A Prayer Of Salvation (1 Viewer)

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You've expanded the scope of this discussion quite a bit so I'm going to bow out of this point. Thanks for sharing your perspective!

Have a great day, weekend! For those of us on the three-year church calendar tomorrow includes 1st Timothy 6:6-19 which is one of those uncanny ways that scripture tends to pop up in relevant ways. In this case in the context of the other conversation happening here about religion being the source of evil in the world. (I choose not to use tomorrow's wording.)

I think you could say the same for the gospel reading this week - Luke 16:19-31. In this parable, Jesus tells the story of the rich man and Lazarus, which is about as close as the Gospels are going to get to the "proof vs. faith" discussion. It ends with the following insight:

Then Abraham said, 'If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.'

I only needed to prep to read [Famous] Amos, the Psalm, and the lesson I mentioned (plus a few prayers}. Pastor needed to do the gospel.

I don't know when or who sat down and worked out the lessons on the calendar, but they usually tie together rather well. I might go searching for this history as it might be interesting. I'd guess it predates the reformation. But to tie this together with our conversations about differences and contradiction I'll repeat paraphrasing Bart Ehrman and say that probably a million different churches used these same readings today, and there was a million different messages about this was given in the sermons based on what mattered for the million different church communities. Some of these more inspired than others. Plenty will contradict each other in the details. While some might be "wrong for me", few would be really wrong. They just differ in the message they want to say.

 

[Psychopav]

You've expanded the scope of this discussion quite a bit so I'm going to bow out of this point. Thanks for sharing your perspective!

Have a great day, weekend! For those of us on the three-year church calendar tomorrow includes 1st Timothy 6:6-19 which is one of those uncanny ways that scripture tends to pop up in relevant ways. In this case in the context of the other conversation happening here about religion being the source of evil in the world. (I choose not to use tomorrow's wording.)

I think you could say the same for the gospel reading this week - Luke 16:19-31. In this parable, Jesus tells the story of the rich man and Lazarus, which is about as close as the Gospels are going to get to the "proof vs. faith" discussion. It ends with the following insight:

Then Abraham said, 'If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.'

I only needed to prep to read [Famous] Amos, the Psalm, and the lesson I mentioned (plus a few prayers}. Pastor needed to do the gospel.

I don't know when or who sat down and worked out the lessons on the calendar, but they usually tie together rather well. I might go searching for this history as it might be interesting. I'd guess it predates the reformation. But to tie this together with our conversations about differences and contradiction I'll repeat paraphrasing Bart Ehrman and say that probably a million different churches used these same readings today, and there was a million different messages about this was given in the sermons based on what mattered for the million different church communities. Some of these more inspired than others. Plenty will contradict each other in the details. While some might be "wrong for me", few would be really wrong. They just differ in the message they want to say.

I know they redid the cycle of readings after Vatican II but not sure how much ot little it changed from the prior approach.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The archaeological findings that support the Bible's accuracy? Why wouldn't I believe it?

Yes, archaeological finds have found that quite a few of the settings used in scripture that once were dismissed actually existed. Especially with writings that were contemporary. But we don't really need archaeological finds to see that fiction all of the time accurately describe contemporary settings, but that doesn't in any way at all support that the fiction is to be believed. I assume that Dan Brown describing various contemporary landmarks accurately doesn't have you believing the DaVinci Code?

It's not fiction, it's actual history.

The Davinci code is a bunch of fictional bunk.

I never say that scripture is fiction. I say that using the existence of contemporary landmarks in the narrative that were once dismissed but later found is not evidence that the story itself is true. And the same would be true with the discoveries such as the "Tel Dan" inscription of the House of David that identify that people and peoples existed.

 

[Northern Voice]

You've expanded the scope of this discussion quite a bit so I'm going to bow out of this point. Thanks for sharing your perspective!

Have a great day, weekend! For those of us on the three-year church calendar tomorrow includes 1st Timothy 6:6-19 which is one of those uncanny ways that scripture tends to pop up in relevant ways. In this case in the context of the other conversation happening here about religion being the source of evil in the world. (I choose not to use tomorrow's wording.)

I think you could say the same for the gospel reading this week - Luke 16:19-31. In this parable, Jesus tells the story of the rich man and Lazarus, which is about as close as the Gospels are going to get to the "proof vs. faith" discussion. It ends with the following insight:

Then Abraham said, 'If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.'

I don't know, someone rising from the dead might start to sway me. Or walking on water. Water into wine. Part a sea. Until then, I'll remain extremely skeptical and seriously question anyone who doesn't think it's fiction.

 

[Paddington]

You've expanded the scope of this discussion quite a bit so I'm going to bow out of this point. Thanks for sharing your perspective!

Have a great day, weekend! For those of us on the three-year church calendar tomorrow includes 1st Timothy 6:6-19 which is one of those uncanny ways that scripture tends to pop up in relevant ways. In this case in the context of the other conversation happening here about religion being the source of evil in the world. (I choose not to use tomorrow's wording.)

I think you could say the same for the gospel reading this week - Luke 16:19-31. In this parable, Jesus tells the story of the rich man and Lazarus, which is about as close as the Gospels are going to get to the "proof vs. faith" discussion. It ends with the following insight:

Then Abraham said, 'If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.'

I don't know, someone rising from the dead might start to sway me. Or walking on water. Water into wine. Part a sea. Until then, I'll remain extremely skeptical and seriously question anyone who doesn't think it's fiction.

The eyewitnesses didn't consider it fiction and that's who wrote the Bible.

 

[dgreen]

Instead of debating MT, let's debate OT God.

@dgreen, you seemed to have a reaction to Dawkins' description of God as "arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

How would you describe him based on the OT and which of these terms do you take exception to?

This question is open to anyone.

I take exception to almost all of it. Like I said before, I understand how one reaches these conclusions. However, I'm confident they are based on misinterpretations.

I'll admit this is an area that I will probably have difficulty combating any particular passage. I'm willing to give it a try if someone wants to ask about any specific verses or story, but it's possible I won't have much of an answer without studying it a bit.

My opinion is mostly based on my position that we don't know how to read ancient literature. A modern "straight forward reading" is going to miss the mark quite often. To understand a particular verse, one must understand the cultural context, the textual context around the verse, and even the textual context in far off passages.

Also, I'll lean on doctrine here and say that I don't read "the God of the Old Testament" as a different one than the "God of the New Testament". I don't believe Jesus and the NT are throwing out the old and saying the God of Israel is bad and Jesus is good.

Here's something one author said:

We want to consider how difficult passages can spiritually form us. Even if one considers the Canaanite conquest hyperbolic or allegorical or lacking archaeological evidence for its existence, it's still there in the text for us to wrestle with. The early rabbis saw difficult texts as a prompt for deeper reflection. Regarding the legislated violence at the apostate city (Deut 13), the rabbis said such a city "never was and never will be"; rather, it's in the Bible for us to "study and receive reward" (Sanhedrin 14:1). In other words, the purpose of difficult texts is to make us grapple with complex moral issues. It is "casuistry at its best." Scripture provides case studies, so to speak, that make us ponder, reason, and discern. In this way texts of violence help us reflect on ways we are complicit in destruction and challenge us to work toward healing.

When I first read that, I, of course, had to look up "casuistry". It is "the use of clever but unsound reasoning, especially in relation to moral questions; sophistry." Imagine if a book like Joshua, with all its violence, was intentionally "clever but unsound reasoning"? What if the author intended his audience to read it and wrestle with how they feel about the conquest? If that was the author's intention, then any "straight forward" reading that sets the OT God out to be genocidal misses the point of the story. Also, any "straight forward" reading by a believer that takes it as "Oh well, who cares about a bunch of Canaanites anyways" also misses the point...and they/we might be more off point since it is followers of this God who are probably supposed to be challenged the most by it.

 

[dgreen]

So, question/s for anyone who wants to/willing to answer.

As God is all knowing and all powerful, loves us unconditionally and wants nothing but for us to be in his grace. Why is our “instruction book” (for lack of a better word) on how to live in this world, treat each other and earn our way into his grace not written in a language that we are all born to understand implicitly? No translations, no interpretations, not a mix of parables and facts (which we need to determine which is which), just straight forward clear common language that every human being understands upon birth for all time.

I think part of the answer is that this question misunderstands what Scripture is. I get that many of us were probably raised with the idea that we can just open the Bible and get an answer to anything. That it perfectly explains what I should do in any situation. But, I don't think that's correct. You keep approaching these discussions with the presupposition that someone needs to read and understand the Bible in order to spend their eternal life after death in Heaven rather than Hell. But, as I think you'd correctly point out, that makes no sense! You raise the issue of language, translations, and interpretations. But, even more basic than that, some have never even seen or heard of the Bible, much less struggled with interpretation. What about them? Now, I know some people will have some answer about those ignorant souls and how they won't be held to the letter of a law that they don't know about. But, that answer is only needed IF we assume that that's the purpose of the Bible.

Pretty sure I said before that I think it is better to think of the Bible as being intended for those who have chosen to join God's covenant family to fulfill God's mission of rescuing all of creation. If we want to use the "instruction book" analogy (which has some issues, but that's fine), it is instructions for believers, not all people throughout all time. In a few sentences, it's basically saying, "Hi, I'm the God who created everything and it was all good. Unfortunately, things aren't going well and I'm going to restore it all back to the way I intended it to be. I'm looking to partner with humanity to do this. If you are willing to join me on this mission, I'm going to need you to properly represent me. Don't forget, I'm doing this with you, so no problem is insurmountable. Ultimately, my way will win and I'd love it if you wanted to help me."

 

[dgreen]

So, question/s for anyone who wants to/willing to answer.

As God is all knowing and all powerful, loves us unconditionally and wants nothing but for us to be in his grace. Why is our “instruction book” (for lack of a better word) on how to live in this world, treat each other and earn our way into his grace not written in a language that we are all born to understand implicitly? No translations, no interpretations, not a mix of parables and facts (which we need to determine which is which), just straight forward clear common language that every human being understands upon birth for all time.

I don't think there is a rational, a logical answer to this. And I don't know why not.

My struggle with faith is why do I "feel" so strongly that God's existence is so self-evident in my being? And you don't? A semi stock answer, though some Christians will protest is that "faith is a gift". But if so, why me? And those "mysterious ways" type answers are just a problematic for me as they would be for you. Equally problematic is that if faith is a gift, and faith is required to be saved from hell, then how can hell (as in "fire and brimstone" hell) be an appropriate thing? As a result, I think my beliefs diverge off to heretical ideas (unorthodox) from here and while relevant to me, not really relevant here.

Maybe your/our faith doesn't save just us? Maybe the gift of faith (the gift of the Spirit since Act 2) given to some is how others are saved. A story at least as old as Sodom where it was Abraham's righteousness that saved Lot and his family.

 

[dgreen]

@dkp993 I think a difference in how you approach these questions and how I try to answer them is in our presuppositions of how God should behave. I think most of us were given a Christianity that drew a hard line between the divine and the human. God = good, humanity = bad. But, one thing I've been trying to say is that I see a divine-human partnership play out throughout much of the Bible. Obviously this is seen easiest in Jesus. Yet, we still tend to only view Jesus through a God lens and ignore his humanity, once again drawing that line.

This is an accommodation theory of God. God accommodates himself to humanity in order to connect with us. Yes, this theory presupposes God's existence and is not an attempt at proving it. It's a helpful way to make sense of how we see God behaving. Why didn't he communicate in a language that everyone can understand throughout all time from birth? Because that's not how humanity works.

Interestingly, though, there are a couple stories that kind of say God did communicate that way. In Judaism, they say that God's instruction at Sinai (the Mosaic covenant) went out to all the world in their own languages but only Israel accepted it. And then in Acts, when the Holy Spirit comes upon Jesus' followers, the crowd understands them each in their own language. Both of these are attempts at overturning the confusion of language at the Tower of Babel. The Jewish tradition seems to be indicating that God attempted to reunite the world at Sinai but it didn't work. The author of Acts seems to indicate that God is trying again and the rest of Acts indicates that it is working.

One more thing about this. Your question presupposes that these things should be easy (again, probably driven by your assumption that this is how one spends eternity in Heaven instead of Hell). However, I'd argue that God wants his people to have to work at it. If you want to really know God, put the work in. This isn't a cheap relationship. Tons of people have done the work to translate the Bible. Tons of people have done the work to provide commentaries and interpretations. It's then up to the every day believer to do some work, too. We aren't taught to ask questions and wrestle with issues. We are taught to provide quick answers and resolve issues so we can move on. That is the opposite of what I think God is asking for.

 

[RCon]

The eyewitnesses didn't consider it fiction and that's who wrote the Bible.

You don't know this. For all you know, the writers knew perfectly well they were making something up.

 

[Dr. Manhattan]

You've expanded the scope of this discussion quite a bit so I'm going to bow out of this point. Thanks for sharing your perspective!

Have a great day, weekend! For those of us on the three-year church calendar tomorrow includes 1st Timothy 6:6-19 which is one of those uncanny ways that scripture tends to pop up in relevant ways. In this case in the context of the other conversation happening here about religion being the source of evil in the world. (I choose not to use tomorrow's wording.)

I think you could say the same for the gospel reading this week - Luke 16:19-31. In this parable, Jesus tells the story of the rich man and Lazarus, which is about as close as the Gospels are going to get to the "proof vs. faith" discussion. It ends with the following insight:

Then Abraham said, 'If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.'

I don't know, someone rising from the dead might start to sway me. Or walking on water. Water into wine. Part a sea. Until then, I'll remain extremely skeptical and seriously question anyone who doesn't think it's fiction.

The eyewitnesses didn't consider it fiction and that's who wrote the Bible.

Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable, this is a widely known fact.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

So, question/s for anyone who wants to/willing to answer.

As God is all knowing and all powerful, loves us unconditionally and wants nothing but for us to be in his grace. Why is our “instruction book” (for lack of a better word) on how to live in this world, treat each other and earn our way into his grace not written in a language that we are all born to understand implicitly? No translations, no interpretations, not a mix of parables and facts (which we need to determine which is which), just straight forward clear common language that every human being understands upon birth for all time.

I don't think there is a rational, a logical answer to this. And I don't know why not.

My struggle with faith is why do I "feel" so strongly that God's existence is so self-evident in my being? And you don't? A semi stock answer, though some Christians will protest is that "faith is a gift". But if so, why me? And those "mysterious ways" type answers are just a problematic for me as they would be for you. Equally problematic is that if faith is a gift, and faith is required to be saved from hell, then how can hell (as in "fire and brimstone" hell) be an appropriate thing? As a result, I think my beliefs diverge off to heretical ideas (unorthodox) from here and while relevant to me, not really relevant here.

Maybe your/our faith doesn't save just us? Maybe the gift of faith (the gift of the Spirit since Act 2) given to some is how others are saved. A story at least as old as Sodom where it was Abraham's righteousness that saved Lot and his family.

Curious as to what you mean here. Spinning things like a hostile non-believer to put things into a negative perspective-

• Due to nothing I ever even had a chance to do, I am condemned to be born into the world as a sinner. As someone incapable of not being a sinner.
• Because I am a sinner I am condemned to hell, a fire and brimstone torturous hell. (Like yesterday's gospel reading says. The chasm might be relevant in that lesson, but not as a rebuttal to this spin.)
• That is unless I am given the "gift of faith" in which I can believe the correct thing and then receive the gift of grace that saves me from that fate.
• Despite grace, by definition being not something I earned my righteousness which is insufficient to save me on its own saves others?

Now the above is obviously not really what I believe, but I think it is a fair, if purposely as negative as I can spin it standard Christian "good news" with the possible exception of faith being a gift. For the purpose of this discussion, faith being a gift is a prerequisite. So, in this standard context I simply cannot make that last bullet work.

But outside of this context I think I can. In the context that what we are really saved from is not God condemning us for being less than perfect, which turns the law into something that leads to not "loving thy neighbor" out of fear of going to hell when we make a mistake. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Instead, we are saved from this kind of thinking. We are saved to "sin boldly" with our best intentions. In this context I think it works, but I think this takes looking at things in a somewhat unorthodox manner. At least from how an outsider would see things.

 

[Scoresman]

Why does the Bible have to be factually correct? Why does it lose value if it's just a bunch of fables? I guess this would be a question for both sides of the coin. I think If you have faith and believe in God, it shouldn't really matter. I dont have faith, but if this were to change, I imagine it wouldn't be because I suddenly thought the Bible was factual. That ship has sailed. The Bible would most likely serve as a set of stories/fables whose purpose is to get me to understand the God I now believe in and his/her message. I think there would be value in that, at least for me.

 

[dgreen]

So, question/s for anyone who wants to/willing to answer.

As God is all knowing and all powerful, loves us unconditionally and wants nothing but for us to be in his grace. Why is our “instruction book” (for lack of a better word) on how to live in this world, treat each other and earn our way into his grace not written in a language that we are all born to understand implicitly? No translations, no interpretations, not a mix of parables and facts (which we need to determine which is which), just straight forward clear common language that every human being understands upon birth for all time.

I don't think there is a rational, a logical answer to this. And I don't know why not.

My struggle with faith is why do I "feel" so strongly that God's existence is so self-evident in my being? And you don't? A semi stock answer, though some Christians will protest is that "faith is a gift". But if so, why me? And those "mysterious ways" type answers are just a problematic for me as they would be for you. Equally problematic is that if faith is a gift, and faith is required to be saved from hell, then how can hell (as in "fire and brimstone" hell) be an appropriate thing? As a result, I think my beliefs diverge off to heretical ideas (unorthodox) from here and while relevant to me, not really relevant here.

Maybe your/our faith doesn't save just us? Maybe the gift of faith (the gift of the Spirit since Act 2) given to some is how others are saved. A story at least as old as Sodom where it was Abraham's righteousness that saved Lot and his family.

Curious as to what you mean here. Spinning things like a hostile non-believer to put things into a negative perspective-

• Due to nothing I ever even had a chance to do, I am condemned to be born into the world as a sinner. As someone incapable of not being a sinner.
• Because I am a sinner I am condemned to hell, a fire and brimstone torturous hell. (Like yesterday's gospel reading says. The chasm might be relevant in that lesson, but not as a rebuttal to this spin.)
• That is unless I am given the "gift of faith" in which I can believe the correct thing and then receive the gift of grace that saves me from that fate.
• Despite grace, by definition being not something I earned my righteousness which is insufficient to save me on its own saves others?

Now the above is obviously not really what I believe, but I think it is a fair, if purposely as negative as I can spin it standard Christian "good news" with the possible exception of faith being a gift. For the purpose of this discussion, faith being a gift is a prerequisite. So, in this standard context I simply cannot make that last bullet work.

But outside of this context I think I can. In the context that what we are really saved from is not God condemning us for being less than perfect, which turns the law into something that leads to not "loving thy neighbor" out of fear of going to hell when we make a mistake. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Instead, we are saved from this kind of thinking. We are saved to "sin boldly" with our best intentions. In this context I think it works, but I think this takes looking at things in a somewhat unorthodox manner. At least from how an outsider would see things.

Not sure if this helps clarify my meaning, but my reply was agreeing with your line of questioning and then hinting at something we've been saying throughout all of these threads: maybe some of our culture's "standard" Christian presuppositions are incorrect.

Instead of faith being the mechanism by which I as an individual gets into Heaven after I die, maybe it's a gift from God for me to use to spread his Kingdom and bring salvation (restoration, reconciliation) to those around me. Since I struggle with being a light to the world, God gives the gift of the Spirit to help follow his commands (be faithful), leading to loving him and loving neighbor. In the aggregate, the whole assembly of this gift of faith (church) has the mission of bringing these blessings (Genesis 12:1-3) to all of creation. Elected and chosen to be God's instruments of salvation, not to flaunt it as our special ticket out of a burning lake of fire.

I could dig up another relevant passage from a contemporary rabbi on this and the cultural meaning of the ancient role of the "firstborn".

 

[Captain Cranks]

I'll admit this is an area that I will probably have difficulty combating any particular passage. I'm willing to give it a try if someone wants to ask about any specific verses or story, but it's possible I won't have much of an answer without studying it a bit.

I'll give it a shot. Explain the ten plagues in Exodus, which includes the death of innocents' first born. It seems pretty easy to describe him as a "vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser" after reading that stuff.

Also, speaking from your personal perspective, how often are you looking for less obvious explanations for scripture when they align with intuitively moral practices? What would be an example of scripture that most people agree highlight moral acts by God when read literally but you feel should be interpreted in a less flattering manner?

 

[Captain Cranks]

Why does the Bible have to be factually correct? Why does it lose value if it's just a bunch of fables? I guess this would be a question for both sides of the coin. I think If you have faith and believe in God, it shouldn't really matter. I dont have faith, but if this were to change, I imagine it wouldn't be because I suddenly thought the Bible was factual. That ship has sailed. The Bible would most likely serve as a set of stories/fables whose purpose is to get me to understand the God I now believe and his/her message. I think there would be value in that, at least for me.

If I wanted to believe in God, I imagine I could convince myself he exists using a number of means that aren't tethered to reality. Would it matter that he can be proven in that circumstance? I guess not. How about when I'm trying to convince others of his existence? I think that's where the problem lies.

If I want to believe in magic, I could cite Harry Potter. Am I bothering anyone if I tell them I believe in magic? No. Should I be able to point to Harry Potter's books to prove to others that magic exists? Not in my opinion.

 

[Scoresman]

Why does the Bible have to be factually correct? Why does it lose value if it's just a bunch of fables? I guess this would be a question for both sides of the coin. I think If you have faith and believe in God, it shouldn't really matter. I dont have faith, but if this were to change, I imagine it wouldn't be because I suddenly thought the Bible was factual. That ship has sailed. The Bible would most likely serve as a set of stories/fables whose purpose is to get me to understand the God I now believe and his/her message. I think there would be value in that, at least for me.

If I wanted to believe in God, I imagine I could convince myself he exists using a number of means that aren't tethered to reality. Would it matter that he can be proven in that circumstance? I guess not. How about when I'm trying to convince others of his existence? I think that's where the problem lies.

If I want to believe in magic, I could cite Harry Potter. Am I bothering anyone if I tell them I believe in magic? No. Should I be able to point to Harry Potter's books to prove to others that magic exists? Not in my opinion.

Yeah,, I agree. Although if I did acquire faith, I imagine I would keep it mostly to myself since I have experienced firsthand how annoying it can be to have it pushed on me. I really feel like it's something that can spark internally based on experiences and nobody is going to convince me to suddenly be a believer with their words. I feel like faith can be sparked out of many experiences we face, but being evangelized to is not one of them, IMO. At least for me.

 

[dkp993]

One more thing about this. Your question presupposes that these things should be easy (again, probably driven by your assumption that this is how one spends eternity in Heaven instead of Hell). However, I'd argue that God wants his people to have to work at it.

There is a ton to unpack in your multiple thoughtful responses. First off thank you for them. But quickly I wanted to address this point. The quote that comes to mind for me….“ there’s a difference between knowing the path and walking the path” just because we know the rules doesn’t mean it would be easy to live life by them. In fact, I would say it’s still incredibly hard. So I’m not sure I agree with what you assume is my pre-supposition.

 

[Gally]

Why does the Bible have to be factually correct? Why does it lose value if it's just a bunch of fables?

For people that are looking for indisputable scientific proof of God if the stories in the bible were proven true (resurrection, parting of sea, etc) that would start getting into the direction of proof. If they are just made up stories then it really has no basis in proving God's existence (for non-believers looking for proof). I would say it's different for believers because the bible not being factually correct isn't critical to their belief.

 

[dgreen]

I'll admit this is an area that I will probably have difficulty combating any particular passage. I'm willing to give it a try if someone wants to ask about any specific verses or story, but it's possible I won't have much of an answer without studying it a bit.

I'll give it a shot. Explain the ten plagues in Exodus, which includes the death of innocents' first born. It seems pretty easy to describe him as a "vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser" after reading that stuff.

Sorry, I don't know how to do this in just a few words, so here it goes...

This certainly isn't an attempt to make anyone feel good about the death of a bunch of firstborns. But, once again, I think it's helpful to think of the story aspect here. God decided he wanted to work through a group of people as his vehicle to rescue all of creation. This mission all flows out of Genesis 12:3 and the descendants of Abraham. God needed his own "firstborn" to form a special relationship with him so they can really get to know him and then they can be the way blessings come to the world.

The picture at the beginning of Exodus is that this family that God is going to work with is being oppressed as slaves in Egypt. The Pharaoh's plan is to wipe them out. So, what God sets out to do is rescue his people so he can continue the mission of fixing this big mess we are all in. God's first attempt is to simply ask Pharaoh if his people can take a few days to worship their own god. He does this by declaring "Israel is my son. My firstborn." And there's a warning that the refusal to let God's firstborn go will lead to the death of "your son, your firstborn." Pharaoh, of course, refuses, and increases the oppression of the Hebrew slaves.

But God doesn't jump straight to wiping out Pharaoh's firstborn. Through signs and plagues, God displays to Pharaoh that this is a losing battle, basically begging Pharaoh to make the right decision. God wanted Pharaoh to recognize who he was and that there's a better way than the Egyptian gods and the oppressive empire he built. Sure, I guess God could have just beamed the Hebrews from Egypt to Canaan Star Trek style, but he didn't. Why not? Because the only goal wasn't to get the Hebrews out of slavery, it was also to change the hearts and minds of the Egyptians. He didn't just have mercy on the Hebrews, he also had mercy on Egypt by slowly taking down their gods and their Pharaoh one by one.

But there's the tricky issue of God hardening Pharaoh's heart. It seems like Pharaoh didn't even have free will and God was dead set on killing his firstborn all along. First, the text bounces back and forth between whether it was God doing the hardening and Pharaoh doing the hardening. Aaron and Moses use three signs before the plagues even start to try and convince Pharaoh. During those signs and through the first five plagues, it's all Pharaoh doing the hardening. He's the one standing in the way of a peaceful resolution. Then in plague six, God does the hardening. However, English translations take two different Hebrew words and translate them both as hardening. One of these words is a "stubbornness" and the other is "courage". In plague six, God steps in and "courages" Pharaoh's heart. He does this to keep Pharaoh in the fight. Why? Because Pharaoh still hasn't changed and still values his own power. As we can see in the seventh plague, Pharaoh is once again responsible for "hardening" his own heart. At this point, God switches plans. The rest of the way (plagues 8-10 and the final scene at the Sea of Reeds), it is God doing the hardening. Prior to this, God says that his goal is that the Egyptians will know that he is God. Starting with plague 8, it turns to Moses and the Hebrew people knowing that he is God.

Even after the horrible 10th plague of the death of the firstborn, Pharaoh and his army still chase after the Hebrew slaves. Despite God's attempt to change his heart, Pharaoh isn't going to admit the obvious truth about his own power and his own gods. He had a chance and his decisions had catastrophic impacts on those who followed him. Yet, the individual households were given a chance. Any door with blood on the doorposts would be safe from the plague. And when the Israelites start their way out of Egypt, there was a "mixed multitude" to indicate that people did side with the God of Israel. Some Egyptian firstborns were saved.

Again, that doesn't necessarily make anyone feel better about innocent firstborns dying. It is something to struggle with, especially if it really happened. I can actually see love, patience, and mercy throughout this story, even for the "bad guys", but there is clearly a ton of tragedy. Deliverance for one group can be pain for another group. This is a story primarily from the perspective of the liberated. It's not a story of God just one day deciding to kill people for fun.

And that's where the even-larger story comes into play. I can easily see concluding God is a maniac from just this story. But, if one gains trust in this God from other stories, then maybe one can accept his actions in this one. Or maybe not. Despite all of this, I still struggle with it a bit. Couldn't it have happened another way?

Also, speaking from your personal perspective, how often are you looking for less obvious explanations for scripture when they align with intuitively moral practices? What would be an example of scripture that most people agree highlight moral acts by God when read literally but you feel should be interpreted in a less flattering manner?

I'm not sure I understand these questions. Something that most people think makes God look good but I think it makes God look bad? Nothing comes to mind right now, but I'll think about it.

 

[dgreen]

One more thing about this. Your question presupposes that these things should be easy (again, probably driven by your assumption that this is how one spends eternity in Heaven instead of Hell). However, I'd argue that God wants his people to have to work at it.

There is a ton to unpack in your multiple thoughtful responses. First off thank you for them. But quickly I wanted to address this point. The quote that comes to mind for me….“ there’s a difference between knowing the path and walking the path” just because we know the rules doesn’t mean it would be easy to live life by them. In fact, I would say it’s still incredibly hard. So I’m not sure I agree with what you assume is my pre-supposition.

Agree about the difference between knowing the path and walking the path! I interpreted your comments as indicating that it should be easy to know the path; that the "belief" aspect should come easily to everyone. That's what I was referencing, but maybe you meant something different.

 

[dkp993]

One more thing about this. Your question presupposes that these things should be easy (again, probably driven by your assumption that this is how one spends eternity in Heaven instead of Hell). However, I'd argue that God wants his people to have to work at it.

There is a ton to unpack in your multiple thoughtful responses. First off thank you for them. But quickly I wanted to address this point. The quote that comes to mind for me….“ there’s a difference between knowing the path and walking the path” just because we know the rules doesn’t mean it would be easy to live life by them. In fact, I would say it’s still incredibly hard. So I’m not sure I agree with what you assume is my pre-supposition.

Agree about the difference between knowing the path and walking the path! I interpreted your comments as indicating that it should be easy to know the path; that the "belief" aspect should come easily to everyone. That's what I was referencing, but maybe you meant something different.

Ah, well I guess I am then.

I guess my argument is based on if he truly loves us and all he wants is us in his grace, he wouldn’t make his existence or the path to get there ambiguous. Now the path doesn’t necessarily need to be (shouldn’t be) easy or wouldn’t require dedication, work or choice. But it’s (the path) and his existence should be clear and unquestionable. With our souls entire eternity hanging in the balance (whether hell is actually fire and brimstone or simply lack of being in God‘s grace) one would suppose it’s the very least he could do.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Couldn't it have happened another way?

Thanks for the thoughtful explanation. This question drives at the heart of the matter. Do these events portray a perfect all-knowing, all-loving God? Even if we grant there's mercy underlying the death and destruction, if us humans can think of a less cruel path to the same end why can't God?

 

[dgreen]

Couldn't it have happened another way?

Thanks for the thoughtful explanation. This question drives at the heart of the matter. Do these events portray a perfect all-knowing, all-loving God? Even if we grant there's mercy underlying the death and destruction, if us humans can think of a less cruel path to the same end why can't God?

@Bottomfeeder Sports mentioned earlier the idea of God “growing up” as the Bible progresses. (More accurately, humanity’s understanding of God evolving.) His “omni” qualities are missing, at times.

At the flood, God “saw the wickedness of humanity” and “regretted” making man.

Regarding Sodom, God said, “I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”

God instructs the Israelites to build a tabernacle as a place for him to live among them.

In Ezekiel, a chariot is depicted as carrying God to Babylon with the exiles so that he can be with them in captivity.

While these violate our omni theologies, they are depicting a relational God who cares about his creation.

 

[dkp993]

At the flood, God “saw the wickedness of humanity” and “regretted” making man.

Wouldn’t this strike at the heart that God isn’t all knowing or all powerful then. If he were then this, his regret and awareness of how wicked we are, wouldn’t be possible.

 

[dgreen]

At the flood, God “saw the wickedness of humanity” and “regretted” making man.

Wouldn’t this strike at the heart that God isn’t all knowing or all powerful then. If he were then this, his regret and awareness of how wicked we are, wouldn’t be possible.

Yes, sort of. That was my point. There are several places someone can point to and poke holes in those descriptions of God. And someone who is going to hold to God’s all-knowingness and refuse contradictions and read scripture literally is going to have to wrestle with that. I’d be interested in how @Paddington reads some of those verses that appear to limit God’s knowledge or presence, especially when it’s God himself speaking.

 

[Captain Cranks]

At the flood, God “saw the wickedness of humanity” and “regretted” making man.

Wouldn’t this strike at the heart that God isn’t all knowing or all powerful then. If he were then this, his regret and awareness of how wicked we are, wouldn’t be possible.

Yes, sort of. That was my point. There are several places someone can point to and poke holes in those descriptions of God. And someone who is going to hold to God’s all-knowingness and refuse contradictions and read scripture literally is going to have to wrestle with that. I’d be interested in how @Paddington reads some of those verses that appear to limit God’s knowledge or presence, especially when it’s God himself speaking.

Do you think Moses is a historical or fictional character?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Do you think Moses is a historical or fictional character?

As an either-or question where would one draw the line? Because I'd think that the odds are that there was someone named (or nicknamed) "child of the water (or Nile)" in the 14th or 15th century BCE that existed in some form that inspired the legends that were built up around him over the centuries before things started to be written down and then edited together. Kind like how in the 19th century (so I've read), accounts of George Washington were more often legend than real. Or how the '80's Elway Broncos are remembered by some as being a pee-wee team outside of Elway.

 

[Paddington]

You've expanded the scope of this discussion quite a bit so I'm going to bow out of this point. Thanks for sharing your perspective!

Have a great day, weekend! For those of us on the three-year church calendar tomorrow includes 1st Timothy 6:6-19 which is one of those uncanny ways that scripture tends to pop up in relevant ways. In this case in the context of the other conversation happening here about religion being the source of evil in the world. (I choose not to use tomorrow's wording.)

I think you could say the same for the gospel reading this week - Luke 16:19-31. In this parable, Jesus tells the story of the rich man and Lazarus, which is about as close as the Gospels are going to get to the "proof vs. faith" discussion. It ends with the following insight:

Then Abraham said, 'If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.'

I don't know, someone rising from the dead might start to sway me. Or walking on water. Water into wine. Part a sea. Until then, I'll remain extremely skeptical and seriously question anyone who doesn't think it's fiction.

The eyewitnesses didn't consider it fiction and that's who wrote the Bible.

Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable, this is a widely known fact.

If that's true then why are they used in courts of law all over the country every day? That's not true especially when you have thousands of them seeing and experiencing the same things. That's what happened with Jesus. Thousands and thousands of people saw Him perform miracles, and risen from the dead.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

If that's true then why are they used in courts of law all over the country every day? That's not true especially when you have thousands of them seeing and experiencing the same things. That's what happened with Jesus. Thousands and thousands of people saw Him perform miracles, and risen from the dead.

Yet we have only one first-hand witness with written statements twenty or so years after the fact. And this witness is completely vague on the nature of this encounter. Was it a dream? Was it one on one? That is vague.

Now you may believe that Matthew and John also authored first-hand accounts. But they failed to sign their statements. Luke and Mark also failed to sign their statements, and they are also hearsay.

So, none of this evidence, no matter how much you think you personally know the authorship and/or factual nature of it is of any value to establish your claims. Of course, the arc of history shows that assuming these thousands and thousands of people actually witnessed something, they still were not convinced of anything. They remained Jews that within a few decades would side with the Pharisees permanently kicking the Christians out of the synagogues.

ETA: And NO there is not any contemporary secular collaboration for any of this in your often repeated link. None!

 

[dkp993]

You've expanded the scope of this discussion quite a bit so I'm going to bow out of this point. Thanks for sharing your perspective!

Have a great day, weekend! For those of us on the three-year church calendar tomorrow includes 1st Timothy 6:6-19 which is one of those uncanny ways that scripture tends to pop up in relevant ways. In this case in the context of the other conversation happening here about religion being the source of evil in the world. (I choose not to use tomorrow's wording.)

I think you could say the same for the gospel reading this week - Luke 16:19-31. In this parable, Jesus tells the story of the rich man and Lazarus, which is about as close as the Gospels are going to get to the "proof vs. faith" discussion. It ends with the following insight:

Then Abraham said, 'If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.'

I don't know, someone rising from the dead might start to sway me. Or walking on water. Water into wine. Part a sea. Until then, I'll remain extremely skeptical and seriously question anyone who doesn't think it's fiction.

The eyewitnesses didn't consider it fiction and that's who wrote the Bible.

Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable, this is a widely known fact.

If that's true then why are they used in courts of law all over the country every day? That's not true especially when you have thousands of them seeing and experiencing the same things. That's what happened with Jesus. Thousands and thousands of people saw Him perform miracles, and risen from the dead.

The answer to some of things you ask or assert as proof is very easily looked up, like your misunderstanding of thermodynamics. See below…… ( the last paragraph is particularly powerful).

AI Overview
Eyewitness testimony is often unreliable, as human memory is fallible and prone to unconscious distortions and biases. The single greatest cause of wrongful convictions in the U.S. is misidentification by eyewitnesses. Factors such as extreme stress during an event, poor viewing conditions, brief viewing times, weapon focus, cross-racial identification difficulties, and suggestive police identification procedures can all reduce accuracy. However, memory can be reliable if tested under conditions that minimize contamination, focusing on accurate, uncontaminated memory evidence collected early in an investigation.

Why Eyewitness Testimony Can Be Unreliable
Memory is not a perfect recording: Unlike a video camera, the brain creates a story from experiences, which can include inaccuracies and changes over time.

Unconscious biases and distortions: Witnesses can unknowingly distort their memories or misinterpret events, leading to incorrect identifications.

Stress and trauma: High stress during an incident can negatively impact memory.
Weapon focus: Witnesses may focus more on a weapon than on the perpetrator's face, hindering accurate identification.

Cross-racial identification difficulties: People are generally less accurate when identifying individuals of a different race.

Suggestive procedures: Police lineups or photo arrays can unintentionally influence a witness's memory, leading them to select the suspect.

Confidence does not equal accuracy: A witness's high confidence in their identification doesn't guarantee its accuracy.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Instead of faith being the mechanism by which I as an individual gets into Heaven after I die, maybe it's a gift from God for me to use to spread his Kingdom and bring salvation (restoration, reconciliation) to those around me.

Yep, but I realize I have heretical views like this. (Or at least I emphasize what I think is de-emphasized. Things other than "How to get to heaven" message. I like the lack of atonement in the likely authentic Luke's "The Last Prophet" narrative.)

 

[dgreen]

At the flood, God “saw the wickedness of humanity” and “regretted” making man.

Wouldn’t this strike at the heart that God isn’t all knowing or all powerful then. If he were then this, his regret and awareness of how wicked we are, wouldn’t be possible.

Yes, sort of. That was my point. There are several places someone can point to and poke holes in those descriptions of God. And someone who is going to hold to God’s all-knowingness and refuse contradictions and read scripture literally is going to have to wrestle with that. I’d be interested in how @Paddington reads some of those verses that appear to limit God’s knowledge or presence, especially when it’s God himself speaking.

Do you think Moses is a historical or fictional character?

Depends on the day. I will typically say historical with a similar approach to what bottomfeeder just said. Kind of a “yes, but” approach. I can easily ask myself a series of questions that leads me to doubt even if I start from a point of near certainty. I prefer the times when I just don’t think about.

 

[Paddington]

If that's true then why are they used in courts of law all over the country every day? That's not true especially when you have thousands of them seeing and experiencing the same things. That's what happened with Jesus. Thousands and thousands of people saw Him perform miracles, and risen from the dead.

Yet we have only one first-hand witness with written statements twenty or so years after the fact. And this witness is completely vague on the nature of this encounter. Was it a dream? Was it one on one? That is vague.

Now you may believe that Matthew and John also authored first-hand accounts. But they failed to sign their statements. Luke and Mark also failed to sign their statements, and they are also hearsay.

So, none of this evidence, no matter how much you think you personally know the authorship and/or factual nature of it is of any value to establish your claims. Of course, the arc of history shows that assuming these thousands and thousands of people actually witnessed something, they still were not convinced of anything. They remained Jews that within a few decades would side with the Pharisees permanently kicking the Christians out of the synagogues.
T
h

That's completely false. The entire Bible was written by the actual eyewitnesses to the events. One of the criteria for it to be included in the Canon was that it had to be written by an Apostle or an associate of an Apostle, the only 2 exceptions were James and Jude who were half brothers of Jesus Christ Himself. They had to be eyewitnesses. No dreams, eyewitness accounts.

I have never heard anyone claim that the 4 Gospels were hearsay. They were either there or had first hand knowledge, maybe another Apostle told them or Jesus Himself told them. They are completely reliable.

Thousands and thousands were convinced of Christ being the Son of God. The Jews who believed had a hard time leaving the religion of Judaism that they were born and raised adhering to. The Book of Hebrews was written to those types of Jews. Yes it is true that as a Nation, Israel did reject their Messiah after seeing countless Miracles, Prophecies Fulfilled before them, the most important one, the Death and Resurrection of Christ being seen by several hundred to a couple thousand in the 40 days after He rose again.

Have you studied the prophecies of the OT that came true in the NT? Have you read the Early Secular Writings Regarding Christ? Early Church Writings? Not to mention, the changed lives by Christ. My life has been seriously changed by Christ. He has spoken to me and directed my life, leading me to come to sites like this one and share the Gospel. He saved my life a few months ago when I was in a Church shooting. Unfortunately, the recent Church of Latter Day Saints was not so fortunate. We are in a Spiritual war for the souls of men. God is real and so is the devil.

 

[Zow]

You've expanded the scope of this discussion quite a bit so I'm going to bow out of this point. Thanks for sharing your perspective!

Have a great day, weekend! For those of us on the three-year church calendar tomorrow includes 1st Timothy 6:6-19 which is one of those uncanny ways that scripture tends to pop up in relevant ways. In this case in the context of the other conversation happening here about religion being the source of evil in the world. (I choose not to use tomorrow's wording.)

I think you could say the same for the gospel reading this week - Luke 16:19-31. In this parable, Jesus tells the story of the rich man and Lazarus, which is about as close as the Gospels are going to get to the "proof vs. faith" discussion. It ends with the following insight:

Then Abraham said, 'If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.'

I don't know, someone rising from the dead might start to sway me. Or walking on water. Water into wine. Part a sea. Until then, I'll remain extremely skeptical and seriously question anyone who doesn't think it's fiction.

The eyewitnesses didn't consider it fiction and that's who wrote the Bible.

Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable, this is a widely known fact.

If that's true then why are they used in courts of law all over the country every day? That's not true especially when you have thousands of them seeing and experiencing the same things. That's what happened with Jesus. Thousands and thousands of people saw Him perform miracles, and risen from the dead.

While technically if a jury could be firmly convinced based on one eyewitness account and no other evidence, if such is the only evidence that would be a rare circumstance where the odds are probably in favor of the defense at trial. In other words, most cases are prosecuted based on an eyewitness account being one of several corroborating pieces of evidence (e.g. a confession, electronic data, etc.) the State can present at trial.

 

[Zow]

As for the timeline, my education was:

- Jesus likely born around 4 B.C./B.C.E and therefore he allegedly died and rose from the dead around 25-30 A.D./C.E.
- The Gospel of Mark is considered the first Gospel written around 65-70 A.D./C.E. Some scholars do believe it may have been Mark because of the race to the tomb story. Regardless, if you make Mark a teenager a time at the death of Christ, he's writing the Gospel like 30 years after the fact (with an intended Gentile audience) when he is considered quite old for a human back then.

From an evidentiary perspective, the longer a witness waits to reduce his account to writing the generally less credible it's considered. Ergo, even putting aside the inherent unreliability of an eyewitness account, you're expecting a human to be accurate literally thirty plus years later and writing for a defined purpose and/or agenda?

The other Gospels were written at an even later date than Mark's so they are presumably less reliable.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I have never heard anyone claim that the 4 Gospels were hearsay. T..., maybe another Apostle told them or Jesus Himself told them.

Do you know what hearsay is? At least from a layperson's perspective?

Per Papias, Mark testifies "Peter remembered this". (Of course, Papias' descriptions of Mark and Matthew is nothing like Mark and Matthew that we actually have but that is your hurdle, not mine).

Luke tells us flat out that he is using accounts that had been handed down as the basis for his account. It is a research paper of what lots of people said, not an eyewitness statement.

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

I didn't even call the Gospel of John hearsay, but the Gospel of John is known for its literary seams. Seams are where the patchwork of John's sources don't smoothly flow from one to another. Wait - sources?

Have you read the Early Secular Writings Regarding Christ?

Of course not. There are none! (And I have seen and read your list.)

 

[Zow]

I'm not a guy that gets in the weeds and argues, nothing against it, just not my thing. I haven't read all the responses and don't plan to (I know where these things usually end up unfortunately) but I do support the thread and the notion of the salvation of souls, so I'll just add my own prayer if anyone want to pray it with me. If not that's okay too. We can agree to disagree without hatred or anger towards one another and without making fun of each other's beliefs or non-beliefs.

Linkage

Prayer for the Salvation of the World.​

Father, hear our prayers for the salvation of the world. Grant Mercy to all souls that turned away from You. Open their hearts and minds with Your light.
Gather Your children from the east and the west, from the north and the south.

Have mercy O God on those who do not know You. Bring them out of darkness into Your light. You are our saving God Who leads us in our salvation. Protect us from evil.
Bless and praise You O Lord, hear our prayers and answer us. You, our Savior, are the hope of all the ends of the Earth and the distant seas. May Your way be known upon Earth; among all nations Your salvation.

We put the world in Your hands; fill us with Your love. Grant us peace through Christ, our Lord.

Amen


Peace everyone!

You mean save us from the eternal damnation H/he created and chooses to send us when we don't do exactly what we want within H/his rules despite giving us the ability to exercise free will and critical thinking meaning much of us may deduce in good faith not to follow said rules?

If so, such a nice guy, that G/god.

This is a bit beyond and also misstates the Christian perspective in several key ways:

• He created free will. The damnation is separation from Him, which mankind chose. The good faith you mentioned is in operation, but it must come with sincerity of heart and a commitment to a well formed conscience.
• The starting point for all humans born today is estrangement from Him, and He is constantly working to bring us to union with Him. That becomes eternal if we never become reconciled. He doesn't "choose" to send us anywhere any more than the wind "chooses" not to move us when we choose to stand still and not be moved by it.
• The way we become reconciled with Him is to turn our hearts to Him and let Him work in us. What you refer to as rules are most likely a misunderstanding of how that works - not necessarily on your part but on the part of those who preach it or put it into practice.

Did God create damnation?

He created free will

Yes, God created freewill and by our own free will choice to sin, we reject God and His will, which is a crime in heaven. It's like treason here if we had a King. God is the King of the Universe and His Word is Law. To sin is to break God's law according to the Bible. Jesus came and died and rose again in place of our punishment, but all we need to do is place our Faith and Trust in Jesus Christ, believing that He died in the cross and rose from the dead as these sacrifice for our sins. That's how we accept God's pardon for our sins. It's a great deal. God just wants to love us and bless us, He doesn't want to punish anyone.

I used to argue this very when I was a teenager. However, after years of thought and reflection, and becoming a parent myself, my take on this is as such:

Let's assume I am a dad with some godlike powers. When my children are able to engage in critical thinking, something I give to them and encourage, I present to them two doors and tell them to make a choice and that they must make said choice on their own. Out of kindness, I even suggest to them a particular door though through code, innuendo, and stories, though I don't outright tell them which door is the right one by opening said door and literally showing them.* But, they must make a decision on their own. Behind one door is a great life for eternity. Behind the other door is torture for eternity.

Does the above make me a great dad because I created this choice for them, knowing they could choose the "wrong" door, and force them to make it? No, it makes me a ****ing ******* and my children should be removed from me due to my neglect and abuse for forcing this wholly unfair decision upon them when I know even acting in good faith they could make the wrong decision and get a lifetime of torture.


*Please don't sell me on anything like, "God literally shows us Himself and Heaven everyday if you're paying attention" as - let's be real - the heavens haven't opened for us to all literally see and know with certainty the correct choice.

 

[Jayrod]

As for the timeline, my education was:

- Jesus likely born around 4 B.C./B.C.E and therefore he allegedly died and rose from the dead around 25-30 A.D./C.E.
- The Gospel of Mark is considered the first Gospel written around 65-70 A.D./C.E. Some scholars do believe it may have been Mark because of the race to the tomb story. Regardless, if you make Mark a teenager a time at the death of Christ, he's writing the Gospel like 30 years after the fact (with an intended Gentile audience) when he is considered quite old for a human back then.

From an evidentiary perspective, the longer a witness waits to reduce his account to writing the generally less credible it's considered. Ergo, even putting aside the inherent unreliability of an eyewitness account, you're expecting a human to be accurate literally thirty plus years later and writing for a defined purpose and/or agenda?

The other Gospels were written at an even later date than Mark's so they are presumably less reliable.

Matthew and John are written as firsthand accounts, regardless of their authorship dates (which requires a LOT of speculation, some of which could very well be incorrect).

Luke and Mark are actually secondhand. They were both younger contemporaries of the apostles and other first hand witnesses but wrote down what they were told by those that were there.

The gospels easily cover the most well recorded 3 year period in all of ancient history and their scholarly accuracy is miles ahead of anything else from around that time and for the next 500 years or more.

The concept of Mark as the first written assumes the concept of the gospels as mostly fiction. Once you assume the gospels are true, it is most likely Matthew's was written first but possibly distributed as fragmented short stories that Mark and Luke copied with some added input from others. There wasn't exactly a printing press around in 35-40 AD.

 

[dgreen]

The concept of Mark as the first written assumes the concept of the gospels as mostly fiction. Once you assume the gospels are true, it is most likely Matthew's was written first but possibly distributed as fragmented short stories that Mark and Luke copied with some added input from others.

I hadn’t heard this before. How does fiction vs nonfiction alter the theories of who was first?

 

[Dr. Manhattan]

Is there any decent explanation why Matthew/Mark etc waited 30+ years to write these incredible tales?

 

[dgreen]

Is there any decent explanation why Matthew/Mark etc waited 30+ years to write these incredible tales?

Because their culture was different than ours.

 

[Dr. Manhattan]

Is there any decent explanation why Matthew/Mark etc waited 30+ years to write these incredible tales?

Because their culture was different than ours.

This feels like a really weak copout. What does culture have to do with waiting 30 years to document something so momentous?

You don't see anyway this was some revisionist history used to try and prove his claims 30 years after the fact? Why wait? What about their culture requires them to wait a half a lifetime?

 

[dgreen]

Is there any decent explanation why Matthew/Mark etc waited 30+ years to write these incredible tales?

Because their culture was different than ours.

This feels like a really weak copout. What does culture have to do with waiting 30 years to document something so momentous?

You don't see anyway this was some revisionist history used to try and prove his claims 30 years after the fact? Why wait? What about their culture requires them to wait a half a lifetime?

Because in Judaism, there's the Written Torah and the Oral Torah. The Written Torah is Genesis through Deuteronomy. It was given by God to Moses in written form. In Orthodox Judaism, the Oral Torah was also believed to have been given directly from God to Moses at Sinai, but in oral form, and passed down from Moses all the way to the Jewish sages and rabbis to this day. Oral Torah are interpretations/applications of the Written Torah. And, most relevant to your question, they were not to be written down and to remain oral. Much of the Gospels are Jesus' Oral Torah, interpretations/applications of the Written Torah for his disciples. It's more interesting that they wrote anything at all than that they waited decades to write.

Eventually, Judaism will write down the Oral Torah, which is the Mishnah (around 200 BCE) and Talmud (a couple hundred years later).

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Have you read the Early Secular Writings Regarding Christ?

Of course not. There are none! (And I have seen and read your list.)

Early Secular Writings Regarding Christ

Early Secular Writings Regarding Christ

Taking the assertions from that link one by one-

Tacitus at the very end of the first century, in mentioning Nero's persecution of Christian in The Annals notes their "superstition" is based around Christus whose crucifixion momentarily thwarted the abominations of this movement. Except for mentioning the crucifixion which most everyone that is informed accepts as historical, it offers nothing about Christ.

SUETONIUS/JUVENAL/SENECA: Pretty much the same as Tacitus

A little later Pliny the Younger ask for advice on dealing with the "Christian problem", offering up his own ideas. Which gets a "sounds good to me" reply from Trajan. The existence of Christians in the early second century isn't really doubted, and really offers nothing about Christ. And participants in these threads should all know by now that Christianity in these first four centuries meant a whole lot of competing ideas. The Proto-Orthodox of the second century eventually win and become the great persecutors of others by the end of the fourth century - especially other Christians.
HADRIAN/ANTONIUS PIUS: - Pagans accused Christians of all kinds of atrocities. Not news. Not about Christ!

LETTER OF MARA BARSARAPION: Wrote that the "Jews killed their king". Offers nothing other than the developing antisemitism of the era.

LUCIAN: Not contemporary, is mocking Christians. "Distinguished personage" is satire from satirist.

Celsus - I have mentioned numerous times across the years in these threads that Celsus survives because Origen quotes it in Contra Celsus as he offers point by point rebuttal. This was considered for about a thousand years as every rebuttal one ever needed for attacks on Christianity. And its main take away, as mentioned earlier is that Celsus read scripture (mostly meaning Jewish scripture too literally. That Christians, at least those with minds capable read it allegorically.

THALLUS:/PHLEGON Neither exist other than via citations. Their big citations about Christ being that there was an eclipse.

BABYLONIAN TALMUD/TOLEDOTH YESHU: Not secular. Not contemporary.
IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH/QUADRATUS/EPISTLE OF BARNABAS/ARISTIDES/JUSTIN MARTYR/HEGESIPPUS: Not secular! Mostly Christian. Barnabas was even on some short lists for inclusion in the canon.
MACROBIUS: Quoting Christians
HIEROCLES: Exist only via citations about Peter and Paul - not Christ!

Did I miss any? Did the link? So, at best we have attestation that there were Christians that continued on being despicable people even after their namesake was crucified by Jews and/or Rome. And there was an eclipse!

Do you think Moses is a historical or fictional character?

Ultimately, how would the above influence the above question for a non-believer? (Substituting Jesus for Moses.) I doubt it would at all!

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Is there any decent explanation why Matthew/Mark etc waited 30+ years to write these incredible tales?

Mark was written because the apocalypse, the cosmic war between good (God) and evil that was happening during the lifetime of Jesus and the Paul didn't happen. And worse yet, evil as in Rome had just destroyed good as in the Temple. If the apocalypse had happened as planned, then there was no need, no time to waste on trivial things like this. Or creating tourist sites where Jesus once stopped. Etc.

Matthew writes about the time that Christians are kicked out of synagogues and are clearly losing the battle to the Pharisees.

 

[Dr. Manhattan]

Is there any decent explanation why Matthew/Mark etc waited 30+ years to write these incredible tales?

Because their culture was different than ours.

This feels like a really weak copout. What does culture have to do with waiting 30 years to document something so momentous?

You don't see anyway this was some revisionist history used to try and prove his claims 30 years after the fact? Why wait? What about their culture requires them to wait a half a lifetime?

Because in Judaism, there's the Written Torah and the Oral Torah. The Written Torah is Genesis through Deuteronomy. It was given by God to Moses in written form. In Orthodox Judaism, the Oral Torah was also believed to have been given directly from God to Moses at Sinai, but in oral form, and passed down from Moses all the way to the Jewish sages and rabbis to this day. Oral Torah are interpretations/applications of the Written Torah. And, most relevant to your question, they were not to be written down and to remain oral. Much of the Gospels are Jesus' Oral Torah, interpretations/applications of the Written Torah for his disciples. It's more interesting that they wrote anything at all than that they waited decades to write.

Eventually, Judaism will write down the Oral Torah, which is the Mishnah (around 200 BCE) and Talmud (a couple hundred years later).

Understood, I question the motives of refusing to write them down and the insistence on an oral only history, but this was informational.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Understood, I question the motives of refusing to write them down and the insistence on an oral only history, but this was informational.

Along this line, Papias wrote

"For I did not think that information from the books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice."

So, I think there was, at least for a while preference to oral sources. And Papias learned from what the "elders" told others, as in "disciples of disciples".

"And if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders arrived, I made enquiries about the words of the elders—what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and John the Elder, the Lord’s disciples, were saying. "

 

[dgreen]

Is there any decent explanation why Matthew/Mark etc waited 30+ years to write these incredible tales?

Because their culture was different than ours.

This feels like a really weak copout. What does culture have to do with waiting 30 years to document something so momentous?

You don't see anyway this was some revisionist history used to try and prove his claims 30 years after the fact? Why wait? What about their culture requires them to wait a half a lifetime?

Because in Judaism, there's the Written Torah and the Oral Torah. The Written Torah is Genesis through Deuteronomy. It was given by God to Moses in written form. In Orthodox Judaism, the Oral Torah was also believed to have been given directly from God to Moses at Sinai, but in oral form, and passed down from Moses all the way to the Jewish sages and rabbis to this day. Oral Torah are interpretations/applications of the Written Torah. And, most relevant to your question, they were not to be written down and to remain oral. Much of the Gospels are Jesus' Oral Torah, interpretations/applications of the Written Torah for his disciples. It's more interesting that they wrote anything at all than that they waited decades to write.

Eventually, Judaism will write down the Oral Torah, which is the Mishnah (around 200 BCE) and Talmud (a couple hundred years later).

Understood, I question the motives of refusing to write them down and the insistence on an oral only history, but this was informational.

It's not about "history", at least not the way we think about it. It's about theology and how to walk the path.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Is there any decent explanation why Matthew/Mark etc waited 30+ years to write these incredible tales?

Because their culture was different than ours.

This feels like a really weak copout. What does culture have to do with waiting 30 years to document something so momentous?

You don't see anyway this was some revisionist history used to try and prove his claims 30 years after the fact? Why wait? What about their culture requires them to wait a half a lifetime?

Because in Judaism, there's the Written Torah and the Oral Torah. The Written Torah is Genesis through Deuteronomy. It was given by God to Moses in written form. In Orthodox Judaism, the Oral Torah was also believed to have been given directly from God to Moses at Sinai, but in oral form, and passed down from Moses all the way to the Jewish sages and rabbis to this day. Oral Torah are interpretations/applications of the Written Torah. And, most relevant to your question, they were not to be written down and to remain oral. Much of the Gospels are Jesus' Oral Torah, interpretations/applications of the Written Torah for his disciples. It's more interesting that they wrote anything at all than that they waited decades to write.

Eventually, Judaism will write down the Oral Torah, which is the Mishnah (around 200 BCE) and Talmud (a couple hundred years later).

Understood, I question the motives of refusing to write them down and the insistence on an oral only history, but this was informational.

I don't think it was insistence as it was just how things were back then. Knowing how to write was not a talent most people had learned. Given you had to be highly educated, there's high likelihood Jesus and his disciples did not have this skill. Oral tradition is how most documented history.