Christian apologists LOVE to talk historical evidence when it comes to their belief in Jesus, the resurrected messiah (Christ). But ask them at what age they first believed that a dead first century corpse was brought back to life and later levitated into the clouds, and you get all kinds of resistance. The hemming and the hawing is truly hilarious.
It is a very simple, very easy question, Christian apologists! What’s the hesitation?
See an example of this phenomenon here.
I assert that the overwhelming majority of Christians, including Christian apologists, believed in the historical reality of this fantastical supernatural tale at a very young age; the overwhelming majority prior to the age of TWELVE!
Question: Does a twelve year old have the intellectual maturity to thoroughly examine complex historical data and analyze ancient linguistic evidence to arrive at a rational decision regarding the reality of dead corpse re-animations and non-mechanically assisted levitations into space in the ancient world??
I personally don’t think so!
So how is it possible for these people to objectively evaluate historical evidence for this ancient claim when they have believed that the ghost of this dead prophet has been living somewhere inside their bodies, giving them inaudible life advice and direction, since they were twelve years old???
I don’t think they can!
End of post.
Escaping Christian Fundamentalism 
Bingo. Yes, folks, he’s done a whole post dedicated to an ad-hominem attack.
Only on this blog, folks.
“If you can’t win the argument, attack the opponent personally”.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ft, then here’s you opportunity.
What age were you when you first believed? And was it the evidence that convinced you to accept the gospel at first?
Please answer honestly. Thx
LikeLiked by 1 person
what do you need to know for?
LikeLike
Just answer please
LikeLike
we are stepping into a different zone, here, folks.
Now we got kiabrooks doing the same thing over again, expecting a different result…
Whatever this is, I hope it’s not contageous….
LikeLike
Ft, you’re not doing much to contradict the premise of Gary’s post. In fact by your juvinile comments you’re kind of proving his point.
Or you could just answer my questions: how old were you when you first accepted the gospel and was it evidence that convinced you that it was true?
LikeLiked by 2 people
It’s true that I haven’t put forth any effort to contradict Gary’s post.
Gary’s assertion is this: “how is it possible for these people to objectively evaluate historical evidence for this ancient claim when they have believed since childhood that the ghost of this dead prophet has been living somewhere inside their bodies, giving them inaudible life advice and direction, since they were twelve years old???
I don’t think they can!”
Gary doesn’t think a 12-year-old kid can possibly evaluate historical evidence. And I agree.
But, Gary fails to acknowledge the very thing he claims: That when he got OLD enough to evaluate such claims, he did so.
So do lots of people, So did I.
So – what the heck do you need to know MY age for? If you have some argument to make, it has nothing to do – or SHOULD have NOTHING to do with anything about me, personally.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Then answer this question: If you found out that Jesus is still dead, how would you feel?
LikeLiked by 1 person
You already KNOW the answer to that, because I’ve said it very clearly here on your blog, more than once.
if somebody came up with incontrovertible evidence that Jesus was dead, then I’d drop Christianity like a hot potato. Christianity is a sham, if Jesus wasn’t resurrected.
I’d happily go straight to atheism or agnosticism, and not think twice about any other religion, or “spirituality”, or any such thing at all.
It is entirely safe to say that atheism is my second favorite religion, after Christianity. Everybody else ties for a distant 3rd place…
LikeLike
That isn’t what I asked. I asked how would you FEEL if you discovered that Jesus of Nazareth is still dead?
We would all be surprised if someone were actually able to provide such evidence, but that is not what I am asking. I want to know your gut reaction: Indifference? Deep sorrow?
LikeLike
I really don’t think I’d “feel” anything at all about it, at this point.
You have ALWAYS ignored me when I told you I went through a massive “doubt” phase. But, during that phase, I saw two very important things:
There is only ONE CLAIM in Christianity upon which all else hangs – and that is the resurrection of Jesus, and
I became extremely comfortable, during that phase, with the idea of atheism, and was very drawn to it’s (seeming) “practicality”.
Just as I’ve said a dozen times (and you fail to hear, each time) I went though that phase, questioning all the same stuff you seem to think matters – ie, are the gospels historically reliable? How do you explain the Trinity? What if the disciples just had hallucinations? Blablablablalba… (I honestly believe that you have never posted a thing on this website that I myself didn’t question).
At the end of it all, I came out with my well-known attitude “I don’t do gospels”. (or Acts). I don’t believe the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. I don’t believe God is a “Trinity”. I don’t believe Jesus was a literal “sacrifice”. And I could go on.
However, I also ended up convinced that Jesus had indeed been resurrected, in an historical event.
But, I went through all the “emotional” stuff decades ago. And now, NONE of it is “emotional” for me. Things that are “Matters of Fact” are just that – “Matters of Fact”. I need not have any emotion about the fact that 1 + 1 = 2. It is what it is.
So, if somebody found incontrovertible evidence that Jesus is just plain dead, then, that also “is what it is”. And, I’d have exactly no use whatsoever for “Christianity” at that point. I’m frankly exceedingly practical on that point.
LikeLike
Ok, good. If you are being truthful, then your belief is based on evidence, not emotions.
You are an exception.
LikeLike
It tues tok the post. How old were you when you first accepted the gospel and was it evidence that convinced you it was true?
LikeLike
Have I not, in a polite way, made it clear that I have no intention of answering any questions at all about how old I was when – this, that or the other?
My PERSON has nothing to do with any real ARGUMENT you wish to make.
Make your ARGUMENT.
LikeLike
Gary’s post was about some apologists unwillingness to answer those questions due to what it might admit. Seems you have a similar problem. In other words: “bingo” He got it right. Have a wonderful day.
LikeLike
As for me, I was 15 and it wasn’t evidence. It was a grandmotherly lady on my paper route with hot chocolate and cookies. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Another survey — by the International Bible Society — indicated that 83% of all Christians make their commitment to Jesus between the ages of 4 and 14, that is, when they are children or early youth. The Barna Research Group surveys demonstrate that American children ages 5 to 13 have a 32% probability of accepting Christ, but youth or teens aged 14 to 18 have only a 4% probability of doing so. Adults age 19 and over have just a 6% probability of becoming Christians.
This data illustrates the importance of influencing children to consider making a decision to follow Christ.
Because the 4-14 age period slice of the pie is so large, many have started referring to the “4-14 Window.” Many people serving as career cross-cultural missionaries have testified that they first felt God calling them to missionary service during that 4-14 age period.
LikeLike
Jim, the stat on youth evangelism is one reason I spent most my 25yrs in ministry with Jr high kids outside of the church. If 85% accept Christ before the age of 15 then I called them The Lost Generation… get them before “the world” and “government schools” inoculated and indoctrinated them against the gospel. It was a motive for me to focus my efforts as an evangelist on kids before they got out of high school to the “corruption” of public education and “secular” colleges.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you can get them to employ belief at an early age it messes with your neurology. It is much, much easier to be fooled than to admit to being fooled.
LikeLike
For me, it was very difficult to admit I’d been fooled after 34yrs as a christian. Some never “come out” for fear of loss of all they are and have and relationships.
We lost much. Prob less than most but we still aren’t fully recovered. But it’s worth it.
LikeLike
I lost a brother and hundreds of friends for not believing a story. Ridiculous. I’m just supposed to say I believe and to hell with my integrity. Now my only option is to pretend and I won’t do it.
LikeLike
We’re still not fully “out” with our friends, even after 4yrs
LikeLike
My best friend of 50 years is in the hospital with head trauma. Been unconscious 11 days. I spent the weekend with him at the trauma hospital in Seattle and I got a phone call yesterday, my old buddy asked me if there were any other Christians there besides me. I guess I’m not totally out yet either. I didn’t address it.
LikeLike
It’s tough. I know
LikeLiked by 1 person
Imagine what it is like for a pastor or a Bible professor, like Joel, to deconvert. Not only is their entire family and social structure built around this ancient belief but so is their livelihood—their paycheck! “How am I going to survive financially? How will I pay the mortgage and feed my family??”
For one of these men or women to contemplate abandoning “the faith” must be truly terrifying!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not only that, those people are counting on you to keep the faith they don’t have themselves. You don’t want to disappoint all those people and be the spark that ignites more doubt. All these guys here are imposters, not true believers anyway. Jesus said “greater signs than these follow them that believe”. They should be able to prove to you they are not imposters, but true believers but they can’t do it.
LikeLike
I was thinking a bit about this “age” thing this AM and came up with this …
When you are very young and your parents talk about “God” as though he were real, what’s your natural reaction? Answer … He’s real. After all, these are your parents … the ones who take care of you, feed you, love you, play with you — and help you learn about the world.
It’s doesn’t matter that you can’t see him. It’s doesn’t matter that you can’t talk face-to-face with him. Mom and dad have said he’s there — and at this age, it’s highly unlikely you’re going to doubt them. So, in your young mind, he’s there. Somewhere.
Usually you’re told he’s in “heaven” — that wonderful place that you’ll go to if you’re good — and so you grow up believing that it’s OK that “God” is invisible. And it’s why, as an adult, you look upward when you talk to or about him because, well, mom and dad told you many years before that that’s where he ls.
So yes. The indoctrination starts at a very early age. And so few ever break free.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Children only stop believing in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy because at some point in their lives their peers and authority figures tell them the truth: Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy do not exist. Imagine what would happen to these childhood beliefs if all your adult authority figures and all your peers (in your semi-reclusive sect) keep insisting that these supernatural beings exist. And in addition, they tell you that people who do not believe in these supernatural beings are “blinded” by their evilness to the truth. “Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy have given us secret knowledge to understand the REAL truths of the universe; truths that “evil” non-believers will never see, no matter how smart and educated they are. So whatever these “evil people” tell you about Santa and The Tooth Fairy not existing, it is a lie. Don’t believe them.”
That is a cult.
LikeLike
Hi Gary and ftbond,
It is for the same reason(s) that children can easily believe in santa and satan as well as other mythical figures.
In any case, even adults often believe in whatever they want or wish and for whatever reason, regardless of the actual evidence and context, and even irrespective of their upbringing and profession. Sigh!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gary, the truth of Nature vs. Nurture is poorly understood or horribly twisted by the hyper-religious. Christian apologists have special 3-D glasses and Special FX earplugs when their “authoritative™” ideology is identical or near-identical to the other major religions and claims of singular “authoritative™” infallible truth, evidence, tradition, and Holy Scriptures. What they don’t refuse to see/hear is their presumed foundations really only rest on Orthodoxy, and the victories of more powerful empires and armies over smaller cultures and superstitions. “History is written by the Victors.” In this case, sociopolitical driven “holy scriptures™” are written by the Victors… until the next Victors come and conquer. Lol 😉
LikeLiked by 3 people
Sorry, that should read “What they refuse to see/hear is…” not don’t refuse. Apologies Sir.
LikeLike
And Dwain does the same Bulvarism!!!!!
chuckle
You guys are precious.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What Gary doesnt say is he has been trolling my blog…for days…on a post about the infancy narrative. Haha…
I inserted the resurrection question, I pointed out the first century documents that show that the earliest followers claimed to have been witnesses to it…and I was convinced of their historical reliability, but it was okay if he wasn’t.
He continued to troll for days, denying that the first century texts were evidence, and when I asked him what first century historical evidence he had for his speculations about Jews mistaking bright lights for resurrection, he had to admit he didnt have any. And that’s when he turned into an armchair pseudo-psychiatrist.
Like I told him, he is still an ultra-fundie apologist at heart, clearly masking his own insecurities and emotional scars.
Lol…I’m so glad Ive provided so much fodder for him on this blog!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Correction: HE inserted the resurrection question. Lol…whoops
LikeLike
After multiple requests, Christian theologian and apologist Joel Edmund Anderson has repeatedly refused to state how old he was when he first believed in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. What does that tell you, folks?
I will bet he was younger than twelve!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hahaha….you are a disingenuous, self-righteous joke.
LikeLike
BWAAAAAHHHHAAAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
Ah, Joel – He’s asking you for YOUR “age of believing” too????
Good grief What a joke.
Whatever Gary wants to argue, he evidently can’t do so without (a) using a Bulvarism, or (b) without using said Bulvarism to attack his opponent.
If he had a valid argument to make, then you age, my age – and no opponents age – should make any difference whatsoever to the validity of the argument.
LikeLiked by 1 person
BINGO! He thinks he’s being clever, and doesn’t realize I’ve been laughing at his pathetic dodging and attempted emotional manipulation for the past few days. Yesterday, after I asked him to stop trolling my blog, he said he’d bow out until I invited him back. And then what do you know? He was right back at it today! That is the tell-tale sign of someone with an unhealthy obsession and clear emotional scars. Sorry if I sound harsh, but after putting up with this for the past 3-4 days, the self-righteous atheist-fundie has to be called out for what he is.
LikeLike
Joel, you deleted my comment in which I said “this is my last comment”. So since you deleted it, I felt free to keep responding.
My “last comment” was giving Joel’s audience this advice: “Remember what your parents said: Listen to both sides of an argument.” I then listed three books by Christian apologists and three books by counter apologists (skeptics).
Joel deleted this comment.
Why?? Why are Christians so afraid of allowing fellow Christians to see the evidence against their beliefs? Would they react the same way regarding evidence against Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon? Of course not. This shows just how emotionally attached Christian apologists like Joel are to the Resurrection belief. Their belief is not primarily based on historical evidence, it is based primarily on their perception that the ghost of this first century prophet lives inside their bodies, giving them secret life guidance that the rest of us do not have access to.
Their appeals to historical evidence are merely a smoke screen for their impassioned emotions about this ancient prophet.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I deleted it because it was self-righteous, self-congratulatory BS. I have no patience with Pharisaism of any kind.
All you have given is emotion-filled, unhistorical, baseless speculation, and you mask it with your self-righteous claims of being objective and rational. You are neither. You are self-deluded.
LikeLike
Deleting comments Joel? Is that open and honest?
LikeLike
When one asks repeatedly for the person to stop, and that person continues to post condescending comments, yes, most definitely.
I truly am sorry that you, and apparently a few others here, have obviously been burned by the self-righteous Pharisaism of what sounds like pretty hateful Fundies–but it would be good for you all not to become like those people. And that is what I see going on. I haven’t pushed anything on anyone. I just have a blog in which I discuss Biblical Studies because I love the topic. Gary, and seemingly many here, have proceeded to project all their past hurts by some Fundies onto me. It is very sad.
LikeLike
Joel, it is your blog and you can run it how you see fit. But deleting comments, especially if the comment was like gary described, in the middle of what is supposed to be an open conversation, just because it might make you look bad to others reading, is really poor sportsmanship and it makes you look even weaker, more insecure and less honest. Just my 2¢. Take it or leave it.
LikeLike
Conservative Christianity is an evil cult. As ex-members of this cult, we feel a duty to expose it.
LikeLike
You still have the same mindset as the worst people in that “evil cult” of ultra-Fundamentalism. You’re still in bondage to that mindset. I’m sorry you cannot see it.
LikeLike
Yes, whenever we counter-apologists ask difficult questions that make Christians squirm we are labeled “trolls”.
Yet, Christians feel perfectly fine with cramming their superstitions down everyone’s throats (in the name of evangelism/saving souls) and even push their ancient goat-herder morality into our civil laws.
But, yea, we counter apologists are the trolls. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, when I said, “I am convinced of the historical reliability of the gospels, but if you aren’t convinced…that’s fine”–Yes, when YOU come on to MY blog, and when I get you to finally admit you have no historical evidence for your speculations, you then turn to try to psychoanalyze me….yes, yes, that is clear evidence that I am shoving my superstitions on YOU.
My goodness, Gary, how do you take yourself seriously? You are a cartoon.
LikeLike
Hi Joel. I don’t know you but I’d like to extend the same opportunity that I gave ft.
How old were you when you first believed the gospel and was it evidence that convinced you that it was true?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kia, I’m not playing Gary’s little game. This entire post of his is testimony to his trolling of my own blog and to his losing the argument over the issue of historical evidence for the resurrection accounts. As soon as he had to admit that his own speculations were baseless and had zero historical evidence at all, he pivoted to this question. It is disingenuous and pathetic.
I dont cater to that kind of self delusion. I call it for what it is.
LikeLike
So you’re not willing to answer my two specific questions?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nope….irrelevent to the issue of the historical nature of the 1st century gospel texts about the life of Jesus.
LikeLike
Kia, answer two basic, simple questions that have NO Christian reasons to cower from. Why the secrecy?
LikeLike
Because he didn’t want to admit that he believed early, prob well before 12yrs old, and on emotions not evidence. And for joel… He desperately wants to believe, and have others believe about him, that evidence is why he’s a Christian… And it’s just not the truth. He avoided the answers to my questions because he wanted to avoid the conclusion that he believes, continues to believe, not based on evidence and even against the evidence. He can’t admit to himself or others that he’s caught in a dishonest attempt to maintain his faith “by any means necessary”.
I know it’s hard. But to be truthful and honest with oneself and others is the foundation of personal integrity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s what we are forced (by his silence) to plausibly conclude. Speaks volumes about their lack of integrity. Sad that they are not mimicking their proclaimed Greek Savior. (shakes head in pity for them)
LikeLike
Prof, another thing with Joel is that this is his job, his livelyhood. That could really incentivize someone too
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yep. Conflict of interests, or in this case SELF interest. 😉
LikeLike
Makes it very difficult to even consider that you’ve been wrong for decades. Makes one unwilling to answer even the simplest of questions
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, when I deconverted and began MY OWN understanding and research—because my seminary professors wouldn’t help, including R.C. Sproul—after a long, extensive, full-time ministry and leadership for 11+ years, in a matter of 2-4 months, and ever since, I’ve been ashamed I was so hoodwinked and fell for the scam called “Faith.” I must have heard this a million times: Don’t doubt so much, be an innocent child for God (who doesn’t know better or have adequate critical-analysis skills), don’t venture into the Devil’s realm of non-Greek sources of evidence, historical facts, and sound plausibilities, etc, etc, ad infinitum. 🤢
Basically, they preach, teach, and subtly coerce members/Faith-Followers to commit intellectual suicide… or at minimum burying your ostrich head in the sand. 😉
LikeLike
Prof, aside from a brief stint as a missionary in South Korea, I never was a “professional” relying on giving. Even then, I had my own money and worked teaching English to support myself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good for you Kia. One lifetime missionary I was close to (we were teammates on a professional football/futebol team) many years ago—missionary in Portugal and Brasil while playing—told me one day at his temporary house in Mansfield, TX that he ‘hated having to come back to America and tour everywhere in America’s Christian churches‘ (most all denominations) ‘to raise funds, grants, gifts‘ to go back abroad and continue God’s work… that he MUCH PREFERRED being out amongst the jungle, the madhouse or Satan’s realm of non-Christians because THEY were easy, simple to read intentions, and with disgust so unabashed with him about who and what he did, he loved that—similar to the vast majority of where & whom Yeshua bar Yosef (of the canonical Greek Gospels spent his time!)—over having to guess, reexamine, wonder in confusion, etc, as to WHY what he did was so simple to understand from the 4th-century Canonical Greek New Testament!!!! It infuriated him sometimes the vast majority of American Xian churches or denominations and their regional/national conventions. Lol
I found that admission/confession to be PROFOUNDLY revealing of today’s state of Greek Christology, or Christendom.
LikeLike
I worked in the inner city here for 5yrs, short terms in Mexico and South Korea. Spent 25yrs of my life in ministry of some sorts. Believe me, it’s tough to admit you’ve given your life to a lie.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is, however, I have helped MANY “Christian” doubters in various American and Texas churches, groups, organizations to NOT FEEL like they are all alone once they wander out of ALL those 24/7 or weekly circles of peer-pressure, and feel they are losing everything, risking all sorts of curses, or abandonment, or ostracizing from church, OR GOD’S graces (Lol)!!!! Once out, where they can feel safe and comfortable to question, repeatedly, whatever they want… they find all their fears were completely unfounded!
“Wow! There be NO dragons out here after all!” 😮 Lol
LikeLike
No dragons of any kind
LikeLiked by 1 person
If my history serves me correctly, Joseph Goebbels and the Nazi SS used the same fear-tactics. 😉
LikeLike
So true.
LikeLike
Gary, it is very baffling, suspicious. WHAT is so difficult with full transparency with unreasonable Xian apologists? Geeezzzz, do they actually NOT have any “faith” in their God/Savior? Why do most ALL Evangy-Fundy Xians cower from a simple question? They should be proud to share when they accepted their Greek Christ/Savior into their heart and let the Holy Spirit in to do great and wondrous things/miracles for the rest of their lives!!!! It SHOULD be something they are happy to wear on their foreheads! 😉 Lol
LikeLike
Another survey — by the International Bible Society — indicated that 83% of all Christians make their commitment to Jesus between the ages of 4 and 14, that is, when they are children or early youth. The Barna Research Group surveys demonstrate that American children ages 5 to 13 have a 32% probability of accepting Christ, but youth or teens aged 14 to 18 have only a 4% probability of doing so. Adults age 19 and over have just a 6% probability of becoming Christians.
This data illustrates the importance of influencing children to consider making a decision to follow Christ.
Because the 4-14 age period slice of the pie is so large, many have started referring to the “4-14 Window.” Many people serving as career cross-cultural missionaries have testified that they first felt God calling them to missionary service during that 4-14 age period.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Some claim the maxim comes from St. Ignatius Loyola himself. Yet the idea later proclaimed by the Jesuits is very old – give us a child till he’s seven and we’ll have him for life.”
—Psychology Today
Source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-power-rest/201303/give-us-kid-till-shes-7-and-well-have-her-life
Conservative Christianity, whether Catholic or Protestant, is a CULT.
LikeLiked by 2 people
There is an 83% chance your connectors here were before age 14. The rest…a crisis, self doubt, or a woman.
LikeLiked by 2 people
In the case of Joel, being raised Assembly of God, I will bet that he was no older than 7 or 8. The pressure on him to “be born again” would have been non-stop and intense at that age. If I am not mistaken, in the AOG as in my denomination, the fundie Baptists, once one has hit the Age of Accountability (when one knows the difference between right and wrong) one risks eternal hellfire if one dies in his or her sleep and has not prayed to the resurrected Jesus to repent and to be saved. There would have been massive pressure from his pastor and even more from his worried parents to “make a decision for Jesus” ASAP! Every second that ticked by was an opportunity for the Devil to harvest another soul in the flames of Hell!
LikeLiked by 3 people
I have a niece by marriage that was AOG and her family was so disappointed in her for not speaking in tongues at 14, she had to leave home to survive the brow beatings. You’re right Gary, I’ve seen it first hand.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jim, excellent facts. The tactic has been going on since what(?) 800-1000 BCE? Within the Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age, thru Classical and Late-Classical Eras of that part of the world—i.e. Mediterranean, the Levant, and Middle East—Christians, Muslims, and most all other self-absorbed religions have been doing the same thing with their boys and girls. I am more than happy to list all their cultural, ideological names/cults throughout history.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The story of Samuel is enough. What other lifetime memberships would parents sign their kids for at age 4? Ok, 8? 14?
LikeLiked by 1 person
And should I throw in the deplorable “camps” some of the cultists use to change young gay and lesbian kids that were made that way WAY BEFORE the 3rd trimester in the Mom’s womb?
Ever seen the award-winning series on PBS called “The 9 Months That Made You“? The medical, genetic, embryonic, and hormonal facts they share and literally demonstrate are wonderfully ASTONISHING!!!! Especially the extensive part about 5-Alpha Reductase Deficiency!!!! 🙂 All the Abrahamic religions today have absolutely NO GROUND to stand on with their unfounded prejudice and horrible treatment of kids… or adults for that matter! In fact, it can be easily argued that those LGBTQ children (or adults) were designed exactly that way, their way, BEFORE being born… because God wanted it that way. 😄 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ft, I addressed my comment to Gary, not you. Here you repeatedly break your earlier word/integrity and agreement with me over a month ago(?) that we’d ignore each other’s comments here. By doing this you are coming across as childish antagonizer trying to pick fights on a school yard. Why can you not see that? (long sigh)
However, since you’ve engaged me over on ONE page (one topic) of my blog and to date have not violated my Netiquette Rules of Conduct there, I will indulge you—against my better judgement—this one time here on Gary’s blog. I am not the least bit interested in carrying on with you here wasting Gary’s time and comment section. Do you understand what I’ve stated in these two paragraphs?
Your comment does absolutely nothing to engage civilly and productively with non-Christians. I know your Gospels well enough, inside and out, as well as several Epistles, to authoritatively tell you… you are not mimicking your Lord and Savior (you claim to follow) at all when it comes to engaging Gentiles or Pagans, as Paul would address us today if alive. Do you NOT see that in yourself? Your incessant harassment of me and other non-Christians here on Gary’s blog unequivocally would NOT be the behavior YOU should already know about and practice in/from your Canonical Gospels and Epistles!!!! Not even close.
Nevertheless, what you constantly fail to equitably read and comprehend from our various comments and blogs (mine included) is that when the entire vista/library of 1st-century BCE to 7th-century CE NON-Apostolic-Patristic Church (i.e. authentic Syro-Palestinian-Arabian Sectarian Judaism, not your Gentile-Greek archives & apologists) sources and the cumulative contextual evidence—as well as accumulating modern scholarship of the same—it is practically unavoidable to see the GLARING problems, contradictions, intentional convolutions, omissions, and flat-out errors the earliest Greek Church Fathers and copyists/editors made in composing your 4th-century Canonical Greek New Testament. Why? Because of your and 95%+ of modern Christians, especially Evangy-Fundy Christians, have super tunnel-vision for ONLY Greek Apostolic-Patristic sources and some bizarre aversion for anything NOT Greek-based!
Not to mention the earliest/oldest COMPLETE copy of the very first Gospel written, Mark, in the Koine Greek Codex Sinaiticus—your own Greek New Testament gives precedence to it and the Codex Vaticanus for all later translations—DOES NOT HAVE any resurrection story in it! It stops with Mark 16:8. Nothing more. Very very few modern layperson Christians (if any at all) are not aware of this monumentous fact and crater in their veiled ideology sold to them!
To conclude here with you, here’s the basic point: You have an extremely hard time changing your biased, Greek-based lens to anything and everything else relevant and directly relevant to ALL Second Temple Sectarian Judaism/Messianism under the oppressive rule/umbrella of the Roman Empire and sociopolitical (and military) machine of that Era. I hope some day you’ll change that and fairly examine it all thru other non-Greek, non-Apostolic-Patristic lenses.
Have a good week Ft. You are more than welcome to respond (again 🙄 ) with your usual ONE tiny lens and bias for Greek-only sources… ironically and peculiarly NOT the culture Yeshua bar Yosef was native to nor studied and taught from. Lol
LikeLike
Dwain –
thanks for the reminder that “Over Here”, well, we’re not talking to each other
I’ll leave it at that.
LikeLike
Thank you for finding some decency sir.
LikeLike
Because then they’d have to admit their indoctrinated bias, and that they believed not on any evidence at all
LikeLiked by 2 people
And it’s another Classic Bulvarism!!!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Could you answer my questions above please.
LikeLike
And there is a classic dodge by a Christian apologist who knows he’s cornered.
Check mate.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Gary –
You yourself CLAIM to have been this “religious guy” who finally got “smart enough” to evaluate the claims, the historicity, the evidence.
Do you really think YOU are the only guy to have done that????
You haven’t cornered me anywhere, pal. You’re just making a fool of yourself.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ft, now who employing the ad hominem?
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, that isnt ad hominem. It is pretty much a logical conclusion based on his commentsl.
LikeLike
Joel, may I ask what your education background is for being a biblical scholar as you say?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Two master’s degrees and a PhD. I teach Biblical Studies in college. 😉
LikeLike
Impressive. What are your masters degrees in and your phd?
LikeLiked by 1 person
New Testament, Old Testament, and Old Testament. I’m at a state university.
LikeLike
A state university that teaches Biblical Studies? Which one?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Most do…it is a valid academic subject.
LikeLike
Your bio says Religious Studies, which actually IS, but Biblical Studies would not be. Not at a State University.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Whatever…parse away. Religious Studies is the minor. Within that there are Biblical Studies courses. And yes, it is a state university. Why is that so hard to believe?
LikeLike
What is allowed in Alabama state universities and what is allowed “up North” and on the West Coast is probably quite different, but that is just an assumption (you know what they say about the word “ass-u-me”!)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, that is quite a baseleas assumption on your part. Par for the course for you. Speculative, biased stereotypes.
LikeLike
Woah. Alabama!? Lol
LikeLike
Here’s the thing Joel. And I think it ties to Gary’s post. When direct answers to direct questions would be the most honest and forthright thing to give, there is obfuscation, varieties and misdirection when speaking or communicating with some apologists. The reasons why are obvious even to the apologists themselves, although they refuse to admit them. And it’s really why you you and ft refused to answer my two simple and straight forward questions. “Half truth is a whole lie”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, here’s the thing. After giving direct answers to Gary for 4 days, only to get constant obsfucation in return, when he then turns pseudo-psychiatrist after being exposed for having no historical evidence to support his own baseless claims, enough is enough. Time to call BS for what it is.
LikeLike
Or… you could simply answer my first two questions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Or…I could refuse to enable the pseudo-psychological delusions of someone who refuses to accept reality.
LikeLike
Joel, are you referring to me or gary?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gary, obviously. Lol…and this is his blog, so….
LikeLike
Ah… then you’ll have no such reserve answering my original questions then. Again, how old were you when you first accepted the gospel and was it evidence that convinced you it was true?
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is his blog…not going to play this game.
LikeLike
But Joel, they were my questions… are you unwilling to answer honest, polite and straight forward questions? What happened to “be ready to answer…”? Seems you’re not willing to speak directly or honestly. In that case, I’m out. Have a great evening. But you’re welcome to answer my questions on my blog if you wish
LikeLike
From the “About” page on Joel’s blog: :
“I grew up in Carol Stream, Illinois, and grew up in the Assemblies of God church in a thoroughly Evangelical subculture. Over time, I eventually found my way to Eastern Orthodoxy. …Having grown up a good Evangelical Christian kid in the eighties…”
I think it is easy for us all to assume that Joel believed in the reality of dead body resurrections at a very, very young age. I will bet that Joel was a “believer” by the time he started first grade.
LikeLike
AOG starts very young. I was a musician and home group leader at an AOG church here in az. He would not have been confronted or educated on evidence. Nor would he have been taught to question or investigate the “answers” he was being given.
This is, in my experienced opinion, the real reason he refused to answer. It was not evidence that made him believe, and it’s not evidence that makes him remain. Apologetics isn’t to open the door for unbelievers to believe. It’s to keep the doors locked from inside to keep believers from bolting.
LikeLike
Just enough “answers” to keep them believing. That’s all
LikeLike
So Joel, you were raise AOG? Great. Royal Rangers and the whole bit?
LikeLike
Geez, you guys never give up. No, not into RR. I’m not AG…I realized that when I was a teenager.
LikeLike
We never give up because you are not willing to be honest. Is that a good way to be truthful? “I trow not”
LikeLike
For a story on why this matters Joel, I once had a guy comment on my blog that he had a PhD from duke university in biblical languages in order to try to claim authority for something he was saying in response to the reliability of the nt scriptures.
It turned out… He had a PhD alright, but from a Christian bible college ‘associated with’ the campus of duke, and his PhD thesis was on… get this… Fasting. His PhD was in ministry, not biblical languages.
So just so we are clear… usually when someone of the apologetics ilk is less than forthcoming, overly vague or unwilling to simply answer a direct question with a direct answer, regardless of the interpretation of that answer… there is a reason. And that reason has little to do with supposed “games” or agendas of why the other person is asking.
In the future, please answer directly and save everyone the hassle, embarrassment and pain of finding out that you’re being somewhat less than truthful by “sins of omission”.
LikeLike
Joel grew up in a fundamentalist branch of Christianity, as I did. He was indoctrinated with the concept of “dead body resurrection” since he could walk and talk. When he got a little older, the authority figures in his life and everyone else in his semi-reclusive sect told him over and over again that dead body resurrection is an absolute fact and that anyone who does not believe in dead body resurrection is not only wrong but “evil”; their evil minds are controlled by a “devil” who prevents them from seeing the truth. Joel was told that if he believed in the reality of dead body resurrection he would be given secret knowledge and insight that non-believers would never have; magical wonders would be performed for his benefit; and when he dies he will live forever in a magical kingdom in outer space.
So do you really believe that after growing up in this all-controlling, cult-like belief system since he was a toddler that Joel is going to walk away from this belief system just because the majority of experts doubt the eyewitness authorship of a few books???
I don’t think so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gary –
re: “Ok, good. If you are being truthful, then your belief is based on evidence, not emotions.”
I’m being 100% truthful.
A SINCERE “thank you” for listening. I hope this will lead to some further depth to our future conversations. Much appreciated.
LikeLike
What’s the matter? Again, publically available information shows from your own confession that you believed very early, and from our common backgrounds in the aog, I can’t reasonably believe that evidence was used to convince you of the truth of the gospel.
Are you ashamed to admit that you believed probably before the age of 12, or the ability to evaluate the truth of what you were being told, and that it wasn’t evidence but emotional appeal that convinced you to believe?
Why so reluctant to admit what we can all figure out from your bio?
LikeLike
And joel…. It’s not a game. Beliefs and how you arrive at them have real world consequences for those who believe and those around them.
LikeLike
Very well stated Kia.
LikeLike
“Joel Edmund Anderson is an adjunct professor in Religious Studies at the University of North Alabama, where he teaches various courses on the Old Testament. For 16 years he taught English Literature, Bible, Church History, and Worldview at various Evangelical Christian high schools in California, Arkansas, and Alabama. He has written a number of articles for Biblical Theology Bulletin, Journal for the Evangelical Study of the Old Testament, and Currents in Biblical Research.”
Religious studies, not Biblical Studies. Christian High School teacher now teaching classes in old testament and religious studies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
OT Introduction, OT Prophets, OT Wisdom Literature, Apocalyptic Literature, Life/Letters of Paul, Synoptic Gospels–that is Biblical Studies.
LikeLike
University of North Alabama? Is that even in the world’s Top 50 of renown, acclaimed, reputable Universities… under-grad or post-grad? I’m genuinely asking because I have NEVER heard of it.
LikeLike
Neither have i. It’s prob like a Jr college.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually I just looked it up. It’s a full 4yr college with a long history. Def not a junior college.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That was kind and generous to do Kia. Why is it that so often WE non-Christians must do all the extensive, checking, verifying, rechecking, reverifying legwork? 😉
LikeLike
Because those like Joel are unwilling to be completely honest and forthcoming when they perceive it might make them look bad.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And that’s called “Christian Faith”? Why all the secrecy?
LikeLike
They don’t want to admit that its Faith. They want the credit and respect that comes with being thought of as Evidentialists. So they lie.
LikeLiked by 1 person
See… I know this game, THEIR game, frustratingly well. Some call it ‘moving the goal-posts,’ and others like myself recognize it as Whack-a-Mole.
It is exactly because of all those Xian apologist’s merry-go-round games they play—Source? Their strictly Greek-based history post-74 CE Jerusalem—that the curious non-Christians or calm Secularists today MUST find their own answers, facts, truth, and authentic, comprehensive, fully contextual history starting from 516 BCE to 74 CE: the Second Temple Period. Also known as Ancient Sectarian Judaism/Messianism all under the brutal umbrella of the Hellenic (Greek) Roman Empire. Btw, this was exactly the period (the last portion) Yeshua bar Yosef the ascetic Nasari/Nasoraen/Nazirite was born into, raised, and taught… in that most volatile time-frame when Rome was getting fed-up with dissenting, rebelling Jews in Palestine. All Jews, including Yeshua’s rural sect and immersing Essenes, Ebionites, or Herodians, Samaritans, Zealots, etc, et al.
If you play THEIR games, the Christian apologists, you will get completely lost on/in the never-ending labyrinth of their rabbit trails and holes they take you through, i.e. everything and strictly Greek/Hellenistic based history: post-74 CE, but especially the Greek Apostolic-Patristic Church history. Do not be fooled. Their “historical” biblical history is only ONE tiny lens of the Second Temple Period.
LikeLike
It’s an attempt to do what they know they cannot do, historicize what largely is a fictitious story
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes. And to put the precise name on that story, it is/was the popular, common sociopolitical cultural tradition of Greek Apotheosis. The Hellenic kingdoms and empires did it quite often for the sake of public peace and prosperity. When one religion/cult faded, they replaced it with a newer Greek version. Violà! Hellenized Christology fully backed by Imperial Rome and her ascending Catholic Church… all hijacked from the exterminated Palestinian Jews and their Hebrew Messianism.
LikeLike
So they can feel better, or at least not so foolish, for believing what can only be asserted by faith but never demonstrated to be true
LikeLiked by 1 person
It begs the question, Isn’t that really just BLIND faith? 😉
LikeLike
Thats what they’re avoiding being responsible for
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kia,
When I first raised the question at seminary of the massive unexplained crater inside the history-shattering, Earth-shaking, and miraculous Divine intervention of God Almighty that Hebrews and Gentiles had heard about for centuries acting on all humanity thru one Lamb of God and His stellar celestial birth known all across the Arabian world by middle Eastern kings, his incomparable natural wisdom (as the One(?) single Son of the One God) as a boy showing up the Temple priests impressing everyone who was somebody in the Jewish world around Jerusalem… HOW could he the Son of God simply vanish completely under all the noses of very cunning Roman governors, guards, and spies looking for this boy-teenage enemy of Herodians and well-paid Jews to betray this rebel King of the Jews… FOR SEVENTEEN YEARS!!!!???? And to slap more shame on the idiocy of Rome and all sectarian Jews happy to betray this Cosmically-shattering Lamb-man/God-man… he was right next door in Galilee!???? Ummm, someone is NOT telling the whole story truthfully!!!
Kia, the answers I usually got for this Crime Mystery to top ALL Crime-mysteries was always the same from seminary professors, apologists, and Christian “scholars” like ours at seminary R.C. Sproul… “That my question and astonishment is not important. Forget that. What IS important and all you need to concern yourself with is what Greek Christ did at 29-30 years old and after in Judea.”
Kia, nothing today has changed from Christians when asked this question and all the other dominoes falling.
LikeLike
And why they are reluctant to answer questions
LikeLiked by 1 person
“About
Although I current am a high school teacher, I hope to eventually teach Biblical Studies at the college level. In addition to my masters degree from Regent College, I also have an MA in Old Testament from Trinity Western University, as well as a PhD in Old Testament from the University of Pretoria. I would also like to get more articles and books published.”
And all your degrees are from Christian schools.
LikeLiked by 1 person
University of Pretoria sound like a Christian school?
LikeLike
Sounds very much like a Kangaroo Court with kangaroo judges and juries.
LikeLike
So Joel, why so vague in your answers? Some might even say evasive or misleading… when the specific answers are available online for anyone with google?
LikeLiked by 1 person
And in which college do you teach?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gary –
in my last post, it didn’t accept my “numbered points”, so there’s an odd-looking statement which SHOULD be TWO statements, numbered 1 and 2:
“One” – There is only ONE CLAIM in Christianity upon which all else hangs – and that is the resurrection of Jesus, and
“Two” – I became extremely comfortable, during that phase, with the idea of atheism, and was very drawn to it’s (seeming) “practicality”.
LikeLike
Ft, how would go about demonstrating and proving that your #1 ie. The physical resurrection of Jesus actually happened?
LikeLike
Alright you two…you’ve proven just what kind of people you are. I’m out.
LikeLike
We are people who expect honest and open dialogue with others who aren’t trying to avoid difficult or uncomfortable answers to honest direct questions. We are people who have been where and what you are, and recognize when someone is trying to bs them. In short, we’re not your bible students who swallow whatever you say as gospel truth. Not any more. Bugger off
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dude, I’m not an “apologist.” And after four days of being straightforward with Gary, only to have him pull his self-righteous, self-congratulatory BS, I’m not in the mood to humor him or you anymore. He did this last spring–hopped on my blog, trolling for days, spinning the same BS he does. He (and I’m assuming you now) aren’t trying for a straightforward and honest conversation. You both are what I call “Fundie-Atheists.” You do the EXACT same kind of thing the most obnoxious of Fundie-apologists do on a regular basis. You are no different. I don’t put up with arrogant self-righteous bullies–doesn’t matter if they are atheists or ultra-Fundies. You are both clearly disingenuous and absolutely pharisaical in your atheism. You both need to grow up and get a life.
LikeLike
You should have just answered directly. Good night
LikeLiked by 1 person
I may have been a little pushy on your blog but “kiabooks” is not on your blog and spoke to you very politely. You were the one who became rude. Is it possible that since you are a professor and accustomed to being in total control, you have lost the ability to have a civil discourse with your equals?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Spoken like a true self-righteous Pharisee. Congratulate yourself a little more. I have never seen someone project onto others as much as you do. Again, you are still a Fundie-apologist at heart–not only throwing out baseless speculations on every issue, but also psychoanalyzing anyone who doesn’t agree with you–all to convince yourself that YOU really aren’t the one with the problem: it’s that other guy that needs the kind of “saving” that only you in your vast wisdom and knowledge can provide.
You SERIOUSLY cannot see how you are exactly like the kind of obnoxious, arrogant Bible-thumping Fundie you claim to now be against? Seriously? You are doing the very thing you claim to hate in Fundamentalist Evangelicalism. You seriously cannot see that? Really? I’m trying to help you come to terms with who you are, Gary. That’s why I’m not playing your little game. You need to come to terms with this. Seriously.
LikeLike
But we both know you are incapable of that. So let’s just part ways. Don’t come back on my blog and I’ll leave you alone.
LikeLike
I will not comment further on your blog, but you are always welcome here, Joel.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Politeness and common courtesy (the two-way kind!) disappears very quickly Gary when we just keep asking simple questions and subsequent questions to show, prove that their omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent Yahweh/God has already anticipated EVERYTHING we depraved men and women could ever think of to ask!
Why does that same God not provide them (his chosen) the infallible perfect answers via 1) General Revelation, or 2) Special Revelation? There is NEVER any unanimous, infallible answers, from a 4-Omni God or from his supposed Bride/Church on Earth! It is a never-ending game of Whack-a-Mole and avoidance 😄… exactly like Joel Edmund Anderson has MORE THAN adequately demonstrated here. I watch these little rabbits run off time and time and time again when I ask similar questions, then more, then still more! What eventually happens is that they CANNOT answer any questions logically, reasonably, or cumulatively OUTSIDE of their narrow tunnel-vision Greek Canonical New Testament or later Greek Apostolic-Patristic Church Fathers and their commentaries. Once again, it’s the ostrich head in the sand for them.
LikeLike
What the hell are you talking about Prof? Please, show some reflection and go back and read the comment you, Kia, and Gary have written–how much of them are completely speculative projection thrust onto me? This is amazing. And what is this obsession with Greek Apostolic-Patristic Church Fathers? You are all just dealing with your own little stereotypes that you project onto others. Like I’ve said elsewhere, you all are doing the exact same thing as obnoxious Bible-thumping ultra-Fundie apologists do. You congratulate yourself on your own wisdom and decorum, you proceed to belittle and denigrate anyone who doesn’t play your game, and then you psychoanalyze that person just so you can reassure yourself that you have all the answers and the poor sap is just lost…if only he would just listen to you, he can be saved from his lostness.
You may no longer be a Fundie Christian, but you still have the same mindset as one. Step back and look at yourself.
LikeLike
Are you a fundie Christian, Joel?
Our definition of a fundamentalist Christian is any Christian—Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox—who believes that the Christian god will punish (sinful, evil, infidel) non-believers, in some fashion, physically or mentally, either in this life or in the (alleged) after life.
Do you fit that definition, Joel?
LikeLiked by 1 person
You deal in over-generalizations and stereotypes. No one who knows me would label me a Fundamentalist. Please, read over all your comments about me and realize that virtually everything you’ve said about me is complete projection–I’ve put forth none of the ridiculous claims you’ve mentioned. You are fighting against a windmill in your mind. Please, for your own sanity, realize that.
LikeLike
You did not answer the question: Do you believe that the Christian god will punish (sinful, evil, infidel) non-believers, in some fashion, physically or mentally, either in this life or in the (alleged) afterlife.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Always evading the invitation of self-reflection. Always needing to project onto others the pre-conceived stereotypes and generalities of a Fundamentalist mindset. You are grasping at straws, Gary. All starting from my post on the infancy narratives, you’ve danced to evidence for the resurrection, begrudgingly admitted you have no historical evidence of your own for your alternative theories, then you’ve turned to asking about my childhood, further projected on my upbringing as a Fundamentalist (nevermind the fact that within the past 4 days you’ve called me a moderate, a liberal, a conservative, etc.–anything to reinforce your predetermined thinking), and now you’re pivoting again to a question about hell. You want me to answer just one of your leading questions because you have a whole stack of talking-points you want to start throwing out.
You aren’t engaging in honest dialogue Gary. No matter how much you try to say otherwise, we both know that is not what you are doing. I’m going to decline to play your game again, and you’re going to come back with, “What are these Fundies hiding? etc. etc.” People who know me know I’m open and willing to honestly discuss anything. But it is clear you are not an honest broker. Therefore, I’m not going to enable your delusions. You need to own up to the realization you are engaging in the same kind of ultra-Fundie tactics as the people you seemingly are opposed to. You still are in that camp in your mindset and thinking.
LikeLike
The fact that you refuse to state whether or not you believe in any form of divine punishment for non-belief is evidence to everyone reading this blog that you are a fundamentalist, Joel. Your rage and accusations against me cannot obscure that fact.
You are a member of a deadly, ancient cult, Joel. Your cult is my former cult. I am trying to help you escape the cult. I know from experience how painful it is to hear that your entire worldview is a superstitious fantasy, especially if you are educated and believe that you are too intelligent to be fooled by superstitious claims. It was truly devastating for me. By I survived and you will too. Come out of the darkness of ancient superstitions and into the light of reason, science, and rational thinking, my friend! A world free of capricious, imaginary gods and devils awaits you. And we are here to help you: the online community of ex-Christians. You will not be alone.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hahaha! “Because you do not say you believe in eternal torment is evidence you are a fundamentalist!” Hahaha! Just listen to yourself, Gary! You are making yourself look like a fool.
You are in complete and utter delusion, and your self-righteous condescension is palpable. I’ve encountered ultra-fundies like you who are right-wing Christian extremists. They are horrifically dangerous people: vicious and self-righteous all in one. They are the epitome of Jesus’ condemnations of the Pharisees and scribes, actually. And you are just like them. I can’t have any pity for you, Gary. I hope a light goes on in the heads of anyone reading this interchange. If you don’t believe in God, fine. If you don’t think Jesus rose from the dead, fine. But step back and look at Gary’s comments and demeanor throughout this entire back and forth, then go read Jesus’ condemnations of the Pharisees and scribes and think about those bloodless and vicious ultra-Fundy Christians who’ve wounded you so much–then look again at Gary’s comments, and realize it is all the same stuff, the same mindset, the same viciousness and self-righteousness wrapped up in robes of self-importance.
Adieu.
LikeLike
Dear Joel: You only had to say: “I do not believe that any human being will be punished by my god for non-belief in Jesus the Christ.”
I would then admit that I have misjudged you and would apologize to you, here and on your blog. I don’t have an issue with liberal (universalist) Christians. If you had made such a statement, I would have stated that yes, apologist and theologian Joel Edmund Anderson is a liberal Christian who does not believe that people are punished by his god for what they believe; a liberal Christian whose views are harmless and whose charity organizations are of great benefit to the entire world. I would not have bothered commenting on your blog.
But you refuse to answer the question.
LikeLike
Oh good, I’m a liberal/universalist Christian now…sorry. Open your eyes Gary. You still are a Fundie with a Fundie mindset.
LikeLike
I am ASKING if you are a liberal/universalist Christian, Joel, I didn’t say you are one. Come on.
LikeLike
Why are you so insistent on pigeon-holing and judging who I am? What is up with that? It seems you are obsessed with doing that with everyone. This is why I’m not playing your game. You’re not interested in honest discussion. You only want information so you can judge someone and nail them down. Once you do that, you have files of talking-points lined up that you can use for any person and situation. Again, this is what Fundie-apologists of all stripes do. They have an agenda, they already know what is true, and they want a stage on which to perform so they can show everyone how wise and righteous they are. Do you know what the word “hypocrite” actually means? It means an actor: one who puts on a mask and performs for adulation. That’s what Jesus calls the Pharisees; that’s what so many hostile fundie-apologists are guilty of–that’s why so many people have been turned off of Christianity–precisely because of the viciousness of those types of people.
You are cut of the same cloth. You need to realize that.
LikeLike
I’m not the one getting worked up into a thick lather here, Joel. You are.
There is an old saying in the South: If you throw a rock into a pack of fighting dogs, the one that yelps the loudest is the one that got hit.
Calm down, for goodness sake. Do you let your students get you this worked up??
LikeLike
Haha…okay. You clearly are in denial. I’ll leave you alone.
LikeLike
@ Joel—Simple, easy question. How old were you when you officially accepted Greek Christ in your heart as your Lord and Savior? Just a number will be fine.
LikeLike
Greek Christ?
LikeLike
Focus on your date of being REBORN in Christ. At what age did that happen for you? Simple easy question Joel with an even easier numerical number as an answer.
Or if you are secret undercover spy employed by some Christian organization (e.g. The Fellowship in Washington D.C.) or like the ancient Sicarii/Sicarius around Jerusalem and throughout 1st-century CE Syro-Palestine 😉 … just give us a simple range from options below:
• Toddler — 1-month to 4-yrs old
• Child — 5-yrs to 9-yrs old
• Adolescent — 10-yrs to 17-yrs old
• Young adult — 18-yrs to 29-yrs old
• Adult — 30-yrs to 60-yrs old
• Elderly/Geriatric — 61-yrs to 89-yrs old … or…
• Practically dead and considering all Afterlife options — 90-yrs to 115-yrs old. Lol 😛
There’s absolutely no Christian Scriptural, theological, or logical reason(s) to secretly hide your day of salvation Joel. Period. It is honorable transparency.
(que Jeopardy music…)
LikeLike
Where is your omnipotent, omniscient “Faith” in your God/Savior? Why run away with that sort of “power”? This always baffles me and again speaks volumes about their sheer FEAR in facing facts and reality. (long sigh)
It’s quite reminiscent of David Irving’s same tactics (Holocaust denier) against Deborah Lipstadt in 1993.
LikeLike
All this stuff you guys are talking about — that is, the “young age” at which so many currently-professing Christians became “believers” — it’s ALL TRUE – in Western, post-Christian societies.
And, of course it would be. You have generations of people that were all “raised” in “Christian homes”, and they accept “Christianity” at face value, because Mom and Dad were “believers”.
In fact, from what I’m reading, that’s the case with just about every single “deconvert” in this thread. NONE of you – not ONE – became a believer as an adult, after careful consideration of all the info.
So, yeh, I’d expect a LOT of “deconverts”. And, I, for one, would bid you each a “fond farewell”, knowing full well that “the church at large” totally FAILS to actually educate in any real sense. (And, because of this, only God knows what on earth you thought you were supposed to believe)
Having said all that, though, I’d point out that the biggest “growth” in Christianity as of late has been among the Muslim and African populations – and – the converts are adults, not children. The “missions efforts” which have finally begun to take hold in the current “growth areas” haven’t been around long enough to start producing “kids raised to be Christian”.
So, all this “stuff” which you’re going on about has to do with Christianity in post-Christian, post-modern Western societies, where the church has done a piss-poor job of actually dealing with the “tough questions”, and instead, has spent it’s entire history proceeding as if “everybody” knew “the bible is the Word of God”, and a whole pile of other presumptions.
But, it doesn’t mean squat in places where it’s largely adults that are becoming believers.
In other words, you might get all excited – like a kid with a new toy – to start asking “how old were you when you became a believer” – as if the answer was somehow supposed to “prove” something. But it doesn’t. Not in any “universal” sense, anyway.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Having said all that, though, I’d point out that the biggest “growth” in Christianity as of late has been among the Muslim and African populations – and – the converts are adults, not children. The “missions efforts” which have finally begun to take hold in the current “growth areas” haven’t been around long enough to start producing “kids raised to be Christian”.”
Christianity has always thrived among the poor, the uneducated, and the superstitious. Give people a public university education, a decent standard of living, and access to the internet, and Africa and Asia will follow the same path of religious decline as Europe and North America.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I strongly suspect you’re right about that – unless – there become more and more “believers” such as myself, who don’t buy into the whole truckload of stuff you bought into (and rejected), and (like myself) are convinced that Jesus was resurrected, and not merely “believe” he was.
Christianity hinges on one thing, and one thing only: the resurrection of Jesus. Period.
And, that can be just as easily “preached” (as it were) from an historic perspective as it can be from the Gospels. Actually, I think it can be “preached” or “taught” more easily from an historic perspective than from the Gospels, because frankly, the Gospels (as a “collection of four books”) are a train wreck. Heck, I’ve even said, here on your blog, I’m a Christian in spite of the Gospels.
But, while my views are certainly “minority” (ie, I don’t buy into the Trinity concept, I don’t believe the NT is the “inspired Word of Gawd”, I don’t think Jesus’ death changed God one bit, and a whole bunch of other stuff), there will always be Christians who are thinkers, and over time and out of necessity, they will shape Christianity going forward.
The “old stuff” – the stuff that has it’s roots in the Greco-Roman, pagan-influenced “organization” that became the Catholic Church will die off, as indeed we see the Catholic Church itself dying off. And, I say “good riddance”. And “good riddance” to whatever kind of weird fundamentalism you bought in to. And “good riddance” to the literalism you now love to hate (and yet, still cling to).
Of course, these are all the reasons you find it difficult to argue with me: I don’t buy into any of the stuff you like to argue with. And if Christianity is to survive (and it will), it’s going to get to the point to where viewpoints like mine are no longer “minority”. There was once a time when it was a matter of dogma that the earth was the center of the universe. But, it’s certainly not that any longer. There was once a time when a six-day Creation was the only acceptable paradigm. However, that day is long-since gone. And there are loads of Christians that read – and learn from – guys like Ehrman, and find his works invaluable (as do I) because they make one think, and, ultimately, one finds all the “holes” in what he has to say. But one can hardly come away from reading his works without grasping hold of the necessity of having an historic view. And above all else, that view is the very thing that has pitifully lacked in the church since who-knows-when. “Belief in Christ” became a very experience-based thing, rather than an historically-based thing. (the very reason I never say “I believe Jesus was resurrected”, but rather say “I’m convinced that Jesus was resurrected”). But, all that is subject to change.
Rest assured, though – you and I will both be gone before all this plays out.
LikeLike
The problem for your very unique version of Christianity, ft, is that belief in the supernatural in general is in decline in the educated West. I believe that the only version of Christianity that will survive is the version of Christianity which adheres to the teachings of Jesus the man.
LikeLike
Regrettably, I’m quite sure I won’t be around if/when that happens because the teachings of the man most definitely have value and merit. The rest of “the stuff” is just so much noise.
LikeLike
re: “The problem for your very unique version of Christianity, ft, is that belief in the supernatural in general is in decline in the educated West. I believe that the only version of Christianity that will survive is the version of Christianity which adheres to the teachings of Jesus the man.”
The earth is just one good meteor strike away from the next Ice Age. Or one nuclear war away from the Dark Ages. Or one good bout of serious Global Warming away from human extinction (if we are to believe scientists and 16-year-old Nordic girls). And, those kinds of things tend to change peoples outlooks quite a bit. There’s no telling what kind of events or discoveries (etc) might occur that might make even highly educated people start pondering the supernatural.
This is why I shy away from making any grand predictions.
But, a Christianity that consists of “Jesus, minus the resurrection”? Naaaahhhhh. Might as well join the Rotary Club or something. Jesus, minus the resurrection, is a nobody. I mean, who is he that I, or anyone, should care what he taught, if he wasn’t resurrected? I might as well pop in a Dr Wayne Dyer DVD and put on some nice “New Age” music. Better yet, have a beer and watch the Cowboys.
LikeLike
Human beings have always become more superstitious during times of great turmoil, uncertainty, and suffering. But that doesn’t mean that this is the proper response to these events.
Let’s encourage our fellow humans to think rationally, using the scientific method, to evaluate calamities, instead of asking them to grovel on their knees to invisible (most likely) imaginary gods.
LikeLike
re: “Human beings have always become more superstitious during times of great turmoil, uncertainty, and suffering. But that doesn’t mean that this is the proper response to these events.”
Now, how would YOU know what a “proper response” is, Gary?
I mean – let’s be honest: your views are of no more importance to me than those of “Jesus, minus the resurrection”.
I don’t mean that as insulting, though. It’s just a fact.
And another fact is that you have NO IDEA of how all this “stuff” that comprises this universe even got here. Science doesn’t know that, and never will, because it is impossible to get data from before the Big Bang, and impossible for us to get “outside” of our own universe to observe it with compete objectivity.
Granted – as I’ve said before – that if it were proven that Jesus was “just plain dead” – then I’d drop Christianity like a hot potato. In fact, I’d go further than that, and shoot straight for my Number 2 choice, which is atheism. But even then, I’d never presume to say what kind of response to cataclysmic events is “proper”. I mean, sheesh, how much audacity and conceit can one have????
LikeLike
This sociopolitical fact holds even truer in Islam’s rapid growth. Their numbers will reach at least 3-billion by or before 2060 surpassing all Christians and all their hundreds of denominations… becoming THE #1 Abrahamic religion in the world and all human history. Source:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/06/why-muslims-are-the-worlds-fastest-growing-religious-group/
Socioeconomic demographics play a huge part in a religion’s popularity as you correctly point out Gary. However, one must be careful to keep anachronistic modern causes/interpretations apart from Rome’s full history. That said, just as Christianity flourished around the Mediterranean during and at the pinnacle of the Roman Empire, its ruthless governing, unmatched wealth and trade, and Emperors who backed Greek (Hellenic) Christology—with their Legions if necessary—very similar historical and modern factors and those variables today, i.e. “among the poor, the uneducated, and the superstitious” nations/regions, Islam has grown and is growing just like Greek Christology did: mostly among the impoverished and poorly educated populations. Among some of today’s Muslim states, coercion, torture, imprisonment, and execution keep most doubting/questioning Muslim-born followers from “heretical” deconversion. At various points in history Christendom used the same brutal inhumane tactics. Perhaps in the Western Hemisphere today mental-emotional, covert psych-warfare is utilized disguised as “protection.”
Nevertheless, you make an excellent verified assessment Gary. 🙂
LikeLike
The history of religion is truly horrifying.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes it is Gary… that is for those who go in search of its truths. Or should I have said “Knock and thy large Yahweh/Godly door (gates?) will be openeth for Ye”? 😉
LikeLike
Just want to insert here that I became a Christian as an adult. I was not raised in church; in fact, religion was essentially non-existent in our house. My “conversion” story is on my blog, if interested. Why did I leave? Many reasons … and interestingly, the longer I’m away, the more convinced I am that I made the right decision .
LikeLiked by 1 person
I second that Nan.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s utterly fascinating to sit back and watch this unabashed unfolding of Bulvarisms and Ad-hominems blossom like sunflowers in June, flowing forth from the minds of those who insist on rationality
Of course, it was obvious from the moment someone asked “how old were you when….” that it was going to go this direction, because that question is an obvious set-up for such embarrassingly unashamed uses of Bulvarisms and Ad-hominems.
Still, it’s been fascinating.
Think I’m gonna save off a bunch of these posts as examples of “things to avoid like the plague, in a debate, unless you fully intend to lose”….
LikeLiked by 1 person
And you are the one who believes that dead bodies can be “resurrected”. What a joke.
Let’s call your belief what it is: superstitious ignorance.
LikeLike
Nan –
I’ve sometimes wondered what Jesus’ childhood was like.
I don’t buy into the Nativity stories in Matt and Luke, and I don’t imagine the story of Jesus teaching in the Temple at the age of 12 is historical at all.
I’d bet that Jesus just grew up in Nazareth in a fashion not much different than anyone else. Probably learned the carpentry trade.
Unlike many on this thread – and unlike many Christians – I don’t believe the Gospels are meant to be historical accounts. They certainly may (and do) contain some things that are historically true. But, those “historically true” things have to be gleaned from texts that were largely theological in nature.
It’s unfortunate that (evidently) many on this thread were taught that the Gospels were “historical”, and, when they found out they were not, they could not get past that disappointment. I discovered – or, really, through a big “questioning” process – realized they are NOT historical – and hence, I never rely on them as “history texts”.
Most anyone who has spent time on Gary’s blog has probably seen me say “I don’t do Gospels”. Which is to say, when one starts asking questions like “why does Luke say Jesus’ family returned to Nazareth after his birth, but Matthew says they went to Egypt?”, I just offer no answer whatsoever. Clearly, somebody (Matt or Luke) has the story wrong, and, for all I know, they might both have the story wrong.
As far as I’m concerned, it’s not only “perfectly fine” for someone to question the “history” as it’s presented in the Gospels. What totally eludes me, though, is why someone has such difficulty deciding “oh, these aren’t ‘history texts’ – they’re something else“. But, from the ex-Fundies on this thread, I see that they are all still at a point at which they are deeply disappointed that the Gospels aren’t ‘history texts’, and “darn it, they’re supposed to be, and I got lied to, and there is no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy!!!”
As for me, well, I guess I was either “lucky” or just plain smart – because I took a deep breath, let out a sigh, and just concluded “this stuff is NOT ‘history texts'”.
But, I have ZERO reliance on the Gospels, in terms of my being convinced, historically, that Jesus was indeed bodily-resurrected shortly after his crucifixion. And, I am equally convinced that the earliest “believers” were also convinced that he was bodily resurrected. And, that happened long before the destruction of the Temple, long before this thing we now call “Christianity” got led down some Greco-Roman path. I am convinced that it was very-Jewish disciples of Jesus that were convinced of his resurrection.
I am NOT at all convinced that any of those earliest “believers” had any idea whatsoever of things like the Virgin Birth, or any idea that Jesus grew up much differently than the rest of them.
This, though, is why guys like Gary have a hard time arguing with me – because I spend no time whatsoever “defending” the Gospels, as if they were supportable history.
LikeLike
Ft’s belief in body resurrection is based on ONE man’s testimony: Paul of Tarsus.
How rational is that?
LikeLike
I understand your POV, ft. However, one thing puzzles me.
You (seem to) discount the gospels for any kind of historical evidence/facts when you write, I have ZERO reliance on the Gospels, in terms of my being convinced, historically, that Jesus was indeed bodily-resurrected shortly after his crucifixion.
But isn’t it in the gospels that the resurrection is talked about? Or is your conviction based on Paul’s experience as described (by someone else) in Acts?
LikeLike
Nan –
The first written “recounting” of the gospel is found in 1 Corinthians 15. It’s a creed that Paul recites – and – one that the overwhelming number of scholars agree was in circulation within 1 to 5 years after Jesus’ crucifixion. (the reason for this “range” is because there is disagreement on the year when Jesus was crucified – usually stated as 30ce or 33ce. The bottom line is that most scholars agree that this creed was in use within 1 to 3 years after Jesus’ crucifixion, whichever date that was).
This creed says “…that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas [ Peter ], then to The Twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles…”
In Greek, it reads somewhat like a poem, and it was used as a mnemonic.
This is what was already being circulated by the earliest followers of Jesus, by the time Paul himself became convinced that Jesus had been resurrected. And, as you see, it has all the “bare-bones” info: Jesus died, was buried, was raised on the third day, was seen (or, “appeared to”) Peter, then “The Twelve”, and so on.
LikeLike
Thanks for that. It does clear up why you believe what you believe.
I wonder what you think about those who point out that there are no extraneous reports of the 500 — and that this seems rather odd since one would think such an event would definitely be recorded (or mentioned) elsewhere. At the very least, by one of the gospel writers.
LikeLike
Nan –
re: “I wonder what you think about those who point out that there are no extraneous reports of the 500 — and that this seems rather odd since one would think such an event would definitely be recorded (or mentioned) elsewhere. ”
I’m not sure it’s not mentioned elsewhere. I think a good argument can be made that this “sighting” by a large group is recorded in Matt 28, where it says “…Then Jesus said to them, ‘Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me’. . . . Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted.”
That phrase “some of them doubted” could hardly, in the context of that Gospel, be referring to any of the remaining original Twelve: they had already seen Jesus in Jerusalem.
It’s also spurious to consider that “my [ Jesus’ ] brothers” was limited only to the Twelve. He was there in Jerusalem with over 100 followers from Galilee. Were they not let in on the message?
BUT – we’re talking “Gospels” now, and as I’ve oft stated, I don’t do Gospels. I’m simply trying to address the idea that the “sighting by the 500” isn’t addressed anywhere else – and simply trying to say It Might Be. But, that’s as far as I go with that.
Likewise, there is no other place where James is said to have seen Jesus. That fact doesn’t cause me to “disbelieve” that the creed itself was not being recited by the earliest believers. The creed represents a “core belief” (or, “core beliefs”) that the earliest believers shared.
The question is WHY did they state that any / all of these people had seen a resurrected Jesus?
From an historians point of view, you have to ask this: “Between the crucifixion, and the formulation of this creed, what happened that led to to formulation of the creed?”
Something happened that led the earliest believers to claim that Jesus appeared to all these people. What was it? Hallucinations? Dreams? Seeing someone across the street that looked like Jesus? The sun peeping from behind clouds on an overcast day?
Arguably, it could have been any of those things. Arguably. But, when one gets into the details of such arguments, they always fall flat. For example: hallucinations. I know full well that hallucinations are quite common among grieving people. Heck, when my dog (who was the “love of my life”) died, every night when I got into bed, I could swear that I felt that little pup jump up on the bed (as she always did), and I could feel her footsteps as she walked across the bed to lay down beside me. It was both spooky and exceedingly real to me. But, I never once – for a moment – ever thought it meant she was “bodily alive” again. Millions of people have similar stories about lost loved ones, but they never claim that the lost loved-one is “alive again”. Just doesn’t happen. If it did, then we should have LOTS of “resurrection stories” from throughout the ages: Moms and Dads who lost a son at war, and who’d body was never accounted for. Or, people lost at sea and never recovered. Literally hundreds of thousands of opportunities, due to hundreds of thousands of hallucinations experienced by grieving people. But, they don’t turn into resurrection stories. In fact, such hallucinations tend to have the opposite effect: they serve as a reminder that the dead person is still dead.
So, what I’m saying is that I totally “get” that these other “solutions” – hallucinations, dreams, or other non-veridical “visions” – are all likely candidates for explanations. However, I also “get” that if any of them held true in the case of Jesus, and it led to a claim that he was alive, then those same explanations should also have led to others claiming their lost loved-ones were alive. But, we just don’t see that, and we should have seen LOTS of that following WW2, the Holocaust, etc, if all it took was a missing body and an hallucination to claim “my boy is still alive”.
In short – while I’m a pretty smart guy, and while I’ve looked at all these other options, which seem far more “rational” than resurrection (of all things), still, I don’t buy into any of these other options. For a person to claim that a deceased person is “alive again” requires a total “disconnect” from, or denial of reality. We’re talking about a level of “lunacy” that is akin (or, perhaps exactly like) a schizophrenic – who cannot distinguish fantasy from reality (think of that guy in “A Beautiful Mind”). Such people are rarely ever able to function in “real life”, like, holding down jobs, relationships, etc. I don’t think this is the level that Peter, John, James (Johns brother), or James (Jesus brother) operated on. And, I think the idea that Jesus recruited only psychotics and schizophrenics is beyond the pale.
I could go on, but this is already too lengthy. But, let it suffice to say that I find all these “alternative solutions” to be lacking, and, as outlandish as it seems, I consider Jesus’ resurrection to be the best explanation as to why that creed was formulated.
LikeLike
“That phrase “some of them doubted” could hardly, in the context of that Gospel, be referring to any of the remaining original Twelve: they had already seen Jesus in Jerusalem.”
where does mark and matthew say that “they had already seen jesus in jerusalem” ?
peter according to matthew and mark, never goes to check an empty tomb. if one carefully reads matthews story, the women convey to the 12 to go and “link up” with the resurrected jesus and they (the 12) do.
mark writing forty years later, tells christians that the last peter was seen was denying and lying about jesus and the women said nothing to anyone.
LikeLike
Had Jesus’ tomb been sitting open at some time prior to the women’s arrival, or does the angel unseal the tomb in their presence? A contradiction that challenges the fundamental claims of Christianity
https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/9seja2/had_jesus_tomb_been_sitting_open_at_some_time/
mark: a man in a tomb
matthew : angel flying down and rolling away the stone in the presence of the women
women come to the tomb and see that the stone has already been rolled away. women enter the tomb and see an unknown man inside. what was the connection between the man and the dead body?
in matthew ,the women are told to convey message to the 12. bond says that “in the context of that gospel”
quote:
Then go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has been raised from the dead,[b] and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him
11 While they were going
we are to infer that they were to convey the following message :
‘He has been raised from the dead,[b] and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him
matthew :“You must say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.’
his disciples will produce a body any minute, why spread this lie?
because jesus will never be produced . there was no “500 witnesses” to counter this claim.
matthew :
16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them.
if we read in context, women report to the 12
‘He has been raised from the dead,[b] and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him
LikeLike
mr heathcliff –
re – your last two posts, the first of which begins ““That phrase “some of them doubted” could hardly, in the context of that Gospel, be referring to any of the remaining original Twelve: they had already seen Jesus in Jerusalem.”
Let me start by repeating the “disclaimer” I wrote in my earlier posting:
“BUT – we’re talking “Gospels” now, and as I’ve oft stated, I don’t do Gospels. I’m simply trying to address the idea that the “sighting by the 500” isn’t addressed anywhere else – and simply trying to say It Might Be. But, that’s as far as I go with that.”
As you see, I was “simply trying to say It Might Be”, and adding “But, that’s as far as I go with that”.
The argument I presented was not MY argument. As I indicated, I don’t do gospels.
KEEPING THAT IN MIND, if you will – TAKING NOTE THAT I ADDED THAT DISCLAIMER – what I wrote was an argument that some use. I think the idea that Jesus was seen by the disciples in Jerusalem, in Matthew, is a stretch, but some say that’s what these verses (following) indicate:
“8 And they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples. 9 And behold, Jesus met them [b]and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him. 10 Then Jesus *said to them, “[c]Do not be afraid; go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they will see Me.””
The argument is that v8 refers to the women. But, v9 refers to the disciples. The women run to tell the disciples. Then, “behold”, Jesus met them [ meaning, the disciples ] and they fell at his feet…” blablabla.
That’s the argument. I don’t buy into it, myself.
However, that argument, about whether (or not) the disciples (in Matt) saw Jesus in Jerusalem is (in my book) beside the point. The point of the “broader argument” is that Jesus had more than 11 disciples, and they were all told to go ahead to Galilee.
HOWEVER – I once again have to make mention of my Disclaimer. I don’t do gospels.
On To Your Second Post:
“Had Jesus’ tomb been sitting open at some time prior to the women’s arrival, or does the angel unseal the tomb in their presence? A contradiction that challenges the fundamental claims of Christianity”
This is where we differ enormously: You say this business of whether the tomb was open or not at a given point is “a contradiction that challenges the fundamental claims of Christianity”
I can’t possibly give it that weight at all. I don’t recognize EITHER claim – the tomb was already open, or, the tomb opened as they arrived – as “fundamental” to anything about Christianity.
But, then, that’s very largely my view regarding a great amount the info in the Gospels.
Again – As I’ve said repeatedly, including in my original post that you are referring to: I Don’t Do Gospels.
I have no real “defense” for anything written in them. I make no bones about it: As I stated earlier in this thread:
“As far as I’m concerned, it’s not only “perfectly fine” for someone to question the “history” as it’s presented in the Gospels. What totally eludes me, though, is why someone has such difficulty deciding “oh, these aren’t ‘history texts’ – they’re something else“. But, from the ex-Fundies on this thread, I see that they are all still at a point at which they are deeply disappointed that the Gospels aren’t ‘history texts’, and “darn it, they’re supposed to be, and I got lied to, and there is no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy!!!”
As for me, well, I guess I was either “lucky” or just plain smart – because I took a deep breath, let out a sigh, and just concluded “this stuff is NOT ‘history texts’”.
LikeLike
Ft: Why do you give so much credibility to a “creed”? Did creeds in the first century need to be 100% historically true? If the Gospels do not need to be 100% accurate, as even you believe, why does the Early Creed need to be 100% accurate? It is a theological statement, not necessarily an historical statement.
LikeLike
Gary –
i don’t give any unnecessary credibility to the 1 Cor 15 creed at all I say only what the vast majority of scholars say: It was in circulation within a short time after the crucifixion. And, as such, it tells us what the earliest believers were saying.
Nan’s original question was [ paraphrased ] “if you don’t do Gospels, then how do you know about the resurrection?”, and, of course, the 1 Cor 15 creed states that Jesus was “raised up on the 3rd day”, thus, answering Nan’s question about how I know of the resurrection, apart from the Gospels.
LikeLike
I understand. However, it was a “creed” that was being repeated within a short period of time of Jesus’ death. It was not a history text book. Isn’t it possible that at least some of this creed is legendary/non-historical? If the Gospels can include non-historical information why not a creed?
LikeLike
Gary –
regarding both your last posts —
Could the creed have contained legendary info? Well, clearly, that’s the whole contention of the average skeptic, is it not?
But, it is very clear that Paul talks about Jesus’ resurrection continually — so, he’s talking about the same stuff as in the creed.
Are Paul’s writings “legendary”? Was Paul a myth? Well, there are a few people that say that is the case – there was never a Paul, and the letters attributed to Paul were all written by somebody named Todd or Bruce or something.
And, we can go chasing bunnies down that trail a long time. But, for right now, let’s not, OK?
Back to the creed: Jesus died, was buried, raised on the 3rd day, appeared to Peter and others.
So, what’s “legendary” there? Jesus died? Or that he was buried? Clearly, his being “raised on the 3rd day” must be legend. And, appearing to Peter and others? That must be legend, also. How could it not be, if Jesus being “raised up on the 3rd day” is legend, right?
Isn’t this the whole argument, Gary? Or, am I missing something?
LikeLike
“But, it is very clear that Paul talks about Jesus’ resurrection continually — so, he’s talking about the same stuff as in the creed.”
How do we know that the actual eyewitnesses claimed to have seen the “resurrected” Jesus? Is it possible that the concept of resurrection developed months or years later? Maybe the original eyewitnesses just claimed to have “seen” Jesus. The question is: What did they mean by this?
Do you think it is possible that the appearance to the “five hundred” is legendary, non-historical?
LikeLike
Gary –
re: “How do we know that the actual eyewitnesses claimed to have seen the “resurrected” Jesus? Is it possible that the concept of resurrection developed months or years later? Maybe the original eyewitnesses just claimed to have “seen” Jesus. The question is: What did they mean by this?”
Yes, you are right: the question is “what did they mean” when they said they “saw” Jesus? And, granted, it’s possible that the concept of resurrection developed months or years later.
Let’s unpack the creed…
-Jesus died. I think we’d all agree what that means.
-Jesus was buried. This means, Jesus body was put in a tomb or in the ground.
-Jesus was “raised up”. This LOOKS like it’s referring to the body that was buried. It, by any “natural” reading, doesn’t look like it’s trying to indicate that Jesus’ “spirit” “rose up”.
So, it (to me, and probably to many others) appears to be saying a body was buried, and a body was raised up from that burial spot.
Then – Jesus (a body that had been raised) was “seen”. (or, “appeared to…”, properly)
This would seem to mean that this “Jesus, bodily” “appeared to” whomever…
So, what did they see? Well, I’m guessing they saw a body. OR – at least – CLAIMED to have.
Unless, maybe, Jesus’ body was buried, his body raised up, and yet, the disciples see “Jesus minus the body”…??? A ghost? Despite the “claimed fact” that his body had been raised up? That seems highly unlikely.
The only other option I see here is to say that “Jesus was raised up” is NOT referring to the body that was buried, but rather, that Jesus was “spiritually” raised up.
But, that’s problematic. First, there’s nothing “unacceptable” about that view in normative Judaism. It might result in some “theological differences” about the nature of the afterlife, but that’s all. The Second Problem is the more difficult: the Messiah is a living being, not a ghost, and it’s clear – at least in Paul’s writings – that Jesus is Messiah. So this, then, would support the idea that the claim was that a “living body” had been “seen”.
I would then suggest that although we don’t have any writing from, say, Peter or John (which had been agreed by a strong consensus to have been authentic) saying “I saw Jesus, bodily”, then we have to derive – through reason – what they claimed to have “seen”. And, I would suggest that what they claimed to have seen must have been a corporeal Jesus.
LikeLike
Is it possible for someone to believe that they have seen the body of a “raised up” dead person when in fact it was not that dead person?
For instance, what if the first appearance claim involved one of the disciples seeing Jesus in the distance or in a crowd (but in reality, it wasn’t Jesus, just someone who looked like him)?
LikeLike
ft … I’ve read your answer to me and various others related to the resurrection and at this point, I can only say … if that’s what you want to believe, so be it. It’s more than apparent your aren’t convinced by the various other scenarios that might/could explain “the sighting.”
For me, this belief and all the others related to Jesus all go back to the source, i.e., the bible. For many of us, there are just too many holes in its pages. But to others, it speaks clearly and truthfully of ancient times — and until (or if) a moment of clarity strikes, it will no doubt remain the source of “truth.”
LikeLike
Nan –
re: “For me, this belief and all the others related to Jesus all go back to the source, i.e., the bible”
I was making reference to a LETTER, written by a guy who seemed to find it important to convey some information about someone named “Jesus”. And, in that letter, the guy quoted a creed, which obviously pre-dated the letter. The fact that later on, somebody included that letter in a collection that people now call the New Testament (part of “the bible”) is irrelevant.
We don’t know who “invented” that creed, but, clearly, it was not “from the bible” (which didn’t even exist at the time).
LikeLike
You’re missing my point. But that’s OK. Not worth arguing over.
LikeLike
What did the original eyewitnesses claim that they saw? How do we know that at least some of these claims are not legendary?
The idea that legends and gossip in Antiquity were somehow more accurate and reliable than legends and gossip today is simply a Christian canard to prop up this ancient tall tale. The New Testament itself demonstrates how first century Jews were just as vulnerable to superstitious hysteria as people are today. Just read the stories about John the Baptist in the Gospels. If these texts are correct (and that is a big “if”) many Jews believed John to be the prophet Elijah, and upon his death, King Herod and his court believed that Jesus was the beheaded John back from the dead!!!
Proof of first century legends and gossip right in the Bible itself!
We should no more believe first century claims of Jesus sightings than we do modern Catholic Christian claims of Virgin Mary sightings.
LikeLike
Gary –
re: “What did the original eyewitnesses claim that they saw? ”
Buddy, you’re asking ME to tell YOU what SOMEBODY ELSE said — which would, of course, make anything I told you into “hearsay”.
My suggestion is that if you want to know what the original eyewitnesses saw, go look up a few of them and ask them. I mean, CLEARLY, you don’t accept it when the Gospels say what they saw, because it’s “hearsay”. So, I can’t do any better than that, can i? (I’m really not even sure why you’re asking me, anyway. I don’t know any of the original eyewitnesses).
But – WHATEVER they saw, the question is whether it was real, or whether it was hallucination – ie, a “walking dream” – or some other non-confirmable phenomenon.
And, as you know – I do not buy into the “hallucination / non-confirmable phenomenon” ideas at all.
LikeLike
I agree with you. There is no way to know what these ancient people actually saw.
Isn’t that pretty weak evidence upon which to base your entire worldview?
LikeLike
quote:
“8 And they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples. 9 And behold, Jesus met them [b]and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him. 10 Then Jesus *said to them, “[c]Do not be afraid; go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they will see Me.””
The argument is that v8 refers to the women. But, v9 refers to the disciples. The women run to tell the disciples. Then, “behold”, Jesus met them [ meaning, the disciples ] and they fell at his feet…” blablabla.
That’s the argument. I don’t buy into it, myself.
//
is there any evidence in the gospels that the greek words “kai idou” is DISCONNECTED from the previous sentence?
for example,
the women come to the tomb “kai idou” ……
this looks like connected chronology .
i understand that you do not do gospel, but my question is about “kai idou”
LikeLike
It’s a good question…
I think the argument, from the Greek, is based on a reading like this:
“As yet” [ ie, “presently” ] “they went to report to the disciples of him, “kai idou” – “and behold – Jesus meets “them” [ meaning the disciples ]…. etc etc”.
A further part of the argument that this is referring to the disciples, and not the women, is that Jesus effectively repeats the same message the angel at the tomb said – “tell my brothers to go to Galilee”. The argument is that there was no particular need for Jesus to repeat this to the women, and rather, he was saying this to the disciples.
Personally, I think all that’s a stretch. It just seems to me (frankly) that it’s talking about the women, leaving the tomb, then encountering Jesus. The “continuity” that you’re talking about.
But – “tell my brothers”… I would have to agree that this, in no way, limits “my brothers” to just the group known as “The Twelve”. As such, some argue, it could be that a larger group of disciples had already gathered at whatever location, and then remaining 11 of “The Twelve” arrived, at which time they all saw Jesus.
But – Thank You for acknowledging my “stance” of “I don’t do Gospels”.
What you’ve asked is an interesting question regarding the Greek… and, again, for what it’s worth, I personally tend to agree with the “continuity” that you’re talking about.
LikeLike
Gary –
re: “Is it possible for someone to believe that they have seen the body of a “raised up” dead person when in fact it was not that dead person?”
You mean, is it possible to mistake some living person for being a dead person?
Yeh, absolutely. MOST people, though, remember that “dead people stay dead”, so they don’t go around making claims about the dead person actually being alive, even though they’ve seen an actual person that “looked just like” the deceased person.
LikeLike
Yes, MOST people do not.
But we are talking about a small group of people. Most first century Jews did NOT believe this story.
Small groups of people believe all kinds of things.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, MOST people do not.
But we are talking about a small group of people. Most first century Jews did NOT believe this story.
Small groups of people believe all kinds of things.
LikeLike
So, in the case of a “mistaken identity” – like, seeing a person who “looked just like” Jesus – across a crowded street, or from a little distance on a beach, or whatever — what do you see, in this, as being fundamentally different from an hallucination? Either way, it’s just the brain playing tricks, and either way, it’s un-confirmable.
OR – let me re-think that. In the case of a mistaken identity, it IS confirmable whether the person seen really was Jesus or not – but – nobody bothered to confirm it….
So, Jesus gets crucified. He gets buried someplace – and – let’s go with the tomb, so we have an “empty tomb” idea to play with.
The tomb is found empty. Nobody account for the body, and, the disciples go back to Galilee.
There, they see somebody – a real person – that LOOKS just like Jesus. Lets even say it was actually the twin brother of Jesus, who was separated at birth for some reason, and grew up in a different town in Galilee, with a different family. So, it is entirely reasonable to make this “mistaken identity”,
And, let’s say that all 11 of the original 12 core disciples were together, maybe having lunch in an outdoor cafe or something – and they ALL see Jesus’ twin walk down the other side of the street. And they all agree – “That was Jesus!”
So, we got an empty tomb, an un-accounted-for body, and 11 guys who have all seen Jesus’ biological twin brother across the street.
All we’d have to do is make sure that Jesus’ twin isn’t talked to by any of the 11, and found out not to be Jesus.
Now, that would be the makings of a good “alternate theory”.
But, I still have to question: fundamentally, what’s the difference between this and an hallucination? Does it really matter if the Jesus-look-alike was a physical being? Does such a mistaken “sighting” not raise exactly the same questions that hallucinations would?
LikeLike
No matter what alternative, natural explanations I present, ft, you are NEVER going to agree that any such explanation is as plausible as the Christian supernatural explanation of a dead body resurrection. Why? Because in your mind supernatural events are not only possible but plausible, whereas in my mind supernatural events, though theoretically possible, are definitely not plausible.
We are wasting each other’s time.
LikeLike
re: “No matter what alternative, natural explanations I present, ft, you are NEVER going to agree that any such explanation is as plausible as the Christian supernatural explanation of a dead body resurrection. Why? Because in your mind supernatural events are not only possible but plausible, whereas in my mind supernatural events, though theoretically possible, are definitely not plausible.”
Truth is, this very point is the point I reached during my “highly skeptical” phase at which I became convinced that Jesus’ resurrection – as unlikely as it would seem, especially to one (me) who had rejected the whole of what I call “spooky Christianity by that point” – explained the “Black Box” better than anything else. (The “Black Box” being the time between the crucifixion, and on the other end, the formulation and circulation of the 1 Cor 15 creed).
I’m convinced that there are really only three miracles that have actually happened: Creation (by a mindful, purposeful God), and the Incarnation and Resurrection of Jesus. In Principle, I can accept that other miracles attributed to Jesus in the NT could have happened, but at the same time, I doubt the historicity of all of them. (What can I say? They’re all recorded in the Gospels, and, I got a real dim view of the Gospels as “history”).
The thing is this: During my “highly skeptical” phase, I just went through every possible alternative scenario (to the resurrection) that I could find, or invent, and found that some of them just had major “holes” in them, and others required so much “exceptionalism” that it was just easier to believe the resurrection happened. And, as you know (from our many discussions), I never rely on such things as “guards at the tomb”, or that one or the other Gospel says “Jesus appeared in the midst of them”. And especially I never rely on claims that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or close associates of eyewitnesses. As you well know, I don’t do Gospels. (I blew them off in my “highly skeptical” phase).
Bottom line: I don’t, by any means, consider miracles as any kind of first-line consideration, when it comes to “plausibility”. I’m really only convinced of three, after all. But, yes, it’s true – resurrection is one of the three. But it’s equally true that I didn’t reach that conclusion first, and then start looking for ways to “disprove” the alternatives. It actually worked quite the other way around for me.
(Defining Miracles: I’m using “miracles” above to mean that class of “event” that we commonly consider “miraculous”. However, there are some things – like the human ability to reason – that I consider a “miracle” – but, just not a miracle of that common class)
LikeLike
But that is how we are different: A natural explanation chock full of holes is much more plausible, to me, than any supernatural explanation.
LikeLike
That’s OK.
LikeLike