Is the Resurrurredction really a historical fact, or not?

[polonius]

In Paul’s oldest and first epistle, written in 51-52 AD, he states without qualification that:

“Indeed, we tell you this, on the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord,* will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first.g17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together* with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Thus we shall always be with the Lord.� 1 Thes 4:15-17

But it didn’t happen. Thus we must conclude that either Paul or the Lord were incorrect.

How much else of what Paul told us is also incorrect?

Recall, it was Paul who reported the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 written about 53-57 AD.

Was his story historically correct (did it actually happen) or is it just a story that was used by and embellished by the writers of the New Testament?

Since the basis of Christian belief is the historical fact of the Resurrection, let’s examine the evidence and see if the Resurrection really happened or can an analysis of the story show that it is improbable if not impossible.

Opinions?

[tfvespasianus]

Okay...so (supposing this exchange to be a real event for the sake of argument) why is this exchange in the Bible? Why was it written down? Why should anyone, Christian or not, even bother reading this story if the entire intent and purpose behind it was purely a conversation between two parties?

In some critical circles there is a criterion that, in part, posits that all sayings/episodes preserved in the NT served a purpose for the early Church. Thus, if a given saying/episode could reasonably be interpreted of not doing so, but was still nonetheless preserved, it most likely has a high probability of authenticity. Note that part of this approach implicitly characterizes the vetting process of sayings as one based on ‘useful’ reconstruction. I think there is something to this in that the gospels, to my knowledge, do not transmit anything in the way of ‘trivial’ or frivolous detail. There is no casual mention of small talk, incidental details of people’s appearance, or irrelevant mention of setting. So, to say that something was preserved without the purpose of instructive analogy (i.e. all things apply to the reader’s own time) goes against the overwhelming focus of much of the narrative which is didactic in purpose.

Take care,
TFV

[Realworldjack]

In the end, this whole thing is a major cop out. We all here on this site believe it is possible to read, and interpret written communication, otherwise we are all wasting our time. If we believe we can communicate in this way, then there is no reason we cannot understand the contents of the Bible, unless we are lazy readers, and simply do not wish to understand.

It is a cop out to say the bible can have varying and often contradictory interpretations?

How do you account for the hundreds if not thousands of different sects of Christianity?

Some believe the flood to be a literal event, to others it is a parable. Which interpretation is lazy?

Jesus was said to return within a lifetime. But who's? His contemporaries or is this a figurative timeframe? Which interpretation is lazy?

And that is just for starters. Once we get into interpreting which translation is more accurate (or less) it gets even more complicated.

Heck, one can get many different interpretations when reading Hamlet and Shakespeare was trying to write for the masses to understand. You'd think a omniscient and omnipotent deity might have done a better job and foreseen this problem, making the book a little more clear.

I don't wish to speak for Z, but it baffles me how anyone could say the bible can be commonly understood unless we are lazy.

-all the best

It is a cop out to say the bible can have varying and often contradictory interpretations?

It absolutely is!

How do you account for the hundreds if not thousands of different sects of Christianity?

I have answered this question on more than one occasion, and will give you a link to one of them below if you are interested. While there are some sects who refer to themselves as Christian, they would be considered outside the realm orthodoxy. However, most of these sects would only have minor differences, while being in agreement over the essentials of the Faith. Allow me to give you an example I have run across recently.

There is a Church that popped up in our neighborhood a couple of years ago. I went to this Church one day in order to converse with the pastor to inquire about the history of this Church. I was informed this particular denomination began when 5 independent Churches in the Northwest joined together. When they decided to do this, there were objections form some of the other denominations, because in their view, this would cause Christianity to be even more divided, because this would be adding another denomination to the list. However, the exact opposite is the case because before these independent Churches joined together they were each considered to be totally, and completely different sects according to those who seem to want to keep track of these things. The point is these independent Churches were considered to be completely different sects but the reality is they were in enough agreement together that they could join together, which should demonstrate, that the number of different sects does not in any way indicate the actual number of completely, contradictory different beliefs.

The point is, it would seem as though the people who are responsible for keeping this list, would first determine the completely different, and contradictory teaches between all the many different independent Churches, before they are listed as totally, and completely different sects. But this would only be done if you were truly concerned with the truth of the matter. However, if you have an agenda, and this agenda, is to simply cast doubt upon something you object too, then the truth of the matter would not be all that important, now would it? At any rate, here is the link I referred too. ref:Re: What's The One True Christian Sect

Some believe the flood to be a literal event, to others it is a parable. Which interpretation is lazy?

Well, you read the account and tell me how difficult it is to determine if it was written as an historical account, or parable. I believe you will discover, those who take it as a parable, are not simply being lazy, but are being dishonest with the text, and could in no way defend this position.

Jesus was said to return within a lifetime. But who's? His contemporaries or is this a figurative timeframe? Which interpretation is lazy?

I have expounded upon a text of Scripture in my last post, which as you can see took up a lot of space, and I have not seen one objection. In fact, I have not heard a peep from anyone concerning the way in which I interpreted this passage, even after I asked,

Well, allow me to ask you, in my explanation of the text above, did I change the meaning of the words? And does the above not clearly demonstrate there is a sound way to interpret what is said, and most of it involves the use of, "good old common sense?" The same common sense we use to interpret any other form of communication?

I will go on to say, there is no other way to interpret that particular text, unless of course you are lazy, or being dishonest. Now, I could continue to expound upon, and interpret different text, but if no one is going to object, or respond, then why put forth the, effort, time, and space. The main point however is, it seems to me, to ask the question is lazy, if you have not at the very least attempted to put forth the effort to see if there might be an absolute way to interpret the passage, instead of simply assuming it is too difficult.

And that is just for starters. Once we get into interpreting which translation is more accurate (or less) it gets even more complicated.

You call it, "complicated" but it really is not. It may not be easy, which means it may take some hard work, which means you may have to think, and put forth effort, but it is not complicated. Here is a hint. There are some translations that are thought for thought translations, while there are others that are, word, for word. Which do you believe is the best, and how complicated is that?

Heck, one can get many different interpretations when reading Hamlet and Shakespeare was trying to write for the masses to understand. You'd think a omniscient and omnipotent deity might have done a better job and foreseen this problem, making the book a little more clear.

To my understanding, Hamlet is a play written by Shakespeare, that has been performed countless times throughout the years, and I really do not see how this would compare in the least to what is recorded in the Bible?

You do understand, the New Testament is composed of letters written between parties, and the authors had no idea, what they were writing would one day end up in a book we now call the Bible? This means we should read these letters exactly like they were written. If you were to pick up a letter that was addressed to someone else, you would not read that letter as if it were addressed to you, so why would you do this with the letters contained in the Bible. Again, it is not that difficult, unless of course you simply want to use the argument in an attempt to cast doubt. The question is, have you really attempted to put forth the time and effort to truly understand what it is you criticize, or is this simply an easy, convenient argument, that many others seem to get away with?

I don't wish to speak for Z, but it baffles me how anyone could say the bible can be commonly understood unless we are lazy.

Again, the question becomes, have you really put forth the effort to truly understand if the Bible is in fact all that difficult to understand? Only you can know the answer to that question. If you have not, can you say with confidence that it is difficult, or is this simply an assumption?

Allow me to end by saying, I understand that there are some passages of Scripture that is more difficult to understand, and I do not claim to be able to understand, and explain every thing that is said, which means I will have to admit there are some passages I am not sure of. However, this would be said about any other material of this volume. In other words, while there are some passages that may be difficult to understand, by in large, the overwhelming majority of the Bible is in plain language, and while it may take some effort to understand, which is no different than any other written form of communication, it is not difficult, unless of course as I said, you are simply a lazy reader, I do not care, of desire to take the time to understand!

[marco]

Greetings from a novice. The debate seems to be about Christ's death rather than his resurrection. It is out of the question to regard the resurrection as a "historical fact". Tacitus, whose sources on Roman history were excellent, gives a mention to Christians and to their founder's death, though he is not quoting from Agricola here but going along with what he has heard of the Christians. His source is sometimes questioned for various uncertainties but even it is genuine it certainly does not give any reason for accepting a resurrection. Josephus is probably more suspect and from what I recall of Pliny's letter to Trajan, he merely asked what should be done about questioning Christians. Trajan said they were not to be pursued but as long as they cursed Christ they were to be released. That tells us nothing about Christ.

Since Paul's letters were for the guidance of his recipients it is stretching credulity to substitute a metaphorical meaning for the obvious one, that some of his readers would witness the Second Coming. He believed this himself.

There is no proper biography of Christ - we have what amounts to a psychological portrait of a mild-mannered man. Sadly he does not intrude on any of history's major or minor events, though of course we can try hard to consider such things as astronomy and Roman census procedures to aid our investigations.

[Ancient of Years]

Greetings from a novice. The debate seems to be about Christ's death rather than his resurrection. It is out of the question to regard the resurrection as a "historical fact". Tacitus, whose sources on Roman history were excellent, gives a mention to Christians and to their founder's death, though he is not quoting from Agricola here but going along with what he has heard of the Christians. His source is sometimes questioned for various uncertainties but even it is genuine it certainly does not give any reason for accepting a resurrection. Josephus is probably more suspect and from what I recall of Pliny's letter to Trajan, he merely asked what should be done about questioning Christians. Trajan said they were not to be pursued but as long as they cursed Christ they were to be released. That tells us nothing about Christ.

Since Paul's letters were for the guidance of his recipients it is stretching credulity to substitute a metaphorical meaning for the obvious one, that some of his readers would witness the Second Coming. He believed this himself.

There is no proper biography of Christ - we have what amounts to a psychological portrait of a mild-mannered man. Sadly he does not intrude on any of history's major or minor events, though of course we can try hard to consider such things as astronomy and Roman census procedures to aid our investigations.

Welcome marco!

It is perhaps a symptom of the 'Us against Them' syndrome that because some non-believers deny the existence of a historic Jesus, some believers think it sufficient to demonstrate the early existence of Christianity as proof of the truth of Christianity.

[marco]

Ancient of Years, I am happy to meet you on the path of truth. Yes, it would appear that the existence of the early Christians, especially those fed to Roman lions, points to Bethlehem and Pentecost and a resurrected Lord. There were other religious notions taken from Eastern religions that captured Roman interest. The brand of belief we ended up with, especially the weird Trinity in a monotheistic landscape, owes a great debt to Constantine and the early church councils. Best regards.

[Ancient of Years]

Ancient of Years, I am happy to meet you on the path of truth. Yes, it would appear that the existence of the early Christians, especially those fed to Roman lions, points to Bethlehem and Pentecost and a resurrected Lord. There were other religious notions taken from Eastern religions that captured Roman interest. The brand of belief we ended up with, especially the weird Trinity in a monotheistic landscape, owes a great debt to Constantine and the early church councils. Best regards.

My point was that the existence of Christianity in the 1st century does not in itself demonstrate the truth of Christianity. (Neither does it rule it out, of course.)

I see virtually all the elements that went into early Christianity as having come from Judaism, although some may have originated elsewhere.

I see the Trinity as a way to make sense of several NT authors incorporating ideas from Philo into their efforts. Philo was a Jewish philosopher who sought to reconcile Jewish scriptures with Middle Platonism.

But all these are way off topic for this thread. Just clarifying my position.

[Zzyzx]

.

Realistically, RWJ, don't most (or "many" to be safe) people become Christian (or adherents of other religion) when they are children – before they are capable of really thinking through the decision?

You are correct, which was true of me as well, however when I became of age, around the age of 19 I simply drifted away from Church because I realized at the time I had not really given it that much thought, and at the time did not really care to do so. With this being the case, I did not want to continue to act as though I believed something I was not totally convinced of.

It was not until I began to have children that I really began to think about it again, and the only reason I did at this point is because I knew my children would be exposed to Christianity, and I wanted to give them an answer one way or the other. This is when I dove in and began to study it in depth.

Okay. Is it fair to say that many or most people adopt a religion "without thinking about it" (particularly during childhood) but perhaps DO think about it later in life? When / if that later thinking occurs some may conclude that the religion is not for them and others may decide exactly the opposite.

The point is, carrying beliefs into adulthood, without really thinking about them, or being absolutely convinced, is not an excuse. As I said, when I became of age, it did not take a whole lot of thinking to understand, I had no idea if what I was taught as a child was in fact true. Moreover, it did not take a whole lot of thinking to determine that I did not want to live as if I was convinced of something I was not sure of. So again, if there are people who can, I really do not see how they can be excused.

It appears as though some people give serious thought to what they were / are told. Others may not – but still consider themselves to be devout Christians.

Are you speaking about all, most, many or some of the people who post in The Clergy Project when commenting on when or whether one is "thinking"?

I was not speaking at all about those from "The Clergy Project" because I have just received the link and have only read one example thus far, and we will get to that in a moment, rather I was speaking of the several, I have read right here on this site, and everyone of them admit, "to not engaging the mind."

Now, as I said I have only had time to read one of the stories concerning, "The Clergy Project" and I am certainly glad to hear there is a place these people can go to receive support.

The Clergy Project currently lists twenty-seven stories from former Christian ministers. There is great variation among them.

Without going into detail, if Christianity is true, then looking for peace here in this life, may not be a good thing. At any rate the point again is, our emotional feelings, (including peace) should not enter the equation.

Others of us HAVE found peace (and contentment and fulfillment and satisfaction) in "this life".

Promoters of religion, however, often seem to prefer that their customers be dissatisfied with real life in order to sell them "hope" for better things in a proposed "afterlife" (that cannot be shown to be anything more than imaginary).

Whose opinion about what is taught in scripture is authoritative – the RCC, Eastern Orthodox, Episcopal, Calvinist, Presbyterian, JW, LDS (or FLDS), Baptist, etc?

We have had this very same discussion in detail on more than one occasion, and I believe I demonstrated how skewed the numbers were, and as far as I can remember you have failed to respond to it, which makes it frustrating for you continue to bring it up without responding to the points I have brought up in the past. In fact your list above demonstrates my point some what in that a Calvinist, and a Presbyterian would be the exact same thing! Therefore, I am unwilling to continue to say the same things over, and over.

Okay. Condense it to "Whose opinion about what is taught in scripture is authoritative" and who granted that authority?

What alternative is suggested regarding a person's own description of their entry and exit from religion? Who knows better than, or more than, or more accurately than the person involved?

Well how bout we examine their stories to see if there are any inconsistency in what they have to say, or if there may be some things they claim that Christianity teaches that it does not teach as I have done on more than one occasion.

One down and twenty-six to go.

If they are claiming that Christianity teaches something that I can either clearly refute, or at the very least cast serious doubt upon, (which I have and will do again in just a moment addressing your comment below) or if they claim something like, "the facts are all that matter" and then end as our friend in "The Clergy Project" by saying "they are now at peace" then I believe it is legitimate to question if they are in fact now using their mind.

Specifically what can you refute in the one case to which you refer (which one was that?)

It is one thing to claim they are not, it is another to question if they are not, and go on to give reasons, why it seems they are thinking no better than in the past. This is what I thought a debate forum was all about.

Has that actually been done, or is this all hypothetical?

A Christian argues that "faith can move mountains". Is that an example of the Bible being clear in its meaning? Is it hyperbole? Is it some other literary device?

This is quite comical because I guarantee you, that you have no problem understanding when to take something literally or not, in any other written communication, but somehow, because it is the Bible, we have difficulty.

Comical?

I do not claim ability to determine when ideas presented are meant to be taken literally. Sometimes I can, sometimes I can't. I do not pretend to know the intentions and motivations or veracity of speakers / writers.

However, when someone states that "faith can move mountains" should not be taken literally but claims that tales about "resurrection" or "miracles" or "divinity" SHOULD be taken literally, I ask for a means by which the literal can be reliably distinguished from the figurative by anyone interested – to reach the same conclusion.

If there is no such means to produce uniform conclusions, it is all a matter of OPINION.

Even in the Bible you do not always have this trouble, and an example would be when Jesus says, "I am the door." Certainly you do not take Jesus to mean He is a literal door, right?

RWJ, I do not take anything of the Bible as literally true. There may be occasional mention of real people, places or events, but the story line, claims, magic, supernaturalism is, in my opinion (to which I am entitled just as fully as any Bible Believer), are nothing more than fanciful tales from folklore, legend, mythology.

So then, when Jesus says, "I tell you" who is the "YOU" he is referring too? It is clearly the ones he is speaking to in, "PRIVATE." This means that Jesus is in no way saying, "everyone, everywhere with faith can move mountains."

Okay. Following that logic unless Jesus specifies (in words attributed to him) that he is speaking to everyone, do we assume that whatever he says applies ONLY to his immediate audience?

To be consistent, if one claims that words attributed to someone by Bible stories apply only to the audience addressed in one case, the same should be applied in other cases. Thus, if the words of Jesus to his apostles in the "faith can move mountains" apply only to them, then it would be inconsistent to say that Paul/Saul's letters to individuals and congregations should apply to anyone other than those intended audiences.

Likewise, gospel writers may be shown to address specific audiences with their stories – and should (to be consistent) not be regarded as applying to anyone else. Right?

He is also not telling the Apostles, that they will, or should use their faith to move mountains. Rather, let's remember He is explaining to them why they could not, "heal the boy." Let's also remember He has told them, "it is because you have so little faith." This is when he explains to them that it would not take very much faith at all, to move a mountain, which if true, would go on to demonstrate how weak their faith was, in not being able to heal the boy.

Excellent. It only applies to his immediate audience. Right? The ability (or inability) to "heal by faith" does not apply to anyone else. Right?

So, as you can plainly see, Jesus is in no way telling the Apostles, "they should, or would move mountains with their faith." Since this is a private conversation between Jesus, and his future Apostles, this means what is said applies only to the Apostles. The plain meaning from Jesus here is, "it does not take much faith to move a mountain, which demonstrates the reason "you" (Apostles) could not heal the boy, is because, "your" (Apostles) faith is weak.

Following that, unless "faith healers" are given specific instructions AND have sufficient "faith", they have been given no ability to heal people. Right?

The Apostles, are the ones Jesus left in His stead, with His authority after His Assent into Heaven. We have record of these Apostles, doing mighty works after the departure of Jesus. In fact, the author of Acts seems to be extremely careful to distinguish between what the Apostles were doing, as opposed to the everyday ordinary believer.

We have TALES about such things. Are people (even religious people) ever known to make up tales that are not literally true?

Acts 2:42-43
They, (ORDINARY BELIEVER) devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles.

Over the next few chapters, the author says this very same thing, clearly making a distinction between what the ordinary believer was doing, as opposed to the Apostles, and the main distinction was the Apostles were the only ones performing the mighty works. [/quote]
Okay. We have stories about Apostles "performing the mighty works" and should have no expectation that others can do likewise. Right?

A requirement for sainthood is performance of miracles, isn't it?

Again allow me to stress, the author of Acts is careful to stress on more than one occasion, what the ordinary believer was doing, as opposed to the Apostles, and the only ones recorded to have performed miraculous works, (healings, raising the dead, etc.) were the Apostles, or someone the Apostles commissioned by the laying on of hands. Even the author of Acts himself claims to have witness some of these miraculous events, but never records that he participated in performing any of them himself.

So then, as we examine the passage you cite, and compare it to what is recorded else where in the Bible, we can clearly see, the Apostles, and, or someone the Apostles laid hands on, were the only ones that performed mighty works, while the ordinary believer was simply following the Apostles teaching. If the ordinary believer during the Apostolic age were not performing miraculous works, then what would make us think we as Christians today would be performing miraculous works? With this being the case, we should be able to easily determine in the passage you cite, that the conversation was between, Jesus and His future Apostles, and it does not apply to us today.

Excellent.

Now, are you still willing to allow anyone to interpret the Bible in any way they wish? Sure you are, because it allows you to continue to say, the Bible is difficult to understand, therefore any ones interpretation is as good as the next. However, as we have seen above, when the contents of the Bible is read taking into consideration the whole of the context, and comparing what is said to other portions in the Bible, it is not difficult to understand, and the only way to misinterpret it, is to be lazy, and willfully ignore, sound exegesis.

Christian scholars and theologians DISAGREE about many biblical issues. Do they fail to take context into consideration? Are non-scholar, non-theologian, "in the pew" Christians better qualified to "interpret" the Bible than those who spend a lifetime in study?

A good deal of debate here involves Bible Apologists changing the meaning of words in scripture – and saying "This is what it REALLY means" (often quite different from what is actually written). Can faith cause mountains to hurl themselves into the sea?


If two, three or a thousand Christians disagree about the "clear meaning of the language, and good old common sense", which one is right? Who is given authority to decide? Doesn't the disagreement indicate that the meaning of scripture is NOT clear and a matter of common sense?

Well, allow me to ask you, in my explanation of the text above, did I change the meaning of the words?

You have provided your interpretation of the meaning of those specific situations. Not everyone agrees (whether word meanings were changed or not).

And does the above not clearly demonstrate their is a sound way to interpret what is said, and most of it involves the use of, "good old common sense?" The same common sense we use to interpret any other form of communication?

When I use "good old common sense" to evaluate tales told by anyone about anything, I do not accept them as truthful and accurate unless they are verifiable. Believing whatever one is told is known as being gullible and naïve.

If someone tells me that long-dead bodies come back to life I use common sense to decide that what they say is not supported by knowledge of the real world. If they add "once upon a time" that does not change my response.

In the end, this whole thing is a major cop out. We all here on this site believe it is possible to read, and interpret written communication, otherwise we are all wasting our time.

Our debates on this site clearly indicate that "interpretation" of written communication is widely / wildly variable. Your (generic term) interpretation is not assured to be better or more accurate than that of others.

Being a Christian does not impart special ability to understand the Bible – though being a believer may convince people that their opinion is superior.

If we believe we can communicate in this way, then there is no reason we cannot understand the contents of the Bible, unless we are lazy readers, and simply do not wish to understand.

If / since people who are not "lazy readers" and who DO "wish to understand" the contents of the Bible come to very different conclusions, what happened? Again, those people may be highly qualified and dedicated scholars and theologians. If the meaning of contents of the Bible are disputed by the most qualified people, how can anyone claim that the meaning is easily understood (or understood with any certainty at all)?

Tens of thousands of different Christian denominations, cults, sects, groups, etc demonstrate that interpretation vary – even among those who presumably are not all "lazy readers" who "do not wish to understand" the Bible.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 154 by marco]

Yes, it would appear that the existence of the early Christians, especially those fed to Roman lions, points to Bethlehem and Pentecost and a resurrected Lord.

How so? Does the existence of a group of followers for any other religion, belief, cult, preacher (whatever word you want to use) in the early days of that group indicate that the beliefs are true?
Does the existence of the first group of Scientologists point to the existence of Xenu, as per Scientology claims? If you say no to this example, why then allow it for the early Christians? It looks like special pleading to me.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 147 by Realworldjack]

I'm going to give my view on this part of the exchange between Z and RWJ

Zzyzx wrote:
A Christian argues that "faith can move mountains". Is that an example of the Bible being clear in its meaning? Is it hyperbole? Is it some other literary device?

to which RWJ responds

This is quite comical because I guarantee you, that you have no problem understanding when to take something literally or not, in any other written communication, but somehow, because it is the Bible, we have difficulty.

Well...yes it is because it is the Bible. The Bible which tells a story of a man who has superpowers. Jesus supposedly walks on water, cures the sick, raises the dead, rises from the dead himself, casts demons out of people with a word. So if the story had continued on and showed a Jesus pointing at a mountain, telling it to move and the mountain tap-danced on its way to the nearest large body of water, it's thus understandable that I and others might think that Jesus here was being literal about actually commanding mountains to in the literal sense move.

So then, when Jesus says, "I tell you" who is the "YOU" he is referring too? It is clearly the ones he is speaking to in, "PRIVATE." This means that Jesus is in no way saying, "everyone, everywhere with faith can move mountains."

Okay...so (supposing this exchange to be a real event for the sake of argument) why is this exchange in the Bible? Why was it written down? Why should anyone, Christian or not, even bother reading this story if the entire intent and purpose behind it was purely a conversation between two parties? If this lesson about faith was only meant for the people Jesus was directly talking to, and not for anyone else, such as you or I, what's the point of it even being there to be read? So this lesson about faith doesn't apply to everyone?
To give an analogy - I sit down with my friend and I give him a lesson on what I think the nature of love is. I teach that it's about being kind to other people, being willing to give of yourself so that they may have more. This conversation is written down and later published in a biography of me.
So you come along RWJ and say that this was purely a conversation between me and my friend. The lesson I gave on love doesn't apply to anyone else, especially not the third party reader. They are not to try and apply my lesson on love to themselves.
Why wouldn't Christians want to try and apply Jesus's lesson on faith to themselves?

Okay...so (supposing this exchange to be a real event for the sake of argument) why is this exchange in the Bible?

To me this question certainly seems to indicate a lack of understanding because, in reality this conversation was never recorded "in the Bible." Rather, it was recorded in two different letters, authored by two different people, addressed to two different audiences, and neither of these authors had ever heard of the Bible, and the Bible would not come along until thousands of years later. This means these authors had no idea that the letters they were writing would one day be compiled together in a book we now call the Bible. So then, "this exchange" was recorded in two different letters, and these letters were later, (thousands of years later) compiled into what is now referred to as the Bible.

Why should anyone, Christian or not, even bother reading this story if the entire intent and purpose behind it was purely a conversation between two parties? If this lesson about faith was only meant for the people Jesus was directly talking to, and not for anyone else, such as you or I, what's the point of it even being there to be read? So this lesson about faith doesn't apply to everyone?

Again, a complete misunderstanding! Do you believe the Bible is a lesson book? The four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were not written to be, "lesson books," rather they were clearly written to be historical accounts? Can lessons be learned from reading historical accounts? Sure they could, but this was not the intent.

When you read an historical account of a conversation between lets say, George Washington, and someone else, would you suppose what is said in this conversation applies to you? If not, then why do you suppose the historical accounts included in the Biblical apply to you? Could there be lessons you could learn by reading an historical conversation between, Washington and someone else? Absolutely, but this was not the intent. In the same way, there may be lessons learned from reading the historical accounts in the Bible, but this does not mean it was the intent. Therefore, the reasons these events were recorded in the letters, that were many years later compiled into the Bible, is because the author of these letters were attempting to give an account of the events that happened. Lets look at an example. The author of "The Gospel of Luke" begins his letter by giving the reasons for writing this letter, he says,

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,

From this we can learn the author was writing to someone named, Theophilus. We can also determine the reason for this letter, which according to the author was, "to write an orderly account." This clearly demonstrates the author was intending to give an historical account of events, which has nothing whatsoever to do with, "lessons." If lessons can be learned from this account, that is fine, but is was not the stated intent, which means, one must be careful when reading to determine what, if any lessons can be learned, and if they do not, they could absolutely make an error in interpretation. The point is, your understanding of the Bible certainly seems to be completely different than mine, and my understanding comes from what the authors say themselves, so the question to you now is, where does your understanding come from?

To give an analogy - I sit down with my friend and I give him a lesson on what I think the nature of love is. I teach that it's about being kind to other people, being willing to give of yourself so that they may have more. This conversation is written down and later published in a biography of me.
So you come along RWJ and say that this was purely a conversation between me and my friend. The lesson I gave on love doesn't apply to anyone else, especially not the third party reader. They are not to try and apply my lesson on love to themselves.

This is a bad example because you continue to view the Bible primarily as a lesson book, when it is not. In your example above you may be correct to suggest anyone anytime could use this lesson in their life, however if you were to read a conversation between a teacher and her class, (which is sort of what we are reading between Jesus and his disciples), and if the teacher were to say to this class, "anyone who scores a 100 percent on any test, will receive a $100.00 dollar cash award," would you take this to apply to you, if you were a student, in a completely different school, and scored 100 percent on a test that you should receive a $100.00 cash award? Or would you understand this teacher to be addressing only the students in her class, and when she uses the word, "anyone" this word applies only to anyone in her class?

In reality, you are making my point because most of us have the ability when reading anything at all to determine what things may apply to us, as opposed to those things that do not. So then yes, in the example you gave it would be easy to determine, that the lessons given may apply to all who read, while in the example I gave, it would be easy to determine what is said only applies to those the teacher was directly addressing. The Bible is no different, and the only reason you believe it is, is because you believe the whole of the Bible is a lesson book, even though I have cited one of the authors who clearly tells us, he was "writing an account of the things that happened."

With this being the case, this conversation is recorded in the Bible because according to the author it is an event that happened in the life of Jesus, and the author's stated intent was to give an account of the things that occurred. Therefore, when we read an historical account of a conversation between George Washington and his troops, in which he tells them, "do not fire until you see the whites of their eyes," this may have been wise advise to his troops, but I certainly hope our soldiers today do not read this, and believe it applies to them. So, if our soldiers today cannot apply this lesson from Washington to themselves, why was it ever recorded in the history books?

[marco]

[Replying to post 154 by marco]

Yes, it would appear that the existence of the early Christians, especially those fed to Roman lions, points to Bethlehem and Pentecost and a resurrected Lord.

How so? Does the existence of a group of followers for any other religion, belief, cult, preacher (whatever word you want to use) in the early days of that group indicate that the beliefs are true?
Does the existence of the first group of Scientologists point to the existence of Xenu, as per Scientology claims? If you say no to this example, why then allow it for the early Christians? It looks like special pleading to me.

I was replying to Ancient of Years and agreeing with his statement:
"Some believers think it sufficient to demonstrate the early existence of Christianity as proof of the truth of Christianity"
My "yes" is an indication of agreement that people do make that erroneous conclusion - I of course don't subscribe to the view that because we know of early Christians we can deduce the authenticity of Christ and his miracles. Go well.