy, and you can kiss goodbye to the idea of studying history in any meaningful sense whatsoever. If you reject the concept of MN, then you find yourself in the unenviable position of having to accept ANY wild claim which has been made by anyone in the past. Or do you only reject it when it comes to scrutinising your own particular favourite legends and miracle stories? You seem to be too intelligent to be advocating a complete rejection of MN, so I can only conclude that you favour the latter approach.
For instance, do you reject Papias' claim that, "Judas' head bloated to greater than the width of a wagon trail and his eyes were lost in the flesh, and that the place where he died maintained a stench so bad that no one, even to his own day, would go near it "? If you do you reject this claim, then why do you reject it? How CAN you reject it if you've thrown away the only tool we have for discerning that it might be a false claim?
Do you believe Josephus' claim that a cow gave birth to a lamb in the Jewish temple around the time of the Jewish/Roman war? If not, why not?
Can you see what a slippery slope you have ventured out upon when you dismiss MN out of hand?
Dingo ~ "Carrier, Doherty and others are so far out in left field, they say almost ANYTHING, just to make their point, and sell $$$ in books. They're NUTS!"
Those are strong words Harvey. Have you actually read all the arguments put forward by the likes of Richard Carrier, Robert Price and Bart Ehrman, or are you simply relying on what others have told you about them?"
[I always do my best to read in context to first see what another author is saying. Afterward I’ll read a critique to find out if my opinions and impressions were on point. What I have found is that these guys are at least very clear and unambigious about what they’re saying. If they know they’re wrong they are at least not afraid to say what they think, so their arguments are very clear.]
Dingo~ "Assuming that you have actually read their work, then my question to you is, why do you feel so confident about rejecting their evidence, their arguments, and their conclusions?"
[I also have found that they interpret most things, in fact everything, with a anti-supernatural presupposition...that’s why it appeals to you and most other individuals with naturalist bias. So that doesn’t surprise me that a naturalist would find their works appealing. I’ll deal with that and we can debate naturalism as a matter of learning BUT my problem with them is that they handle their observations frivolously. To read their work one comes up with the idea that there was a wholesale conspiracy of early Christianity. That is an alarmist and extremist view, and is unfounded by the best factual evidence available.
They claim to KNOW certain things that have been long disproven by excellent scholarship over the years. These guys are either totally disingaged with any historical literature and findings or intentionally handling information carelessly creating sensationalism and therefore USING their target market for DOLLARS. THAT is what I can’t stand. I don’t mind the disagreement but don’t mishandle the information and create issues when there are none and EXPECT Christians to view it uncritically. Further, because they are against Christianity makes them no more credible than if they were Christians. Atheists loose MOSTLY all of their critical thinking capacities when someone is in favor of their views. However when someone opposes atheism or is a theist, critical thinking is a must. Again, just another bias. Believe me...If you’ve read my site, you see that I think critically about Christianity especially within the African American community and what’s wrong is WRONG and I’ll call it so. So I’m not a “wash” because I’m a Christian. I get things wrong and when it’s brought to my attention I do my best to correct it. but I think Ehrman and the crew deserve a higher standard of critique even from you guys. With that said, I also believe he makes some valid points because too many Christians are preoccupied with the “letter” of the word instead of trying to pull what the intent of scripture is, but that’s another story]
Dingo~ "Or do you only reject it when it comes to scrutinising your own particular favourite legends and miracle stories? You seem to be too intelligent to be advocating a complete rejection of MN, so I can only conclude that you favour the latter approach."
[Not a complete rejection by no means. I agree that we should look for natural causes when a natural cause is available...but to go out of our way to deny evidence, or establish presuppositionally that "no amount of evidence would convince me otherwise" or to create some complete fantasy as an evidence that would be accepted, is an extremist view and one unworthy of a "scientific" approach to history. The claim of MN is a scientific claim, not a claim of faith. For instance, if a palentologist (Atheist or otherwise) just threw a skeleton out completely and simply because he didn’t “think” it should be there...both you and I and every rational person interested in science, around the world would have a fit...because we all know that’s not science.
For you and I to close our eyes and ears to personal testimony, current evidential claims which are no different and certainly no more sensational that historical claims is an extreme approach and unworthy of people who are really trying to get to the truth...IF we are truely using a scientific approach whic REQUIRES that all evidence be considered and it's plausibility weighed]
Dingo~ "For instance, do you reject Papias' claim that, "Judas' head bloated to greater than the width of a wagon trail and his eyes were lost in the flesh, and that the place where he died maintained a stench so bad that no one, even to his own day, would go near it?"
[I take Papias’s words in the sense in which it was intended. He was driving home the point that the scenario was ugly and even the land where the # 1 traitor of ALL TIME killed himself was no place that God fearing Christians wanted to venture even until his day. To hold the author’s rendering an analogous saying to a literal 1 to 1 interpretive is streaching things beyond proportion.
Look, today, it was hotter than satan’s toe nails outside. Now, will you hold me to literally meeting satan and takin’ the tempreature under his toe nails? No. You know I’m making an analogy, but even in that you know that there is a truth in it. It was extremely hot and by me invoking the name of satan, you would say I believed it was VERY hot. But to take me literally is extremist.Well, form criticism was not given to the study of dynamics. It is more fundamental in nature. So strict form criticism without study of dynamics is disingenuous to accurately disecting and understanding biblical texts. Most critics I’ve seen pay this NO attention at all. So far as Josephus, he NEVER claimed to speak for God and never claimed inspiration. I don’t criticize him but I approach what he says with the same historical criticism that anyone else would. I can say this. What he say’s never happened in the bible. There is nothing that ever produced anything that was not a like kind...If you choose to question this with a biblical text please be careful-(LOL)
Anyway, Thank you for the tough questions and serious engagement. What no one really understands is that I like to engage on this site. NOT because I wanna just slam every argument for Christ-(LOL)...I want to be a better Christian and I can’t overlook the fact that GOOD people for whatever reason are unbelievers. What I try to do is listen, read and study ways that I can be a better preacher, and if I am offering a bogus argument, get rid of it. Some of you guys experienced that one FAKE or that one STUPID message that started the whole process of turning and NOBODY cared. I don’t want to be that person, that doesn’t care. If I can’t help you, that’s OK, but maybe I’ll be better prepared to meet the next person in your shoes.]
Thanks.
Dear Harvey, thank you for your reply.
Referring to critical Bible scholars and historians such as Robert Price and Richard Carrier you wrote:
"I also have found that they interpret most things, in fact everything, with a anti-supernatural presupposition...that’s why it appeals to you and most other individuals with naturalist bias."
Yes, they're actually trying to do history, not apologetics, and they present some very powerful arguments in support of their claims.
"BUT my problem with them is that they handle their observations frivolously."
How so? I find their work to be anything but frivolous.
"To read their work one comes up with the idea that there was a wholesale conspiracy of early Christianity. That is an alarmist and extremist view, and is unfounded by the best factual evidence available."
There certainly were elements of conspiracy in early Christianity. Early Christians are known to have forged entire texts and tampered with existing texts to make them better fit their developing theologies (this is undisputed), and when Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire, then it became illegal for people NOT to convert to Christianity. Non Christians were persecuted and dispossessed by the church authorities, and their literature was burned. How could you NOT call that a conspiracy?
I'm afraid that you give the early Christians far too much credit for either their honesty or their ethics Harvey.
"They claim to KNOW certain things that have been long disproven by excellent scholarship over the years."
What kinds of things?
"These guys are either totally disingaged with any historical literature and findings or intentionally handling information carelessly creating sensationalism and therefore USING their target market for DOLLARS. THAT is what I can’t stand."
They are a lot less wealthy than many church pastors are, as your own website demonstrates. And what's wrong with them earning some money from the sale of their books? Isn't a workman entitled to earn a living from what he does?
"Atheists lose MOSTLY all of their critical thinking capacities when someone is in favor of their views."
I call bullshit on this one Harvey. Trying to get a group of atheists to all agree on any subject has been likened to 'herding cats'. What you must keep in mind, is that 'atheists' as a group only have one thing in common, the lack of a belief in a god or gods. That's all. Whatever else they might believe is entirely up to them as individuals.
"Believe me...If you’ve read my site, you see that I think critically about Christianity especially within the African American community and what’s wrong is WRONG and I’ll call it so. So I’m not a “wash” because I’m a Christian."
Yes I noticed that, and it's very commendable.
"I agree that we should look for natural causes when a natural cause is available...but to go out of our way to deny evidence, or establish presuppositionally that "no amount of evidence would convince me otherwise" or to create some complete fantasy as an evidence that would be accepted, is an extremist view and one unworthy of a "scientific" approach to history."
Who does that, apart from religious apologists?
"The claim of MN is a scientific claim, not a claim of faith."
Exactly, and that is why it works so well for sifting fact from fantasy.
"For you and I to close our eyes and ears to personal testimony, current evidential claims which are no different and certainly no more sensational that historical claims is an extreme approach and unworthy of people who are really trying to get to the truth"
Personal testimony is notoriously unreliable. Should a judge presiding over a legal case believe everything a witness tells him. Of course not. What he must do is sift the evidence to discover who might be telling the truth, and who might be lying.
"I take Papias’s words in the sense in which it was intended."
Are you suggesting that we take Papias' words as allegorical? Now THAT'S a stretch.
"So far as Josephus (goes), he NEVER claimed to speak for God and never claimed inspiration. I don’t criticize him but I approach what he says with the same historical criticism that anyone else would. I can say this. What he say’s never happened in the bible."
Josephus made a historical claim, the Bible makes historical claims, should we believe either of them just because they wrote it down?
So you admit that if something is written in the Bible, then you throw the historical critical method out the window and just swallow it hook line and sinker no matter how preposterous it sounds? But if it's not in the Bible, yet sounds equally as preposterous, then you use your reason, and either accept or reject it based on your common sense, and/or the work of professional historians? You're hardly being consistant are you Harvey?
For example, do you believe the 'Easter Zombie' story as told in the gospel of Matthew?
Matt. 27
[50] And Jesus cried again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit.
[51] And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom; and the earth shook, and the rocks were split;
[52] the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised,
[53] and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.
This is a preposterous story, but it's in the Bible. Does that mean you automatically believe it? If so, Why?
Thanks for the discussion Harvey, I'm enjoying it. You have caused me to reflect further on some of these issues, and for that I'm grateful.
Dingo~ "Yes, they're actually trying to do history, not apologetics, and they present some very powerful arguments in support of their claims."
[No. They actually EXCLUDE all supernatural intervention and make decisions based on partial evidences and presuppositional bias. Supernatural events cannot be excluded because we do not live in a closed continuum. Therefore their conclusions are flawed and then they handle their conclusions irresponsibly by not admitting what they left out]
Dingo~ "How so? I find their work to be anything but frivolous."
[I’ll show you another reason later in this response, but lets take Ehrman for a minute. In his book "Misquoting Jesus" he swears up and down that Mt. 24:36 ~ "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." Is a tampered with scripture because early and important manuscripts do not have "nor the son" included in this verse. He basically uses this to say that we have to rethink everything about Jesus because "nor the son" would change our fundamental understanding of the scope of his power and understanding on earth (paraphrased) (This deals with what is called the Prophetic Ignorance of Jesus)No where in the book or his other book "Orthodox Corruption Of Scripture" does he mention the parallel passage Mk. 13:32 ~ "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."
Why is that important? Because there is NO DISPUTE over the wording of the Mark passage and it clearly affirms that the FATHER only knows the “time” just as stated in Matthew. In either of his works, he does not mention the Mark passage AT ALL. Do you think he knew it...YES...do you think he was handling the passage frivolously and irresponsibly in light of what he KNEW...HECK YES! He basically built the case that there was wholesale information missing that could change what we think about Jesus. We actually find out that the message is clearly affirmed without the disputed “nor the son”. Both his statement and non-statement was intentionally constructed to deceive and create a synergistic sensationalism against the biblical text. TOTALLY IRRESPONSIBLE and FRIVOLOUS. This is just ONE example...most of his work is the same.]
Dingo~ "...when Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire, then it became illegal for people NOT to convert to Christianity. Non Christians were persecuted and dispossessed by the church authorities, and their literature was burned. How could you NOT call that a conspiracy?
I'm afraid that you give the early Christians far too much credit for either their honesty or their ethics Harvey."
[This is one of those “things” that true scholars KNOW has been debunked over the years. The Constantine conspiracy. This was the rage in “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” 1982 Bagent, Leigh and Lincoln. Their lie has been perpetuated by most anti-Christ advocates as if it were factual. regarding this they primarily set forth three arguments
1- Constantine authorized the scribes to set forth new versions of scripture with a wholesale recreation of the narrative to match public belief.
2- They wrote the scriptures to make Jesus a diety at that time
3- The bibles we have today are products of 4th century scribes and writers and as proof there IS no texts that predate 4th Century therefore IT’S A CONSPIRACY.
4- Anyone that would question this would be killed or seriously dealt with by the state, after all this is Constantine’s “baby”
EVERY one of these statements are patently false.
1- Constantine authorized 50 bibles in 331 AD after Diocletian made Christianity illegal in 303-311 AD and nearly stamped out all the writings. Constantine made Christianity legal again.
2- The diety of Jesus was already affirmed among Christians PRIOR to Constantine’s encouragement to resurrect the Biblical texts. (The next point reveals the rest)
3- Approximately 48 manuscripts representing nearly HALF of the entire New Testament exists (existed at that time ) in Greek Manuscripts dated PRIOR to the 4th Century AD. These manuscripts include scriptures that affirm the diety of Jesus in the following passages: Hebrews 8:1-200AD (P.46), John 1:1 & John 20:28- 175-225 AD (P, 66), John 1:1 early 3rd Cent. AD (P.75)
The statement in “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” that denied this extant knowledge is found on pg’s. 368-369. This is EXACTLY what they said,
"The importance of Constantine’s commission must not be underestimated. Of the Five thousand early extant manuscript versions of the New Testament, not one predates the fourth century. The New Testament as it exists today is essentially a product of fourth century editors and writers-custodians of orthodoxy,..."
That was a LIE and is unsupported in any way by the evidence. This lie has been perpetuated by most individuals looking for a reason to discredit the bible instead of finding the truth of history.
Now the question is do you deny this?
Are you given to the most plausible historical recording of events or are you merely one of the sensationalist crowd too?
4- Nicea WAS NOT about the deification of Jesus. As stated he (Jesus) was already held as deity.Nicea was ONLY to put down the controversy of Arius and to make a definitive proclamation throughout all churches as to HOW Jesus was deity. Constantine’s aim was to facilitate the process of unity by embracing Arians and encouraging unity of the church, but the statements of divinity were against Constantine’s wishes because they clearly excluded Arius which was AGAINST Constantine's plan and the results were solely centered on the biblical texts, as affirmed by the Bishops collective understanding of scripture. If Constantine had the "grip" that these advocates claim, doctrines would have been changed to reflect Arius's heresy...That was not the case.]
Dingo~ "Isn't a workman entitled to earn a living from what he does?"
[I don’t mind anyone making money but make it honestly...you said workman and I agree...NOT thief and swindler]
Dingo~ (Regarding MN)"Exactly, and that is why it works so well for sifting fact from fantasy."
[No. If my belief makes me non neutral and unable to make a legitimate argument regarding miracles, then your disbelief is as equally non neutral and therefore hinders you from making a legitimate argument against miracles. This is the ridiculous proposition of MN. Only the negative argument is considered valid. There is no reason or evidence to justify such position. As I said, extreme antisupernaturalism is fantasy and unscientific...it's more a faith than anything else]
Dingo~ "Josephus made a historical claim, the Bible makes historical claims, should we believe either of them just because they wrote it down?"
[How is the claim deciphered? Are there eyewitnesses as within the biblical tests? We can list many other criteria to determine if it truly was a historical claim. It doesn’t hold that it was true all things taken into account.]
Dingo~ "So you admit that if something is written in the Bible, then you throw the historical critical method out the window and just swallow it hook line and sinker no matter how preposterous it sounds?"
[I know of no preposterous historical claims and certainly nothing that has not occurred in modern times to some varying degree. Even the scripture you quote. Rising from the dead after being clinically dead is something that both Christians and non Christians have experienced. Not long ago a man whom the dr’s said was dead came back to life and reported that he heard everything the Dr’s said during the time they pronounced him dead. To my knowledge was is not a Christian and faith wasn’t an issue. By the way, last report...he’s not a zombie either.]
Like you, I appreciate the conversation. I hope we're not bummin' the moderator out-(LOL)
I wrote:
"When Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire, then it became illegal for people NOT to convert to Christianity. Non Christians were persecuted and dispossessed by the church authorities, and their literature was burned. How could you NOT call that a conspiracy?"
Harvey responded:
"This is one of those “things” that true scholars KNOW has been debunked over the years. The Constantine conspiracy."
I'll try to address some of your other assertions as time allows, but for now, please allow me to address this particular point.
Harvey, this statement proves that you seem to be living in some kind of bizarre fantasy world, or that you're in heavy denial about the history of your religion.
Please read the following timeline entitled, "What happened after the Council of Nicaea?"
314 Immediately after its full legalization, the Christian Church attacks non-Christians. The Council of Ancyra denounces the worship of Goddess Artemis.
324 The emperor Constantine declares Christianity as the only official religion of the Roman Empire. In Dydima, Minor Asia, he sacks the Oracle of the god Apollo and tortures the pagan priests to death. He also evicts all non-Christian peoples from Mount Athos and destroys all the local Hellenic temples.
325 Nicene Council. The god-man gets a promotion: 'Christ is Divine'
326 Constantine, following the instructions of his mother Helen, destroys the temple of the god Asclepius in Aigeai Cilicia and many temples of the goddess Aphrodite in Jerusalem, Aphaca, Mambre, Phoenicia, Baalbek, etc.
330 Constantine steals the treasures and statues of the pagan temples of Greece to decorate Constantinople, the new capital of his Empire.
335 Constantine sacks many pagan temples in Asia Minor and Palestine and orders the execution by crucifixion of "all magicians and soothsayers." Martyrdom of the neoplatonist philosopher Sopatrus.
341 Constantius II (Flavius Julius Constantius) persecutes "all the soothsayers and the Hellenists." Many gentile Hellenes are either imprisoned or executed.
346 New large scale persecutions against non-Christian peoples in Constantinople. Banishment of the famous orator Libanius accused as a "magician".
353 An edict of Constantius orders the death penalty for all kind of worship through sacrifice and idols
354 A new edict orders the closing of all the pagan temples. Some of them are profaned and turned into brothels or gambling rooms.
Execution of pagan priests begins.
A new edict of Constantius orders the destruction of the pagan temples and the execution of all idolaters.
First burning of libraries in various cities of the empire.
The first lime factories are organized next to the closed pagan temples. A major part of the holy architecture of the pagans is turned into lime.
357 Constantius outlaws all methods of divination (astrology not excluded).
359 In Skythopolis, Syria, the Christians organize the first death camps for the torture and executions of the arrested non-Christians from all around the empire.
361 to 363 Religious tolerance and restoration of the pagan cults is declared in Constantinople (11th
December 361) by the pagan emperor Julian (Flavius Claudius Julianus).
363 Assassination of Julian (26th June).
364 Emperor Jovian orders the burning of the Library of Antioch.
An Imperial edict (11th September) orders the death penalty for all those that worship their ancestral gods or practice divination("sileat omnibus perpetuo divinandi curiositas").
Three different edicts (4th February, 9th September, 23rd December) order the confiscation of all properties of the pagan temples and the death penalty for participation in pagan rituals, even private ones.
The Church Council of Laodicea (Phrygia - western Asia Minor) orders that religious observances are to be conducted on Sunday and not on Saturday. Sunday becomes the new Sabbath. The practice of staying at home and resting on Saturday declared sinful and anathema to Christ.
365 An imperial edict from Emperor Valens, a zealous Arian Christian (17th November), forbids pagan officers of the army to command Christian soldiers.
370 Valens orders a tremendous persecution of non-Christian peoples in all the Eastern Empire. In Antioch, among many other non-Christians, the ex-governor Fidustius and the priests Hilarius and Patricius are executed.
The philosopher Simonides is burned alive and the philosopher Maximus is decapitated. All the friends of Julian are persecuted (Orebasius, Sallustius, Pegasius etc.).
Tons of books are burnt in the squares of the cities of the Eastern Empire.
372 Valens orders the governor of Minor Asia to exterminate all the Hellenes and all documents of their wisdom.
373 New prohibition of all divination methods is issued. The term "pagan" (pagani, villagers, equivalent to the modern
insult, "peasants") is introduced by the Christians to demean non-believers.
375 The temple of Asclepius in Epidaurus, Greece, is closed down by the Christians.
380 On 27th February Christianity becomes the exclusive religion of the Roman Empire by an edict of the Emperor Flavius Theodosius, requiring that: "All the various nations which are subject to our clemency and moderation should continue in the profession of that religion which was delivered to
the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter."
The non-Christians are called "loathsome, heretics, stupid and blind".
In another edict, Theodosius calls "insane" those that do not believe to the Christian God and outlaws all disagreement with the Church dogmas.
Ambrosius, bishop of Milan, begins the destruction of pagan temples of his area. The Christian priests lead the hungry mob against the temple of goddess Demeter in Eleusis and try to lynch the hierophants Nestorius and
Priskus. The 95 year old hierophant Nestorius ends the Eleusinian Mysteries and announces "the predominance of mental darkness over the human race."
381 At the Council of
Constantinople the 'Holy Spirit' is declared 'Divine' (thus sanctioning a triune god). On 2nd May, Theodosius deprives of all
their rights any Christians who return to the pagan religion. Throughout the Eastern Empire the pagan temples and libraries are looted or burned down. On 21st December, Theodosius outlaws visits to Hellenic temples.
In Constantinople, the Temple of Aphrodite is turned into a brothel and the temples of the Sun and Artemis to stables.
382 "Hellelujah" ("Glory to Yahweh") is imposed in the Christian mass.
384 Theodosius orders the Praetorian Prefect Maternus Cynegius, a dedicated Christian, to cooperate with local bishops and destroy the temples of the pagans in Northern Greece and Minor Asia.
385 to 388 Prefect Maternus Cynegius, encouraged by his fanatic wife, and bishop 'Saint' Marcellus with his gangs, scour the countryside and sack and
destroy hundreds of Hellenic temples, shrines and altars. Among others they destroy the temple of Edessa, the Cabeireion of Imbros, the temple of Zeus in Apamea, the temple of Apollo in Dydima and all the temples of Palmyra. Thousands of innocent pagans from all sides of the empire suffer martyrdom in the notorious death camps of Skythopolis.
386 Theodosius outlaws the care of the sacked pagan temples.
388 Public talks on religious subjects are outlawed by Theodosius. The old orator Libanius sends his famous epistle "Pro Templis" to Theodosius with the hope that the few remaining Hellenic temples will be respected and spared.
389 to 390 All non-Christian calendars and dating-methods are outlawed. Hordes of fanatic hermits from the desert flood the cities of the Middle East and Egypt and destroy statues, altars, libraries and pagan temples, and
lynch the pagans. Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria, starts heavy persecutions against non-Christian peoples, turning the temple of Dionysius into a Christian church, burning down the Mithraeum of the city, destroying
the temple of Zeus and burlesques the pagan priests before they are killed by stoning. The Christian mob profanes the cult images.
391 On 24th February, a new edict of Theodosius prohibits not only visits to pagan temples but also looking at the vandalized statues. New heavy persecutions occur all around the empire. In Alexandria, Egypt, pagans, led by the philosopher Olympius, revolt and after some street fights they lock
themselves inside the fortified temple of the god Serapis (the Serapeion). After a violent siege, the Christians take over the building, demolish it, burn its famous library and profane the cult images.
392 On 8th November, Theodosius outlaws all the non-Christian rituals and names them "superstitions of the gentiles" (gentilicia superstitio). New full scale persecutions are ordered against pagans. The Mysteries of Samothrace are ended and the priests slaughtered. In Cyprus the local bishop "Saint" Epiphanius and "Saint" Tychon destroy almost all the temples of the island and exterminate thousands of non-Christians. The local Mysteries of the goddess Aphrodite are ended.
Theodosius's edict declares:
"The ones that won't obey pater Epiphanius have no right to keep living in that island."
The pagans revolt against the Emperor and the Church in Petra, Aeropolis, Rafia, Gaza, Baalbek and other cities of the Middle East.
393 The Pythian Games, the Aktia Games and the Olympic Games are outlawed as part of the Hellenic
"idolatry". The Christians sack the temples of Olympia.
395 Two new edicts (22nd July and 7th August) cause new persecutions against pagans. Rufinus, the eunuch Prime Minister of Emperor Flavius Arcadius directs the hordes of baptized Goths (led by Alaric) to the country of the Hellenes. Encouraged by Christian monks the barbarians sack and burn many cities (Dion, Delphi, Megara, Corinth, Pheneos, Argos, Nemea, Lycosoura, Sparta, Messene, Phigaleia, Olympia, etc.),
slaughter or enslave innumerable
gentile Hellenes and burn down all the temples. Among others, they burn down the Eleusinian Sanctuary and burn alive all its priests (including the hierophant of
Mithras Hilarius).
396 On 7th December, a new edict by Arcadius orders that paganism be treated as high treason. Imprisonment of the few remaining pagan priests and hierophants.
397 "Demolish them!" Flavius Arcadius orders that all the still standing pagan temples be
demolished.
398 The 4th Church Council of Carthage prohibits everybody, including Christian bishops, from studying pagan books. Porphyrius, bishop of Gaza, demolishes almost all the pagan temples of his city (except nine of them that remain active).
399 With a new edict (13th July) Flavius Arcadius orders all remaining pagan temples, mainly in the countryside, be immediately demolished.
400 Bishop Nicetas destroys the Oracle of Dionysus in Vesai and baptizes all the non-Christians of this area.
401 The Christian mob of Carthage lynches non-Christians and destroys
temples and "idols". In Gaza too, the local bishop "Saint" Porphyrius sends his followers to lynch pagans and to demolish the remaining nine still active temples of the city.
The 15th Council of Chalcedon orders all the Christians that still keep good relations with their non-Christian relatives to be excommunicated (even after their death).
405 John Chrysostom sends hordes of grey-dressed monks armed with clubs and iron bars to destroy the "idols" in all the cities of Palestine.
406 John Chrysostom collects funds from rich Christian women to financially support the demolition of the Hellenic temples. In Ephesus he orders the destruction of the famous temple of Artemis.
In Salamis, Cyprus, "Saints" Epiphanius and Eutychius continue the persecutions of the pagans and the total destruction of their temples and sanctuaries.
407 A new edict outlaws once more all the non-Christian acts of worship.
408 The emperor of the Western Empire, Honorius, and the emperor of the Eastern Empire, Arcadius, order all the sculptures of the pagan temples to be either destroyed or to be taken away. Private ownership of pagan
sculpture is also outlawed. The local bishops lead new heavy persecutions against the pagans and new book burning. The judges that have pity for the pagans are also persecuted. "Saint" Augustine massacres hundreds of protesting pagans in Calama, Algeria.
409 Another edict orders all methods of divination including astrology to be punished by death.
415 In Alexandria, the Christian mob, urged by the bishop Cyril, attacks a few days before the Judeo-Christian Pascha (Easter) and cuts to pieces the famous and beautiful philosopher Hypatia. The pieces of her body, carried around by the Christian mob through the streets of Alexandria, are finally
burned together with her books in a place called Cynaron.
On 30th August, new persecutions start against all the pagan priests of North Africa who end their lives either crucified or burned alive. Emperor Theodosius II expels the Jews from Alexandria.
416 The inquisitor Hypatius, alias
"The Sword of God", exterminates the last pagans of Bithynia. In Constantinople (7th December) all non-Christian army officers, public employees and judges are dismissed.
423 Emperor Theodosius II declares
(8th June) that the religion of the pagans is nothing more than
"demon worship" and orders all those who persist in practicing it to be punished by imprisonment and torture.
429 The temple of goddess Athena (Parthenon) on the Acropolis of Athens is sacked. The Athenian pagans are persecuted.
431 Council of Ephesus ("Robber Synod"). Promotion for the god-man - "Christ is complete God and complete man."
435 On 14th November, a new edict by Theodosius II orders the death penalty for all "heretics" and pagans of the empire. Only Judaism is considered a legal non-Christian religion.
438 Theodosius II issues an new edict (31st January) against the pagans, incriminating
their "idolatry" as the reason of a recent plague!
440 to 450 The Christians demolish all the monuments, altars and temples of Athens, Olympia, and other Greek cities.book burning
448 Theodosius II orders all non-Christian books to be burned.
450 All the temples of Aphrodisias (the City of the Goddess Aphrodite) are demolished and all its libraries burned down. The city is renamed Stavroupolis (City of the Cross).
451 Council of Chalcedon. New edict by Theodosius II (4th November) emphasizes
that "idolatry" is punished by death. Assertion of orthodox doctrine over the 'Monophysites' -'JC has single, divine nature.'
457 to 491 Sporadic persecutions against the pagans of the Eastern Empire. Among others, the physician Jacobus and the
philosopher Gessius are executed. Severianus, Herestios, Zosimus, Isidorus and others are tortured and imprisoned. The proselytizer Conon and his followers exterminate the last non-Christians of Imbros Island, Northeast Aegean Sea.
The last worshippers of Lavranius Zeus are exterminated in Cyprus.
482 to 488 The majority of the pagans of Minor Asia are exterminated after a desperate revolt against the emperor and the Church.
486 More "underground" pagan priests are discovered, arrested, burlesqued, tortured and executed in Alexandria, Egypt. Full body baptism Baptism becomes obligatory even for those that already say they are Christians.
515 The emperor of Constantinople, Anastasius, orders the massacre of the pagans in the Arabian city Zoara and the demolition of the temple of local god Theandrites.
523 Emperor Justin I outlaws the Arian heresy and campaigns to suppress Arianism everywhere.
528 Emperor Justinian outlaws the "alternative" Olympian Games of Antioch.
He also orders the execution-by fire, crucifixion, tearing to pieces by wild beasts or cutting to pieces by iron nails-of all who practice "sorcery, divination, magic or idolatry" and prohibits all teachings by the pagans ("the ones suffering from the blasphemous insanity of the Hellenes").
529 Justinian outlaws the Athenian Philosophical Academy and has its
property confiscated.
532 The inquisitor Ioannis Asiacus, a fanatical monk, leads a crusade against the pagans of Minor Asia.
542 Justinian allows the inquisitor Ioannis Asiacus to forcibly convert the pagans of Phrygia, Caria and Lydia in Asia Minor.
Within 35 years of this crusade, 99churches and 12monasteries are built on the sites of demolished pagan temples.
546 Hundreds of pagans are put to death in Constantinople by the inquisitor Ioannis Asiacus.
556 Justinian orders the notorious inquisitor Amantius to go to Antioch, to find, arrest, torture and exterminate the last non-Christians of the city and burn all the private libraries down.
562 Mass arrests, burlesquing, tortures, imprisonments and executions of gentile Hellenes in Athens, Antioch, Palmyra and Constantinople.
578 to 582 The Christians torture and crucify Hellenes all around the Eastern Empire, andexterminate the last non-Christians of
Heliopolis (Baalbek).
580 The Christian inquisitors attack a secret temple of Zeus in Antioch. The priest commits
suicide, but the rest of the pagans are arrested. All the prisoners, the Vice Governor Anatolius included, are tortured and sent toConstantinople to face trial. Sentenced to death they are thrown to the lions. The wild animals being unwilling to tear them to pieces, they end up crucified. Their dead bodies are dragged in the streets by the
Christian mob and afterwards thrown unburied in the dump.
583 New persecutions against the gentile Hellenes by Emperor Maurice.
590 In all the Eastern Empire the Christian accusers "discover" pagan conspiracies. New storm of torture and executions.
Original Source:
Vlasis Rassias, Demolish Them!
Published in Greek, Athens 1994
Also read - 'Knowledge Burning by the 4th Century Christians'
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_062.htm
Dingo~ "Harvey, this statement proves that you seem to be living in some kind of bizarre fantasy world, or that you're in heavy denial about the history of your religion.
Please read the following timeline entitled, "What happened after the Council of Nicaea?"
[Did you get to this event:
325 Nicene Council. The god-man gets a promotion: 'Christ is Divine'
Although that title is inaccurate, I see you choose not to argue the real point. You only wish to argue what happened historically after Nicea.
What happened in America after it was formed Dingo? Would you agree with me if I say America is the worst place on earth because they enslaved my African ancestors and stole the land of my Native American ancestors?
I can trace my roots and my people were done WRONG on BOTH sides of my bloodline. Does that mean it was a conspiracy when the Declaration Of Indep. was signed...OF COURSE NOT!
You offer a ridiculous and absurd postulation regarding Nicea and cover it with historical events (At least according to the atheists and God haters and anti-Christ advocates) that have NOTHING to do with Nicea. You offer nothing ON POINT.
Say this, SENSATIONALIST, SENSATIONALIST,SENSATIONALIST, SENSATIONALIST,SENSATIONALIST, SENSATIONALIST
One who is not interested in the facts only your WIERD correlation of events.
Good day Dingo!
Harvey wrote:
"You offer a ridiculous and absurd postulation regarding Nicea and cover it with historical events (At least according to the atheists and God haters and anti-Christ advocates) that have NOTHING to do with Nicea. You offer nothing ON POINT."
What absurd postulation did I offer about the council of Nicea?
It was the ecclesiastical council which formulated the 'Nicene Creed' which is the creed that's read in thousands of churches all over the world on any given Sunday. It is the creed which all modern 'orthodox' Christians must believe in in order to be considered 'orthodox' at all.
I offered you a long list of Christian persecutions of pagans in the late Roman empire, and you accuse me of offering nothing on point? The list I gave you is the WHOLE point.
What ARE you going on about?
One more thing Harvey,
There is an excellent discussion about the council of Nicea on the BBC radio show 'In Our Time'.
I suggest that you listen to it as you will probably find it very interesting.
You can find it here;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20071227.shtml
Post a Comment