Danmark wrote:
East of Eden wrote:
Danmark wrote:
East of Eden wrote:
assisigirl wrote:
What is the essence of a country, ie a feeling of belonging and commitment, is it not.
This is a real everyday occurrence, ie pride, patriotism.
Why would a 'kingdom of God' be any different?
I am primarily a citizen of the Kingdom of God, secondarily an American. I'm just passing through here.
Patriotism rises and falls like a fire, and Jesusism can be dormant and rekindled in like fashion. Jesus's death was like a smouldering camp fire until the breeze of 'resurrection' caught it. That's what I am going for against the OP.
Watch me get hammered
East of Eden
So all those people had the same 'hallucination' of the Resurrection, then went on to die rather than renounce that hallucination? To quote G.W. Bush, that don't make sense.
Please name 'all those people' and give the dates they published first hand reports of what they 'saw'. Use original documents if you can.
Don't tell me you're going to float the rather new 'the Apostles weren't really persecuted' line?
Only one of the disciples died a natural death so I would include them. My comment wasn't about the authorship of the Gospels, but I agree with this link:
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/ ... ecnum=6976
Maybe you know better than Polycarp, Papias and Irenaeus about who wrote them?
What part of my question suggests a focus on persecution? The focus of my question was on your use of the word 'hallucination.' To try to be even clearer for you, I am challenging the idea that anyone 'saw' these events.
BTW, surely you will agree that it is not unusual for people to be persecuted or otherwise receive disapprobation for claiming their hallucinations are 'real.'
Also, it is in the nature of hallucinations that they are perceived as real, so I would expect people to persist and defend their hallucinations with the same vigor as if they were defending the truth.
If you are defending the hallucination theory, what you are saying is that if there had been a good nuerologist for Peter and the others to consult, there never would have been a Christian church. The hallucination theory breaks down on several levels. From Winfried Corduan:
"The problem with this theory is that, in the case of the Resurrection appearances, everything we know about hallucinations is violated. The appearances did not follow the patterns always present in hallucinations, for hallucinations are private and arise out of a state of extreme emotional instability in which the hallucination functions as a sort of wish-fulfillment. What occurred after the Resurrection was very different. The disciples had little trouble accepting Christ's departure; they decided to go back to their fishing. The appearances came as surprises while the disciples were intent on other things. Most importantly, the appearances came to
groups of people, with each member seeing the same thing. That is simply not how hallucinations work. Thus the Resurrection appearances could not have been hallucinations."
C.S. Lewis said, "Any theory of hallucination breaks down on the fact (and if it is invention it is the oddest invention that ever entered the mind of man) that on three separate occasions this hallucination was not immediately recognized as Jesus."
John RW Stott wrote, "The disciples were not gullible, but rather cautious, sceptical and 'slow of heart to believe'. They were not susceptible to hallucinations. Nor would strange visions have satisfied them. Their faith was grounded upon the hard facts of verifiable experience."
Hallucinations have never, writes TJ Thorburn, "stimulated people to undertake a work of enormous magnitude, and, while carrying it out, to lead lives of the most rigid and consistent self-denial, and even suffering. In a word....we are constrained to agree with Dr. Sanday, who says, 'No apparition, no mere hallucination of the senses, ever yet moved the world.'"
Again, my question is a challenge to name the witnesses and to tell us if you can, WHEN they published FIRST HAND accounts of what you claim these people saw.
Already answered in my link.
The problem with the lack of witnesses to the resurrection and ascension are virtually admitted by the church sources who felt the need to supplement the ending of Mark.
Many scholars take 16:8 as the original ending and believe the longer ending (16:9-20) was written later by someone else as a summary of Jesus' 'resurrection' appearances and 'miracles' performed by Christians. In this 12-verse passage, the author refers to Jesus' appearances to Mary Magdalene, two disciples, and then the Eleven.
Most scholars, following the approach of the textual critic Bruce Metzger, hold the view that verses 9-20 were not part of the original text.
You might be right on those verses, although some scholars do defend them.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html#dissent
Whatever, it is irrelevant as those ideas are found elsewhere in the NT. Their absence wouldn't change the Chrstian message.
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE
