countjulian

According to Tacitus, Vespasian cured a blind man by putting spittle on his eyes:

Tacitus is considered by many to be one of the best if not the best ancient historian. He catologued his sources (sometimes), compared different accounts, and kept a sceptical eye towards many different facets of history. We know much about him from his works and what others wrote of him, and we have other works he did besides the Annals. His passage about Jesus is utilized by Christian apologists all the time to prove the existance of Jesus

John says that Jesus cured ablind man by putting spittle on his eyes:

We know virtually nothing about John, not even if the name attatched to the gospel was his actual name. We know of no other works definitvly written by him, who he wrote the gospel for, or anyone else who knew he was writing at the time. We know he could play fast and loose with the facts, and his account of the events of Jesus' life differs widely from that of the synoptics.

Why should I spurn the "eyewitness testimony" of the historian Tacitus on the curing of the blind man by Vespasian, but believe GJohn on the curing of the blind man by Jesus?

rhutchin

Because the further claim of John is that you must stand before that same Jesus one day and be judged for your actions on earth and that judgment will determine whether you are allowed entry into heaven. The account of the curing of the blind man has been provided to you to substantiate that claim. Whether you believe that Vespasian also cured a blind man is inconsequential.

countjulian

But if I do not know that Jesus' miracles are true, how do I know that what you said isn't jus t a bunch of mythological hogwash meant to scare the easily suggestiable into piety? That's a non sequiter and an appeal to force there, my friend.

NOGO

Jesus is dead and will certainly never return.
Ealy Christians believed that Jesus would return within a generation.
This is reflected in numerous places in the NT.

Here is one of many ...
1 Corinthians 15:51
Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed,
in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

Note that in his mystery Paul says two things about the time of Jesus' return
1) the dead will the raised and
2) the living (WE) will be changed

Paul includes himself in the WE. He expected to be around when Jesus returned. "we will not all sleep" Paul is telling his audience that not all of them will die and that some including himself will be around when Jesus returned. Well, well, everyone Paul was speaking to is long dead and Jesus did not return.

2000 years later I doubt that you, rhutchin, expect to be around when Jesus returns.

If Paul were alive today he would not be a Christian. He would come to the obvious conclusion that if Jesus did not return within the generation as expected then he will not return after 2000 long years.

Simply put the time for Jesus' return has long past.

I think that the point is that the curing of the blind man does not substantiate anything. It does not substantiate that Jesus will return no more than it substantiate the fact that Vespasian was a God.

rhutchin

That may be, but the only evidence that is available is that which is contained in the Bible. The issue for you is to determine whether it is true and then whether you will believe it. You can always take the chance that it is not true.

rhutchin

We have your understanding of the passage cited and the true meaning (if different). There is the possibility that you have misunderstood that which Paul said. He said other things that would suggest that he was referring to a group that could include himself but did not have to.

Not by itself. Together with everything else in the Bible it makes the claim that Jesus will return.

gregor

But Mr. Hutchin, other people were concerned about Jesus' no-show.

Those people were the folks in 150 CE who wrote 2 Peter. 2 Peter is an excuse-text acknowledging "I know we're losing church members and are being mocked because it's been a 100 years with no second coming." The explanation for the delay is not that (i) you misunderstood Mark, or (ii) Paul didn't mean Jesus would return in his lifetime, or (iii) the destruction of the Temple was the coming in clouds. Rather, the excuse was
"Well, God's calendar is a little off. BUt it will be soon, trust me."

CJD

Actually, the excuse was, "God is patient, wanting none to perish. When the ekklesia repents, then the king will return." It's a prediction, in other words, that is conditional based on a historical contingency, namely, repentence.

Well, don't look at me like that; I'm just telling you what the writer was getting at.

CJD

rhutchin

Both of you have got parts of it right. Times were tough in the 1st century. People were being persecuted. Those whom one thought to have been saved by God were falling away causing great anguish to those whom God had saved. Peter explained that God had His own timetable -- to save the elect -- and time was generally inconsequential to God (a thousand years to us was as a day to God, so "soon" could be a long time). In the meantime, Peter assurred them that everything was going according to plan and they would be saved.

JPD

Peter's knowledge stretched to the understanding that God has a timetable but not to its structure or contents and communicated his confidence that they would be saved despite not knowing who is on the list of the elect?