Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Gary]

Written by an eyewitness? I think it depends on if John wrote John.

Based on eyewitness accounts? Absolutely.

How do you know? See my additions to the above comment.

[Gary]

History deals with probability, Gary, not certainty. You're again exposing how little you know. I'd put Hengel up against Ehrman any day of the week. Both are/were good scholars (Hengel has since died). Maybe you should read Hengel's book. Being a NT scholar doesn't mean you have deep knowledge in every part of the NT. Ehrman is a manuscript specialist, and his work in that area has been fairly good. His popular work, on life of Jesus and Christology, has not. My problem with Bart Ehrman is he a) reads a lot of the text in a fundamentalist way and b) acts as though he's representative of all of critical scholarship, when he isn't. Ehrman is respected, sure. So are John Meier, Craig Evans, and James D.G. Dunn, who hold different views.

As for the authorship, I think John Mark wrote Mark and Luke wrote Luke-Acts. I'm fairly convinced Matthew didn't write Matthew and I'm agnostic as to John. I've seen good arguments both ways for John, but neither side has really convinced me. Bauckham's treatment of it in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses as well as The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple seems somewhat contrived, but some of the other work done on John (for example, Raymond Brown's) leads me to believe there is a significant amount of eyewitness testimony involved.

I really don't care what most Christians think. I care about what scholars think and can support.

https://adversusapologetica.wordpres...f-the-gospels/

[Apologiaphoenix]

He couldn't? Why?

Because he couldn't force soldiers to gamble for his clothes, poke his side with a spear, or arrange how and when he'd be born.

And no, I'm not a Universalist. I think most people know my view on Hell. It's public knowledge.

[Apologiaphoenix]

The internet.

Fooling people to this day into thinking they know what they're talking about.

[Gary]

Because he couldn't force soldiers to gamble for his clothes, poke his side with a spear, or arrange how and when he'd be born.

And no, I'm not a Universalist. I think most people know my view on Hell. It's public knowledge.

If he was God he could have easily done all these things. He teleported to the highest point of the temple and he walked on water. He could do anything, he was still God...if the Bible is true.

So if you believe that your god is going to eternally punish non-Christians for the thought crime of not believing in him, then you are a religious fundamentalist. Maybe not by your definition or the definition of conservative Christians, but you are a religious fundamentalist by the definition of that term used by the majority of people in western civilization.

[Gary]

https://adversusapologetica.wordpres...f-the-gospels/

[Gary]

Written by an eyewitness? I think it depends on if John wrote John.

Based on eyewitness accounts? Absolutely.

https://adversusapologetica.wordpres...f-the-gospels/

[Apologiaphoenix]

Yeah Gary. No nuances to anyone's view on Hell.

fundamentalists.jpg

[Gary]

Yeah Gary. No nuances to anyone's view on Hell.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]9581[/ATTACH]

Are you the thin one or the short one, Nick?

[Gary]

Written by an eyewitness? I think it depends on if John wrote John.

Based on eyewitness accounts? Absolutely.

https://adversusapologetica.wordpres...f-the-gospels/

[37818]

Whoa, whoa, whoa!

1. God did not die on the cross, only a man? Can the death of a man atone for the sins of other men?

I didn't say God didn't die on the cross. I said God cannot die. And that God the Father did not die on the cross. I will add just as Christ died vicariously for the sins of all mankind, God died via His Son. His Son always fully represented God the Father. The Son not being the Father and the Father not being the Son. Makes me think of Schroeder's cat being at the same time both dead and alive.

2. If God cannot die, and Jesus is God, then either Jesus did not die or Jesus is not God!

Jesus was both God and the Man. But He was not the Father, though He fully represents God the Father (John 1:18; Genesis 12:7; John 14:6-9).

3. If God the Father and the Holy Spirit were not on the cross, but only Jesus, then only 1/3 of God died on the cross for our sins. And if 1/3 of something dies, but the other two thirds remains alive, then the 1/3 that died wasn't really "one" with the other "two-thirds". One either is fully dead or fully not dead. One cannot be 1/3 dead.

Not as you suppose. God does not have parts. Deuteronomy 6:4. Isaiah 43:10, 11.

Nonsensical nonsense to bewilder ignorant Jewish peasants into accepting the conceptual impossibility that three gods can still be one god---the brutal, maniacal, vindictive, baby-slaughtering Yahweh of the Old Testament.

Again it is not as you suppose. Mark 10:15. Ezekiel 18:32.

If you wish to deal with a specific issue. We can do so.

[tabibito]

Any inconvenient fact gets hand waved away.

Modern medical interpretation of the historical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead when taken down from the cross.

JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) is a reasonably reputable publication I believe. I'm not aware of any accusations against it of ideological bias.

Christian writers romanticized the bare facts into the fantastical story we find today in the gospels, with angels, earthquakes, three hour eclipses, dead people roaming the street, blah, blah, blah.

Only one writer - and yes, these particular matters can be reasonably regarded as embellishment. But the gospel account doesn't make any mention of an eclipse even at that - the details of elementary astronomy were sufficiently well known at the time to preclude any possibility of a reference to an eclipse.

[tabibito]

What? The author of John BLATANTLY embellished the story to make it fit with prophecy: He moved the day of the crucifixion by 24 hours so that Jesus could be the Passover lamb, dying on the Day of Preparation, not on the day of Passover itself, as Matthew, Mark, and Luke claim!

Every one of the gospels gives the same day. The day before Passover. Where did this story come from?

[tabibito]

Whoa, whoa, whoa!

1. God did not die on the cross, only a man? Can the death of a man atone for the sins of other men?
2. If God cannot die, and Jesus is God, then either Jesus did not die or Jesus is not God!
3. If God the Father and the Holy Spirit were not on the cross, but only Jesus, then only 1/3 of God died on the cross for our sins. And if 1/3 of something dies, but the other two thirds remains alive, then the 1/3 that died wasn't really "one" with the other "two-thirds". One either is fully dead or fully not dead. One cannot be 1/3 dead.

Nonsensical nonsense to bewilder ignorant Jewish peasants into accepting the conceptual impossibility that three gods can still be one god---the brutal, maniacal, vindictive, baby-slaughtering Yahweh of the Old Testament.

1/ The sinless man could die. And the failure of the intent of the law was complete.
2/ God cannot die. And he didn't. The Father and the Holy Spirit did not die.
3/ If any part suffers, the remainder also suffers with it. Father and Holy Spirit suffered death without themselves dying.

Of course, Gary is correct in his assertion that sex would have resulted in a demi-god, or any other form of pregnancy that resulted in a human/god hybrid. That he fails to note the Biblical declaration that the Logos became a man, no different from his brothers sort of goes without saying. As he so often does - he criticises the Bible on the basis of what he can pretend it says.

[Gary]

I didn't say God didn't die on the cross. I said God cannot die. And that God the Father did not die on the cross. I will add just as Christ died vicariously for the sins of all mankind, God died via His Son. His Son always fully represented God the Father. The Son not being the Father and the Father not being the Son. Makes me think of Schroeder's cat being at the same time both dead and alive.
Jesus was both God and the Man. But He was not the Father, though He fully represents God the Father (John 1:18; Genesis 12:7; John 14:6-9).
Not as you suppose. God does not have parts. Deuteronomy 6:4. Isaiah 43:10, 11.
Again it is not as you suppose. Mark 10:15. Ezekiel 18:32.

If you wish to deal with a specific issue. We can do so.

If Jesus fully "represents" God then he is not God himself. God cannot represent himself.

The Trinity is a nonsensical concept invented to fool Jewish peasants to believe that Christianity maintained Jewish monotheism.