Jim Larmore

This is refreshing to see,,,, an open mind
Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek weren't obscure languages when the texts were originally written. I feel the miracle of life and the diversity of the biota prooves there is a God. God in the spirit cannot be in the presence of sinful man or we would be consumed instantly. God chooses to use man to do most of what He wants done when it comes to man's business and what He wants man to know. I agree He could have used a more perfect medium to do this but who am I to presume on the workings of the creator.
God created us with intelligent minds and free wills to choose the right way, or the wrong way, its our choice. Satan clouds up the picture the best he can to deceive men into believing lies about what is real and true. If you really study into it most apostate religions originate from the mesopotamia basin around where its believed Babylon was. Babylon is synonymous with confusion. The truth is there but you have to be willing to really look for it.

I used to be agnostic too but when I really studied the cell I came to the conclusion that this couldn't have come about by fortuitous means via an undirected inorganic primordial soup. I have also since seen an angel so I know super natural beings exist. God is real, there is a great controversy going on between good and evil.
I used to feel the same way but I have changed my beliefs. I feel I have been changed in so many other ways too. I used to be a practicing alcoholic, I was a male slut, I used to live primarily for myself and "F" the world. Now the love of Christ is in my heart and I am a totally changed man. Only the power of God could have done that. This stuff is real Julian, its not a superstition.

Jim Larmore

You can call it what you want I guess. I feel I have been offering rational arguments supporting my postion. If you feel uncomfortable with me calling it a witness then I won't call it that again. I'm certainly not a preacher thats for sure.

Julian

True, but god must have known that people were going to be around for a while and that those languages would become obscure and that his message would be distorted through the ages. Or did he not expect that much time to pass before his return...
That makes no sense. Why isn't it proof of the IPU? Allah? Materialism?
Why? How do you know?
I disagree. You are imminently qualified to question him since you are the one who has to live as his creation under his laws.
No, not true. He provided plenty of evidence for a purely science-based universe and not one shred of evidence for his existence. If he really wanted to give us a choice then the evidence would be balanced. Or, at least, there would be some inkling of the existence of god. The choice is one-sided and not fair. Remember, the biota says nothing about the presence or nature of god.
Then why did the bible mimic or even directly copy so much of the Sumerian and Babylonian mythology? Like The Flood, Creation and so on...? Utnapishtim?
I read and study the bible regularly. I have recently started reading it in Koine Greek as I am learning it. I take my studying very seriously. I also see the meaning that people find in there. I simply do not consider it profound or believable. All it does is fill me with amazement that anyone can take the puerile ramblings seriously. A child could have written a better book.
Despite the scientific evidence to the contrary, abiogenesis notwithstanding? On one hand you have solid science for evolution and on the other an incoherent book, and you chose the book? That is where you and I differ.
Seeing is not believeing. The human mind is fallible.
How do you know this? Why is there a controversy when god created both good and evil (Isa 45:7)?
I am glad that you are changed for the better. I feel a bit sad that you could not have achieved that change simply because it was the right thing to do in, and of, itself.

It is very much superstition, pure and simple. The story has no evidence and conflicts with everything we know of the world. Simple.

Julian

Amaleq13

I'm calling it what you've called it.

Until your recent post where you did little else but preach your beliefs, I would tend to agree that you were trying to offer rational support for your claims.

It isn't a question of my comfort nor, ultimately, what you call your posts. It is the difference between preaching your faith and attempting to support your claims with evidence and rational arguments. Only the latter is appropriate here.

Amaleq13

Everyone,

Please stick to the subject of the OP (ie the historical reliability of the Gospel resurrection accounts).

Jim Larmore

The language issue is moot Julian, these languages are not obscure to the trained mind. We can read and discern even ancient texts that came from engravings made 3,000 or more years ago.
The miracle of life is indeed proof of an intelligent creator, I'm not going to condemn or support any particular religion or religious belief.

I was only meaning the creature that is the creation is not capable of understanding all of what makes the creator choose what He does and why. I think based on what I see in our universe He did a pretty good job of providing us with a most "favored planet" to live on.
I disagree, I see a biota that once was in perfect balance and very different than it is after sin infected our planet. However even saying that it is truely miraculous in scope and function the way it all works and survives is not enough to convince me of God's existence. It took the cell and its fantastic complexity to convince me of this. Theres absolutely no way a cell could have just happened from inanimate fortuitous modalities.
I don't think it was a copy of anything. I believe it was a reporting of something that actually happened. I'm an amatuer geologist and I see plenty of evidence of the flood, i.e. polystrate fossils, coal seams containing marine and fresh water fossils etc. , amino acids in fossilized bones calling into question the dating of these fossils.
And I thought you had an open mind . If you read anything with the intent of discrediting it on any technicality or any reason you can possibly dig up you'll certainly find it. The Bible is an anthology of 66 books written over a few thousand years by many authors. It amazingly fits together rather nicely and is fairly synoptic.
Oh, I certainly wouldn't argue that. The human mind is definitely fallible, however I don't see solid evidence for macro-evolution at all. Much of the solid evidence supporting the accepted paradigm has been misinterpreted in my opinion. Micro-evolution on the other hand is irrefutable, but this should probably be discussed on another board.
You are right. Good and evil does come from God since God created all things. God knew lucifer would become satan and thats why it says the plan of salvation was agreed upon before the earth was ever created. The Bible says sin was a mystery that had its origin in the heart of Lucifer. The unfallen worlds that make up our universe and the beings that inhabit them has to know and agree with the righteousness of God and His law. This sin thing has been allowed to show what it truely represents. God gets a little dirty in all of this sin thing, that happened when Jesus became man incarnate. Sin will eventually be wiped out though, and satan's fate was sealed at the cross.

Personally, I know there is a controversy between good and evil because I see evil and good all around me every where on this earth. A person would have to be blind not to see this. But in addition the angel I have seen and those others have seen are proof of supernatural beings. Do you feel all of the accounts of demon possession are bogus? How about the certified apparitions of Mary? Whose not seeing reality now?
I am too friend. I wish I could have but I could'nt. I'm not the only one who can testify to this same thing. I believe it took the power of God to do this.
That is your right to believe what you want. I can only tell you what I believe and why.

Jim Larmore

I want to say one last thing about this. I could have been cutting and pasting a lot of stuff off the internet to support what I believe. I haven't done this because I wanted to speak from my heart and from my logic on why I believe the resurrection was literal. The Bible is for all intents and purposes more of a history book than anything else. Its accuracy has been verified on several occasions and the authenticity of the synoptic gospels is unquestioned amoung most christians and Biblical scholars.

If you refuse to accept the Bible as being authentic history then you must show evidence to support that it isn't. It has to go both ways. Many on this board are saying that there is no evidence to support the accuracy of the Bible, ,,, well that may be true but there isn't much evidence to disprove it either.

Personally, I don't see how the apostles would have suffered and died for a lie. People just don't do that.

Amaleq13

Like I said, what is in your heart and what you faith in are irrelevant and inappropriate in this forum devoted to Biblical Criticism & History.

This is unquestionably untrue. It is, without question, primarily a collection of books about the relationship of the authors and their communities with their god. Some of those authors may include historically accurate information but that has to be established on a case-by-case basis. More specifically relevant, this is especially true of the Gospel resurrection stories.

I'm not sure how you are defining "authenticity" but if it is "reliable history" your claim with regard to scholars is incorrect. Scholars like Crossan, for example, readily admit that the Passion story has been created from passages in the Hebrew Bible rather than from eyewitness recollections.

This is an attempt to shift the burden. You claimed the Gospel resurrection story was reliable history so it is your burden to defend the claim.

What evidence do you have that any apostles suffered and died because they believed the Gospel stories of the resurrection to be historically reliable?

Vorkosigan

Among conservative scholars, perhaps, but the mainstream is rather less impressed with the historical accuracy of the Bible.

Let me show you why people are not impressed with the historical accuracy of the NT. Let's take the fisherman scene in the Gospel of Mark, 1:16-20. First, the passage itself reveals a totally literary contruction. Not only do the two callings double each other, they also double the calling of Levi Mark 2. Here are the doublets laid out:

The fisherman scene is a nifty little literary construction with no historical basis. It is composed of doublets, and is doubled by the call of Levi in Mark 2:

• S/A:And passing along by the Sea of Galilee,
  J/JAnd going on a little farther,
  LEVI: And as he passed on,
  
  S/A he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon
  J/J he saw James the son of Zeb'edee and John his brother,
  LEVI: he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus
  
  S/A: casting a net in the sea; for they were fishermen.
  J/J: who were in their boat mending the nets.
  LEVI: sitting at the tax office,
  
  S/A: And Jesus said to them, "Follow me and I will make you become fishers of men."
  J/J: And immediately he called them;
  LEVI: and he said to him, "Follow me."
  
  S/A:And immediately they left their nets and followed him.
  J/J: and they left their father Zeb'edee in the boat with the hired servants, and followed him.
  LEVI: And he rose and followed him.

Note that the Greek of Mark 1:16-20 and the calling of Levi in Mark 2 is very similar. Thus, on the surface, this looks not like history (which does not double) but more like literature.

But there is another reason it looks like literature, and that is the fact that the structure of the calls in Mark 1 appears to be derived by parallelism from the Old Testament, specifically, the Calling of Elisha. Thomas Brodie (The Crucial Bridge) has worked out the details thusly:

• Note the parallels, listed in Brodie (2000, p91):
  
  *the action begins with a caller...and with motion toward those to be called;
  *those called are working (plowing/fishing);
  *the call, whether by gesture (Elijah) or word (Jesus) is brief;
  *later, the means of livelihood are variously destroyed or mended, the plow is destroyed, but the nets are mended -- a typical inversion of images...;
  *after further movement, there is a leave-taking of home;
  *there is also a leave-taking of other workers;
  *finally, those who called follow the caller.

But there is still another reason that at least some scholars do not view this event as historical. The detail aspects of the Call in Mark 1 also appear to draw on the Old Testament:

• ..drawing on Jeremiah 16:16, which offers a reference to "fishers of men" which, as Donahue and Harrington (2002, p75) and Meier (2001, p194n122) point out, occurs in an eschatological context:
  
  Lo, I am sending for many fishers, An affirmation of Jehovah, And they have fished them, And after this I send for many hunters, And they have hunted them from off every mountain, And from off every hill, and from holes of the rocks.(YLT)
  
  Meier (2001, p194-195n122) observes that Mark uses the same term for "fishers," haleeis, as the LXX. In the OT, he further notes, fishing for humans is a regular metaphor in the context of judgment and destruction (Habakkuk 1:14-17, Amos 4:2).

But to go even further, the idea of yokels as philosophers was a common one of the day, lampooned by Lucian. Lucian, discussing Cynic philosophers, whose ways are extremely similar to those of Jesus and his apostles, writes:

• "Even if you are quite ordinary - a tanner, fisherman, carpenter, money-changer - there's nothing to stop you annoying others, so long as you have the cheek, the nerve... How about boat-man or gardener? Lucian, Philosophies for Sale, II." (Cited in Downing 1988, p5)

Finally, the structure of the call in Mark 1 is tightly controlled and very literary. It looks like this:

• A___Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God,and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel."
  
  ___B____ A And passing along by the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net in the sea; for they were fishermen.
  ___________B And Jesus said to them, "Follow me and I will make you become fishers of men."
  
  _______________ C And immediately they left their nets and followed him.
  
  ___B____A And going on a little farther, he saw James the son of Zeb'edee and John his brother, who were in their boat mending the nets.
  
  ___________B And immediately he called them;
  
  _______________ C and they left their father Zeb'edee in the boat with the hired servants, and followed him.
  
  A And they went into Caper'na-um; and immediately on the sabbath he entered the synagogue and taught.

This structure is rather pretty, an ABBA chiasm with an ABCABC interior.

In other words, you see history, many others looking at this see something that at every level looks like literary fiction and reveals a consciously-controlled literary structure. It may represent, or conceal, a historical event (or a series of events) in which the early apostles gathered to Jesus, but for most exegetes in the mainstream, because of the obviously literary nature of the depiction, the history has been lost.

Vorkosigan

John A. Broussard

This shakes me up. Now I have to completely rethink what those 19 terrorists did on 9/11.