Survival

[outhouse]

We have history of men that walked with Jesus
.

That is not true.


We have mythology and theology, poems, songs and allegory plus some metaphor with a light dash of history sprinkled in.

But one thing is factual, and that these books were never written to be used as a history book.


They were written decades after the fact by people who never knew Jesus, didn't live anywhere near him, and lived a completely different lifestyle. Didn't even really follow Judaism as Jesus would have.

We don't have a clue who really walked with Jesus and many scholars claim the 12 is mythical, as the bible is really in general silent on all but 3, his inner circle of fishermen brothers.

 

[Thief]

That is not true.


We have mythology and theology, poems, songs and allegory plus some metaphor with a light dash of history sprinkled in.

But one thing is factual, and that these books were never written to be used as a history book.


They were written decades after the fact by people who never knew Jesus, didn't live anywhere near him, and lived a completely different lifestyle. Didn't even really follow Judaism as Jesus would have.

We don't have a clue who really walked with Jesus and many scholars claim the 12 is mythical, as the bible is really in general silent on all but 3, his inner circle of fishermen brothers.

So if the facts were written sometime after the event....the event is dismissed?

Sure about that?

 

[sojourner]

If as the biblical scriptures say Jesus will return to judge sin and evil on the earth who will be able to survive?

Humanity will, if grace is true.

 

[Tristesse]

If you don't care if they were written during Jesus' life, then you shouldn't have jumped in on the conversation when we were discussing the alleged dates and giving your input. Second, why isn't it a valid source to determine the Resurrection and post mortem appearances.

It's not a valid source because a resurrection and post mortem appearances are not the same as establishing natural occurring events. Again, as I've said many times, not all claims are created equal. Reports of someone being shot, are not the same as reports of ghosts.

And?

Are you gonna answer the question? What other miraculous claims from history do we simply accept based on text? If you claim none, then you're admitting that there is a special exception for the bible.

First off like I told someone else, you don't know who wrote what. All you know is what you've been told. You were not there, nor was anyone else there that is alive today. You say we have writings of Lincoln, as if you know for a fact that he actually wrote it. If Christians claimed that Jesus or God wrote the bible themselves, you and others would not accept this...your objection will be "How do we know that they actually wrote it. Anyone could have wrote it. Maybe their followers wrote it." But when we claim that their followers wrote it, now that turns out to be not good enough. When does the foolishness stop?

As far as photographs is concerned, so what? What about other historical figures that we DON'T have photographs of? Are you questioning whether Hannibal rode elephants to battle? Do you question whether or not Columbus stepped foot on American soil? Do you question whether Ceasar was stabbed? I seriously doubt you question any of these other things, but you sure as hell not only question, but down right REJECT the events that bible claim to have occurred. This is clearly the taxi cab fallacy.

I don't need to be there to establish that it's most likely written by those individuals. My outlook is not dependent on Washington and Lincoln existing, we might have to change some text books if we found out we were wrong, but I accept that they existed, until new evidence confirms that they did not. If historians started claiming that God wrote the bible, I would have a few discrepancies with that right off the bat. First, how exactly did they determine a god existed, second, if a god is writing a book, why is his book no more advanced than the men living at that time. I mean, if a god wrote a book, it should contain some of the most marvelous insight and wisdom, unfortunately, we're left with bigotry, hatred, mass murder, and a host of other nonsensical material. If a god wrote the bible he's definitely not any god I'd worship. And I think those who worship this god, are worshiping an immoral thug.

I reject the miracles in the bible, because as I have said sooo many times, miracles are not the same as establishing real events. A person being stabbed is not on par with a resurrection. A person being shot in the head at ford's theatre is not the same as someone performing miracles. By definition, a miracle is the least likely of events to occur. But you want me to use the same standard of evidence for establishing that John Adam's ate a cheese sandwich. That's not rational.

We have history of men that walked with Jesus. We also have external biblical sources that mentions Jesus by name. Once again, the historicity of Jesus is already accepted by the vast majority of scholars and to deny this would be to deny every thing else that is considered historical.

You have external sources that discuss Jesus, but I'm not disputing his existence. Why do you keep assuming that I'm doubting his existence? I wanna know where the outside sources for his miracles are. Just because you can establish that an individual existed, does not mean that you then establish everything those texts say about that individual. So, please. Where are the outside sources for his miracles?

And Jesus never claimed to be the 16th President. So what?

I'm making a point. I'm sorry you missed it. Whether or not Lincoln was the 16th president is not on the same footing as miracles being performed. Because, we know presidents exist and have existed, you can go and talk to one right now. I'm unaware of any verified miracle ever. And as I've said before, miracles are the least likely occurrences, so, establishing that one has occurred is different from a claim of presidency. Yes, miracle are not an equal claim to establishing who our presidents are. Because a claim of presidency does not violate the laws of nature, which we haven't even established could even happen. So, you're still in fantasy land, while trying to compare that to reality.

Well, Jesus was not only seen by one person, but many people. He was not only seen by believers, but by skeptics as well. So that is a lot of mistaken people.



We don't have pictures of his assasination, do we?

He could have been seen by every single living person at that time, and it still doesn't matter. The amount of people who claim something does not validate the actual occurrence. Besides which, what you actually have, are a few men writing and claiming that many people saw this. That's not the same as getting many reports from many different individuals. But as I said, it doesn't matter the amount of people claiming a miracle, the miracle itself needs to be verified. We can't just rely on these text to establish the miracle.

We don't need pictures of his assassination. Because an assassination is not a miraculous event, nor would it be anything outlandish. So, relying on reports of it's occurrence is enough to establish the events. If we're wrong, that would also need to be demonstrated.

You mean as far as YOU'VE been told, we have their writings. And as far as I've been told, Jesus lived, died, and was raised on the third day. Either way we've both been told something.





I didn't know that having writings qualifies a person from being historical or not. Second, look..no matter how many writings you claim a person has, if you weren't there to see the person writing it, you are basing your belief off of what someone TOLD YOU. You...WERE.....NOT.......THERE, ok? All you know is what you've been told.

I never claimed that having writings from an individual is what you need to determine historicity. Stop claiming things that I simply haven't said. You're making the comparisons of all these individuals, so, I was comparing them. And showing you that in comparison, Jesus, is not as solid as Washington or Lincoln. I'm not claiming he didn't exist, but I was simply making a comparison. So, please don't be so dishonest.

I'm sorry that you're grappling at straws to make comparisons, and when I show you how fallacious the comparisons are, you have to stoop to the "you weren't there" argument. Which is soo childish, and I think it's the new moniker of Christianity. I hear it from so many Christians. You don't have to be somewhere to determine that the events are likely or most likely correct. I never make statements of absolutes, so, information can be wrong or need improvement, and I'm fine with that. I don't know how many times I have to say this, but determining that an individual exists is not on equal footing as determining that the individual performed miracles.

Well it sounds as if you are rejecting the miraculous nature of the claims...on the basis of it defies nature. And my point is, so what? God transcends nature.



The kalam cosmological argument in its entirety.

Well, of course your god transcends nature, because your god can do whatever it is you want him to do. He's the ultimate panacea, cure all. You haven't actually explained anything, but rather explained it away. God transcends nature, how do you know this?

The Kalam? Seriously? This is not the place to get into the falty premises of the Kalam.

Well I don't know what more you want. Men claimed that they witnessed miraculous events, and they recorded what they saw. As mentioned before, there is little doubt on whether or not Jesus actually existed, the only question is whether or not he rose from the dead and was seen post-mortem. If people believed they saw him, then it probably did occur, and historians can only go by what probably happened. If the disciples believed what they saw, then they probably did actually see it.



Well, the foundation of my belief is based on my belief in a supernatural reality, which I base on different arguments. And according to me (my belief), if there is a supernatural reality, then of course there are miracles. And due to the fact that I believe in the historicity of Jesus Christ, that pretty much move me from a theist, to a Christian theist. So on my view, if Jesus rose from the dead, then all of those claims from other books and religions are bogus, because mines is based on historical people, historical places, and historical events, unlike the others.

Historians do not establish that miracles occurred, they only establish events that are contained within nature, not claims from outside of nature. That's not an historians duty.

Whether or not the people and places existed is not a good way for determining miracles, but if it satisfies you, then I think you're being irrational. Just like if historians a thousand years from now, dig up New York, that isn't confirmation that Spider Man existed.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That is not true.

We have mythology and theology, poems, songs and allegory plus some metaphor with a light dash of history sprinkled in.

Jesus lived, was crucified,buried, and raised on the third day and seen by both his followers and his skeptics.

But one thing is factual, and that these books were never written to be used as a history book.

Real people, real places, and real events.

They were written decades after the fact by people who never knew Jesus, didn't live anywhere near him, and lived a completely different lifestyle. Didn't even really follow Judaism as Jesus would have.

Well, the early Church Fathers state that they were written by the Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and each one of these men were either disciples or friends of the disciples. So instead taking the word of a guy that is on a religious forum over 2,000 years later, I will take the word of the early Church Fathers.

We don't have a clue who really walked with Jesus

In that case we don’t have a clue on how Julius Ceasar died or anything else in history.

and many scholars claim the 12 is mythical, as the bible is really in general silent on all but 3, his inner circle of fishermen brothers.

And Hannibal riding elephants to battle is also mythical. Everything in history is mythical.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

First we don't have exact dates for either of them

We don't have exact dates for a lot of events in history, so why all of a sudden once we speak on Jesus we have to be so precise? We may not have an exact day, month, year, hour...but what we do have is a time-frame to work with. That is quite enough.

- and - Even 20 years later (making him a infant genius) is after the fact - making it hear say.

We still have the letters of Paul which predate the Gospels..which was written some 20 years later. So still, this is within the lifetime of the disciples. There is no getting around this. It is inescapable. Shortly after Jesus' death, his disciples claimed to have seen him alive, and Christianity spread through Rome and was full blown out of control by 70AD. These are historical facts, people. I understand it is hard to accept because as non-believers, you people must try to avoid the Resurrection at all costs, but you are in a no winning situation.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Perhaps if you read the rest of James 2 you'd realize that the context has absolutely nothing to do with James not emphasizing being a Jew and Judaism.

Or I can just read James 1:1 where it states "James, a servant of God AND of the Lord Jesus Christ". Or are you going to tell me some crap about the translations and what not? The message is clear in both verses so I don't need anyone to "interpret" it for me. He called himself a servant of "God and the Lord Jesus" in verse 1, and identified himself amongst the believes in the Lord Jesus Christ in the beginning of the following chapter. Whether or not he was a Christian or Jew is irrelevant, all I know is the man said that he is a servant of Jesus. Enough said.

And if you read Acts 21, you'll see quite plainly that the Jews of the Jerusalem Church apparently had a different standard than the gentiles. (And that's not even getting into the issue of the early 20th century scholarly concern of whether 21:25 was interpolated). Hence why Paul took the vow, to prove that he wasn't telling Jews to abandon Moses. Either that or he was being a very crafty liar. But regardless, it indicates the Jerusalem Church never abandoned Moses. You have to read something into it that's not there to get the context to say otherwise. The early "Christians" were not an entirely different religion. They were merely an Apocalyptic Messianic Sect of Judaism. The association of "Christianity" with something outside of being a sect of Judaism was a much later development, something that goes totally against virtually everything Jesus taught.

Irrelevance.

 

[Shermana]

Or I can just read James 1:1 where it states "James, a servant of God AND of the Lord Jesus Christ".

Yes you can do that but all that does is reveal a sheer disregard for context and attempt to change the issue.

Or are you going to tell me some crap about the translations and what not?

No, just some "Crap" about a total inability to remotely discuss bible verses in context and how it undermines your general credibility and perhaps you should give it a rest for the sake of the cause.

The message is clear in both verses

What's clear is that you're dead wrong about what James is saying and you are quite assertive that your interpretation is correct and only your interpretation, when even the major commentaries don't get this gist and that you're on your own on this. Meanwhile, I'm quite fine being assertive in my position, as I am actually able to back it up.

so I don't need anyone to "interpret" it for me.

You most definitely do. But everyone has their own interpretation, no matter how wrong.

He called himself a servant of "God and the Lord Jesus" in verse 1,

Which has nothing to do with him giving up Judaism, or being a part of a non-Jewish Messianic sect that was still Jewish.

and identified himself amongst the believes in the Lord Jesus Christ in the beginning of the following chapter.

Which has nothing to do with him giving up Judaism, or being a part of a non-Jewish Messianic sect that was still Jewish.

Whether or not he was a Christian or Jew is irrelevant, all I know is the man said that he is a servant of Jesus. Enough said.

So then you're basically avoiding the very issue of discussing the reason for your interpretation of that verse being some kind of proof that there's an indication of no difference between Jewish and Christian. Well then, I guess that works for me.

Irrelevance.

By all means, please explain what's so irrelevant about it. Is it irrelevant because it totally proves you wrong? Generally that's a common pattern I notice with those who seem intent on asserting a non-contextual interpretation when the facts otherwise undermine their position.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Yes you can do that but all that does is reveal a sheer disregard for context and attempt to change the issue.

The man said "as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ.." so what does it mean to be a believer in Christ, oh great Shermana???? Whether you want to call him a Jew or Christian, doesn't matter. All that matters is the fact that he called himself a believer in Jesus Christ. So on that note, you can label him whatever you want, but the context is certainly clear, he was a believer in Christ, and considering the fact that he was originally a skeptic...well, you get the point.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The man said "as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ.." so what does it mean to be a believer in Christ, oh great Shermana???? Whether you want to call him a Jew or Christian, doesn't matter. All that matters is the fact that he called himself a believer in Jesus Christ. So on that note, you can label him whatever you want, but the context is certainly clear, he was a believer in Christ, and considering the fact that he was originally a skeptic...well, you get the point.

James was a skeptic? Which one?

 

[outhouse]

So if the facts were written sometime after the event....the event is dismissed?

Sure about that?

That is not what I wrote, and for you to make such a statement shows your lack of comprehension.

 

[Shermana]

The man said "as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ.." so what does it mean to be a believer in Christ, oh great Shermana????

First off, there's the issue of what "believer" means in Greek. It most certainly did not mean the minimalist idea of simply "one who has faith in Jesus as Christ" that it has developed over time. But rather originally meant "One who believes in the words and teachings and obeys them fully".

That is a whole thread's worth of discussion, but to simply give a one sentence reply without derailing the whole thread: It means to actually obey what Jesus taught, which includes obedience to the Law. If you want to argue against that, start a new thread and I'll be happy to demolish your antinomian Pauline perspective there.

Whether you want to call him a Jew or Christian, doesn't matter.

It certainly does, you're simply attempting to sidestep a historically controversial issue. James and the Jerusalem Church were apparently much different than the Pauline church. It's that simple.

All that matters is the fact that he called himself a believer in Jesus Christ.

Did not the Nicolations and other groups call themselves "believers"? Did not the individuals Paul attacked consider themselves Believers?

So on that note, you can label him whatever you want, but the context is certainly clear, he was a believer in Christ, and considering the fact that he was originally a skeptic...well, you get the point

The issue I am arguing is that just because one is a believer, it does not mean that all there is to it is belief in Jesus. This Sola Fide concept is a very recent Protestant invention. When James said he's a "believer", it most likely meant that there was a long series of actions, behaviors, ritual (like Eucharist, as described in the Didache) and ethical code of conduct that went with it, and that includes Law obedience, which the Jerusalem Church did.

Jesus himself said that those who call him "Lord" (i.e. "believers") will be kicked right out on the day of judgment if they don't do the will of God. Obviously the will of God is more than just "To believe". And again there's the issue of what "believer" means in Greek.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It's not a valid source because a resurrection and post mortem appearances are not the same as establishing natural occurring events. Again, as I've said many times, not all claims are created equal. Reports of someone being shot, are not the same as reports of ghosts.

The disciples believed that they saw a post mortem Jesus Christ. As I said before, either they were deliberately lying, or they were all delusion…neither option makes much sense considering the fact that delusional people don’t see the same things and people aren’t willing to give their life for something they know to be false.

Are you gonna answer the question? What other miraculous claims from history do we simply accept based on text? If you claim none, then you're admitting that there is a special exception for the bible.

It doesn’t matter because I am open to the possibility of miracles occurring, are you?

I don't need to be there to establish that it's most likely written by those individuals.

I feel the same way about the authorship of the Gospels/Bible.

My outlook is not dependent on Washington and Lincoln existing

Your outlook as far as what?

If historians started claiming that God wrote the bible, I would have a few discrepancies with that right off the bat. First, how exactly did they determine a god existed

What if they say the kalam, ontological, teleological arguments. Then what would you say?

second, if a god is writing a book, why is his book no more advanced than the men living at that time.

Advanced in what way?

I mean, if a god wrote a book, it should contain some of the most marvelous insight and wisdom, unfortunately, we're left with bigotry, hatred, mass murder, and a host of other nonsensical material.

That is all subjective, Trist.

If a god wrote the bible he's definitely not any god I'd worship. And I think those who worship this god, are worshiping an immoral thug.

Christians feel different. Like I said, all subjective.

I reject the miracles in the bible, because as I have said sooo many times, miracles are not the same as establishing real events. A person being stabbed is not on par with a resurrection.

What do you mean? If it happened, it happened.

A person being shot in the head at ford's theatre is not the same as someone performing miracles. By definition, a miracle is the least likely of events to occur. But you want me to use the same standard of evidence for establishing that John Adam's ate a cheese sandwich. That's not rational.

Yes and I agree, but what you have to understand is; it isn’t as if we are saying that Jesus rose NATURALLY from the dead. We are saying that God raised Jesus from the dead. And if this event occurred, it occurred in history, and the truth value of the claim is independent of whether or not you like the idea of miracles occurring.

You have external sources that discuss Jesus, but I'm not disputing his existence. Why do you keep assuming that I'm doubting his existence?

Oh goodie.

I wanna know where the outside sources for his miracles are. Just because you can establish that an individual existed, does not mean that you then establish everything those texts say about that individual. So, please. Where are the outside sources for his miracles?

First off, no outside sources are needed. What sources do we have outside of Egypt which states the existence of King Tut? The fact of the matter is, the bible may be presented as one whole book, but each book is independent of the other. So we have four biographies from four independent sources, and two letters from skeptics turned believers in Paul and James. So it all boils down to just whether or not you will accept by faith that Jesus rose from the dead. You already admitted that he is a historical figure..next comes faith.

I'm making a point. I'm sorry you missed it. Whether or not Lincoln was the 16th president is not on the same footing as miracles being performed.

They are not the same when you distinguish a miracle from a natural event, but they are the same in terms of both are said to be historical. Both happened in the past, and both have eyewitness testimony. It is on the grounds of the eyewitness testimony that we can accept the fact that both occurred.

Because, we know presidents exist and have existed, you can go and talk to one right now.

So you are saying that because we know presidents exist, we should accept the fact that the one in question existed? Fallacious.

I'm unaware of any verified miracle ever. And as I've said before, miracles are the least likely occurrences, so, establishing that one has occurred is different from a claim of presidency.

So how do you explain the origins of the disciples belief?

Yes, miracle are not an equal claim to establishing who our presidents are. Because a claim of presidency does not violate the laws of nature, which we haven't even established could even happen. So, you're still in fantasy land, while trying to compare that to reality.

So you are basing your entire case on a presupposition you have against miracles. Gotcha.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

He could have been seen by every single living person at that time, and it still doesn't matter. The amount of people who claim something does not validate the actual occurrence. Besides which, what you actually have, are a few men writing and claiming that many people saw this. That's not the same as getting many reports from many different individuals. But as I said, it doesn't matter the amount of people claiming a miracle, the miracle itself needs to be verified. We can't just rely on these text to establish the miracle.

Um Trist, on one hand you make it seem as if there were reports from many different individuals, that would validate the claim. Then on the other hand you are saying it doesn’t matter the amount of people claiming the miracle, the miracle itself need to be verified? Those are two contradictory views. Not only that, then you say the miracle itself needs to be verified…but how? How can anything in history be “verified” then?

We don't need pictures of his assassination. Because an assassination is not a miraculous event, nor would it be anything outlandish. So, relying on reports of it's occurrence is enough to establish the events. If we're wrong, that would also need to be demonstrated.

But whether or not he was assassinated would be either true or false regardless of whether it was a miraculous event or not. It isn’t about whether the event was miraculous or completely natural. We are talking about the truth value of the claim. You are in no position to claim that miracles can or can not occur. What would you base it on? Christians base it on the fact that we believe that God exist, and if God does exist, for him to raise someone from the dead would be light work. Now if the claim was that Jesus rose naturally, then I agree, that is HIGHLY improbable if not impossible. But to say that God raised Jesus from the dead is an entirely different story.

I never claimed that having writings from an individual is what you need to determine historicity. Stop claiming things that I simply haven't said. You're making the comparisons of all these individuals, so, I was comparing them. And showing you that in comparison, Jesus, is not as solid as Washington or Lincoln. I'm not claiming he didn't exist, but I was simply making a comparison. So, please don't be so dishonest.

Being dishonest? Wait a minute, you asked me:

“Where are the writings from Jesus himself?”

And I said:

“I didn't know that having writings qualifies a person from being historical or not.”

It is obviously that you are saying that George Washington is more credible than Jesus because we have writings from him and not Jesus. Now if that isn’t what you mean, then please enlighten me on why would you ask the question in the first place, as if someone needs to have left behind writings in order to be considered a historical figure.

Second, your logic just doesn’t fly anyway, because even if something was said to be written from George Washington, how do you know it was actually written from him? All you know is what you’ve been told. You were not there, so you accept by faith that he wrote whatever it is you believe he wrote. So why not play skeptic there too?

Third, as I said before, even if Jesus did leave behind some kind of writing, you would still be on here claiming “how do we know that Jesus actually wrote it?? Someone else could have wrote it. You can’t prove that Jesus actually wrote it.” So regardless even if the claim was that Jesus allegedly wrote something, that wouldn’t stop people that were hell bent on NOT believing to come up with some wild and crazy stuff. The same thing is happening with the Gospels even right now, so I know the same thing would have happened with Jesus.

So again, I was not being dishonest on anything, in fact, even if I accept the fact that you were comparing between the two, that line of reasoning still wouldn’t fly for the reasons I just mentioned. There is no way you can conclusively say that George Washington wrote anything. You are exercising your faith with history books the same way Christians exercise our faith with the Bible.

I'm sorry that you're grappling at straws to make comparisons, and when I show you how fallacious the comparisons are, you have to stoop to the "you weren't there" argument. Which is soo childish, and I think it's the new moniker of Christianity.

The “you weren’t there” argument comes from the fact that you people will go through extra lengths to disprove the bible, even the modest claims. We are claiming that two disciples and two friends of the disciples wrote the Gospels. Why is that so hard to accept? Forget the Resurrection; you people can’t even accept the fact that two disciples and two friends of the disciples even wrote the dang books!!! Is this so hard to accept? So, since you want to make spectacles about modest claims, why don’t I play the same game? If that is the case, why not question anything in history??? You weren’t there when the Declaration of Independence was signed, were you?? All you see is something that was written, and signatures that was signed. You don’t know who signed those signatures, do you?

I hear it from so many Christians. You don't have to be somewhere to determine that the events are likely or most likely correct.

I agree. I wasn’t living in 33AD but I think it is likely that Jesus was crucified and Resurrected.

I never make statements of absolutes, so, information can be wrong or need improvement, and I'm fine with that. I don't know how many times I have to say this, but determining that an individual exists is not on equal footing as determining that the individual performed miracles.

Why not? If an individual exists and he performed miracles while he existed, what is wrong with that? If it happened it happened. The only reason to question this would be if you had a prejudice against supernatural claims. The only reason.

Well, of course your god transcends nature, because your god can do whatever it is you want him to do. He's the ultimate panacea, cure all. You haven't actually explained anything, but rather explained it away. God transcends nature, how do you know this?
The Kalam? Seriously? This is not the place to get into the falty premises of the Kalam.

Since the finitude of the universe has been established for almost 100 years or so, it is apparent that whatever that gave the universe its beginning could not exist be within it. The cause of the universe had to transcend space, matter, and time. If you look in the dictionary, the only thing that has the attributes to transcend space, matter, and time is...God.

Historians do not establish that miracles occurred, they only establish events that are contained within nature, not claims from outside of nature. That's not an historians duty.

This is false. That is true about science, but not true about history. If God parted the Red Sea, and it was captured live on CNN for all to see, it would be an event that happened, right? And 200 years later, it would have happened in history, right? Historians record, research, and study history. Any event that happens in history is…HISTORY…whether it be miracles or not.

 

[outhouse]

This is false. That is true about science, but not true about history. If God parted the Red Sea, and it was captured live on CNN for all to see, it would be an event that happened, right? And 200 years later, it would have happened in history, right? Historians record, research, and study history. Any event that happens in history is…HISTORY…whether it be miracles or not.

Your wrong again.

The books we have were not recording history. They were writing theology using mythology, poems, songs, metaphors and allegory.


Not only that if you ever took a course on history you would realize the first thing the professor tells you is we cannot recreate the past, it is gone.

No miracle has ever been recorded with any credibility that we can now place it out of mythology .

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

First off, there's the issue of what "believer" means in Greek. It most certainly did not mean the minimalist idea of simply "one who has faith in Jesus as Christ" that it has developed over time. But rather originally meant "One who believes in the words and teachings and obeys them fully".

So if you believe in the words and teachings of Jesus and obeys them fully, how does this not mean one who has faith in Jesus Christ? Cmon now Sherm, you are over-analyzing things here.

That is a whole thread's worth of discussion, but to simply give a one sentence reply without derailing the whole thread: It means to actually obey what Jesus taught, which includes obedience to the Law. If you want to argue against that, start a new thread and I'll be happy to demolish your antinomian Pauline perspective there.

First I want you to fully recover from that Trinity spanking I gave you :beach:

It certainly does, you're simply attempting to sidestep a historically controversial issue. James and the Jerusalem Church were apparently much different than the Pauline church. It's that simple.

Well, according to Paul, they agreed that Paul and Barnabas were to go to preach to the Gentiles, and James, Peter, and John were to preach to the Jews. The message was clear, the Jesus died, was buried, and was raised on the third day.

I could care less about labels, the fact of the matter is James believed in the Resurrection.

Jesus himself said that those who call him "Lord" (i.e. "believers") will be kicked right out on the day of judgment if they don't do the will of God. Obviously the will of God is more than just "To believe". And again there's the issue of what "believer" means in Greek.

Do you not agree that James believed in the Resurrection?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Your wrong again.
The books we have were not recording history. They were writing theology using mythology, poems, songs, metaphors and allegory.
Not only that if you ever took a course on history you would realize the first thing the professor tells you is we cannot recreate the past, it is gone.

No miracle has ever been recorded with any credibility that we can now place it out of mythology .

Rhetoric in its purest form.

 

[Shermana]

So if you believe in the words and teachings of Jesus and obeys them fully, how does this not mean one who has faith in Jesus Christ? Cmon now Sherm, you are over-analyzing things here.

Ummm, am I reading that correctly? I think I was specifically saying that the definition is one who obeys them fully. It is you who is under-analyzing them and attempting to sidestep an age-long historical debate as if your minimalist post-Lutheran view is correct and attempts to go by the whole are "over-analyzing".

First I want you to fully recover from that Trinity spanking I gave you :beach:

I love when people think they won the debate when it was them who got smacked hard. If you want to believe you won that debate and were able to effectively refute everything, feel free to do so, but you're only adding fuel to my stereotype of Trinitarians thinking they're right regardless of what the facts indicate. Perhaps it is you who needs to recover from the spanking because you are in a delusional haze about who spanked who.

Well, according to Paul, they agreed that Paul and Barnabas were to go to preach to the Gentiles, and James, Peter, and John were to preach to the Jews. The message was clear, the Jesus died, was buried, and was raised on the third day.

And like I said, there's an issue of whether the entire Council of Jerusalem, and subsequently Acts 21:25 has been interpolated among several scholars, especially in the early 20th and late 19th century, prominent with the Tubingen school. However, the "Clear" message you are referring to sidesteps the entire issue at stake here: Whether there was a difference between being a Jew and a claimed "Christian", and there was. James was a Jew. The "Nazarenes" were a Jewish sect. The term "Christian" was applied to this Jewish sect. They were quite differentiated from the gentiles. They obeyed Jewish Law apart from Pharisaic interpretations. It may be an issue of Semantics, but in this case, such labels are very important to distinguish between incorrect characterizations and the whole picture vs minimalist sidestepping.

The true church, according to Revelation are those who obey "The commandments of God". Any attempt to say "The commandments" are different than "The commandments" of the Law will be met with fierce resistance.

I could care less about labels, the fact of the matter is James believed in the Resurrection.

Great! Now if only that was the relevant issue in regards to what was meant by him being a "believer".

Do you not agree that James believed in the Resurrection?

I most certainly agree.

What I most certainly don't agree with is that belief in the ressurrection was all that mattered to be considered a "believer". Sure, you could say one was a "believer" in the Ressurection, but that does not make them a "believer" in Jesus.

In a debate about who the text is talking about and what the meaning of the words are, it's very important to distinguish who is truly scottish, and it's not a fallacy to do so.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I believe even the Pharisees believed in resurrection. Essenes may have too...I think only the Sadducees didn't.

According to Josephus their main beliefs were:
There is no fate
God does not commit evil
man has free will; “man has the free choice of good or evil”
the soul is not immortal; there is no afterlife, and
there are no rewards or penalties after death
The Sadducees rejected the belief in resurrection of the dead, which was a central tenet believed by Pharisees and by Early Christians. This often provoked hostilities.[11] Furthermore, the Sadducees rejected the Oral Law as proposed by the Pharisees. Rather, they saw the Torah as the sole source of divine authority.[12] The written law, in its depiction of the priesthood, corroborated the power and enforced the hegemony of the Sadducees in Judean society.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Ummm, am I reading that correctly? I think I was specifically saying that the definition is one who obeys them fully. It is you who is under-analyzing them and attempting to sidestep an age-long historical debate as if your minimalist post-Lutheran view is correct and attempts to go by the whole are "over-analyzing".

Didn't you say below that bibically speaking, James believed in the Ressurrection? Well then, nothing else needs to be said.

I love when people think they won the debate when it was them who got smacked hard. If you want to believe you won that debate and were able to effectively refute everything, feel free to do so, but you're only adding fuel to my stereotype of Trinitarians thinking they're right regardless of what the facts indicate. Perhaps it is you who needs to recover from the spanking because you are in a delusional haze about who spanked who.

Its ok Sherm, relax man :cigar:

And like I said, there's an issue of whether the entire Council of Jerusalem, and subsequently Acts 21:25 has been interpolated among several scholars

Now why would one think that??

What I most certainly don't agree with is that belief in the ressurrection was all that mattered to be considered a "believer". Sure, you could say one was a "believer" in the Ressurection, but that does not make them a "believer" in Jesus.

So James traveled with the rest of the Apostles throughout their ministries without being in Jesus. He could have been doing anything else in the world, but he decided to travel with the Apostles while they proclaimed the Ressurection without himself believing in Jesus. Makes no sense. Believe what you want, Sherm.