Our series:
1) What is the Gospel of John?
2) How does John differ from the Synoptics?
3) Does John support the apologetic claims?
If you listen to apologetic debates regarding the Resurrection you notice the current trend focusing on the 1 Cor. 15:3-8 creed, and Dr. Habermas’ famous minimal facts. In fact, some apologists even claim they won’t use the Gospels (but then use facts derived from the Gospels without citing the source.)
The problem being the various accounts are contradictory, as discussed in my last entry. I particularly enjoy Dr. Craig’s clever debate tactic: When the skeptic points out these contradictions, Dr. Craig replies (paraphrased): “My opponent points out numerous claimed contradictions. While I think those contradictions can be resolved, that doesn’t matter because this debate isn’t about inerrancy—this is about historical events.”
In a sneaky, off-hand way, Dr. Craig avoids the contradictions because he intones that isn’t what the debate is about! I wish an opponent would reply, “I am glad Dr. Craig agrees with me that this debate is not about inerrancy, since he would be forced to concede, as the documents clearly present contradictory accounts. However, these inconsistent accounts do impact credibility, and as such we cannot afford to avoid the implications presented by the differing statements made.”
We will first complete our discussion regarding the contradictions in John to demonstrate the apologist comes to a point they must choose how John could possibly be historical, and then we will apply Dr. Habermas’ minimal facts to John and see how it pans out.
Contradictions
John 21. Starts off with Peter and some disciples going fishing on the Sea of Galilee. Simple question—where does one fit it in the chronology?
It could fit in Mark, of course, as we have no subsequent appearances. This is the reason Evan Powell has even argued John 21 is the lost ending of Mark, because it fits so well. No contradiction here.
Matthew has the women tell the Disciples to go to Galilee, and they see Jesus on the Mountain. Now, the only two places one could fit the fishing appearance is either before they saw Jesus on the Mountain or after. (Obvious, eh?)
It makes little sense (albeit possible) for the fishing appearance to be after, because Matthew’s encounter on the mountain ends with the Great Commission. One would have to argue Jesus said, “Go out and start the Church” so the Disciples went…fishing. Apparently a post-resurrection Jesus doesn’t have quite the force a pre-resurrection Jesus did. (Remember, pre-resurrection Jesus asked Peter to become a fisher of men, and Peter immediately followed Jesus (Mark 1:16-18)) Post-resurrection Jesus says “Go out into the world and make disciples” and Peter says, “Meh…first let’s go fishing.”
Also, John 21:14 claims the fishing appearance was the 3rd time Jesus appeared to the Disciples, so Matthew would have apparently skipped one appearance.
And, in the same light, if the fishing appearance was before the Mountain experience, then Matthew has skipped three previous appearances (Appearance One, Appearance Two, Fishing Appearance) before the mountain appearance. Possible; but not credible.
Luke starts to give us fits. Timing is crucial here, so we need to follow it.
On Resurrection Sunday, the women go to the tomb, see it empty, and report back to the Disciples. Peter goes to the tomb. The same day (Sunday) two fellows walk to Emmaus encountering Jesus. Emmaus is 7 miles from Jerusalem. That evening (Sunday), Jesus eats with the fellows. They run back (7 miles) to Jerusalem, and when they arrive (Sunday) Jesus appears to the disciples.
You cannot fit John 21 on Sunday. Not with Luke. The fishing appearance was in the morning (21:4) and was the third appearance (21:14). Ridiculous to have the women running all the way to Galilee, to have Peter and the others say, “Oh sure, we saw Jesus. Heck, this is the 3rd time; had breakfast with ‘im” and Peter lounges around with Jesus for a bit, then runs back to Jerusalem to see the tomb, and the rest go sit around the upper room in Jerusalem, only to be terrified and frightened to see Jesus (for the fourth time) when Jesus says, “Hey, don’t worry this time its me” and yet they still didn’t believe. (Luke 24:37-41)
So John 21, if we can manage it at all, must fit after the Lukan appearances. (Indeed, John 20’s alignment with Lukan appearances in the upper room are pre-supposed in John 21’s claim this was the third appearance.)
Yet this becomes just as odd as Matthew’s claim. Luke has Jesus explicitly stating, “Stay in Jerusalem” (Luke 24:29; Acts 1:4), so the disciples ignore him and go to Galilee? Matthew says, “Go out and start the church” so they go fishing? Why does post-Resurrection Jesus carry such little weight?
Worse, notice the cycle of doubt. In Luke, when Jesus appears in the upper room, they don’t believe. In Matthew’s mountain appearance some still doubted. However (this gets tricky!) Matthew’s mountain appearance can’t be second, because John records two appearances before the third fishing appearances.
Look--this is fun!
Appearance 1: Lukan upper room (and John first upper room) on Sunday.
Appearance 2: _________________________
Appearance 3: John 21 Fishing Scene.
If we put “Matthew Mountain top” in Appearance 2, we get a problem because John 21 records Thomas as seeing Jesus in Appearance 3, yet still doubting by the second Johannine upper room appearance which hasn’t happened yet! John mandates the second appearance to be the Doubting Thomas scene to make work. So we have:
Appearance 1: Lukan upper room (and John first upper room).
Appearance 2: John 2nd Upper room scene (Doubting Thomas convinced)
Appearance 3: John 21 Fishing Scene.
Appearance 4: Mountain top (at best).
But this, too, is problematic. Why did Matthew skip three (3) previous appearances? Why mention an appearance that is more than eight (8) days later than the resurrection? Why is it when Jesus said, “Stay in Jerusalem” they rush off to Galilee? But far more importantly, how is it after four (4) appearances, some still doubted!?
Myth development, lack of historicity and agenda-driven writing explain these problems easily. Claiming every account is factually and historical accurate causes one whiplash and strained explanations.
Minimal Facts
The Minimal facts cited are:
1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
7. The resurrection was the central message.
8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
9. The Church was born and grew.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).
Let’s go through some regarding John’s account.
1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
John is the only account to add the famous spear into the side of Jesus. Mark doesn’t have it. Matthew (who loves prophecy) missed it. Luke knows about scars in the hands and feet; but missed it. Only John. As previously mentioned, John’s community was dealing with docetism—the belief Jesus didn’t have a physical body. This claim regarding a spear and having Thomas touch the wounds is a direct doctrinal attack against the perceived heresy. It is to confirm Jesus was really, really dead. This isn’t historical—it is theological.
2. He was buried.
The argument relies upon Joseph of Arimethea, and that Christian’s wouldn’t dare make up a story regarding a council member. But...er…what about Nicodemus? Mark, Matthew and Luke forget to mention him. If Mark, Matthew and Luke were compelled to mention Joseph (because the apologist claims it is true) why didn’t they fell the same compulsion with Nicodemus? If Nicodemus is not true, then John made him up. Why couldn’t the others have made up Joseph of Arimethea for the same reasons?
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
His death caused the disciples to go fishing!
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
The point of this argument is not simply an empty tomb—any tomb can be empty. The argument is that the tomb was found empty very early (Sunday morning) and therefore natural explanations for this are extremely difficult. For example, Dr. Craig argues “the enemies of Christianity felt obliged to explain away the empty tomb by the theft hypothesis.”
However, John clearly indicates Mary Magdalene felt a natural explanation was probable, and shows no discomfort with a natural explanation for an empty tomb. She states, upon seeing what she thinks is a gardener, “Sir, if you have carried him [Jesus] away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.” (John 20:15) She anticipates an ability to take a body out of a tomb, and is more than willing to participate in the endeavor!
Apologists (like Dr. Craig) enjoy pointing out the soldiers’ conspiracy in Matthew’s story, as evidence the Jews felt it necessary to make something up to explain away this empty tomb. I have yet to see one address John’s gospel where no one felt it necessary to make something up, because Mary Magdalene thought it perfectly natural a gardener would move a body, and give the body to her to take somewhere else!
By the way, tombs were family affairs in the First Century, and if Jesus’ family did have a tomb, it would have been in his home town in Galilee. It would be perfectly natural to use this nearby cave for a temporary tomb (because of the oncoming Sabbath,) and later move the body to the family tomb. An empty tomb has a perfectly natural explanation; an explanation the Johannine community was comfortable with.
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
I will deal with all three statements here, because they have the same two-word response.
“Doubting Thomas.”
Here was a guy who had traveled with Jesus for one (or three) years. According to the apologist who holds to the historicity of the Gospels, Thomas had seen Jesus walk on water, feed 1,000’s with some scraps of food. Watched blind people gain sight, lame walk, deaf hear. Even performed miracles himself!
Has seen Jesus raise people from the dead and heard more teachings from Jesus than any other person alive (with the possible exceptions of Peter, James and John.) This fellow is an insider.
He is informed by his friends, “We have seen Jesus post-Resurrection!” (Argument 5 above is a bit deceiving; it should more accurately state, “Disciples reported having experiences they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus.”)
He has almost immediate knowledge regarding the claims Jesus was raised. (I say “almost” because John records 8 days between the first two appearances, so this would be the greatest extent of time. Luke records Thomas heard on Sunday, but this contradicts John. Take your pick: 1-8 days.)
He was in Jerusalem, he had the opportunity to inspect the empty tomb right away. He had access--friendly access—to all the disciples, Jesus’ family. Everything.
Can you possibly imagine a witness closer to the scene with a more suitable circumstance to investigate the claims being made about a resurrected Jesus?
And he wasn’t convinced.
He wasn’t convinced by the crucifixion, the empty tomb, the message, the transformation of his friends, the claims of his friends, or his proximity to the scene of the event.
Can I be any clearer? Doubting Thomas--who was far better equipped than any of us to investigate and confirm--was not convinced by the minimal facts! If even he wasn’t convinced, why should the same argument work on us--2000 years and cultural differences later?
I know the minimal facts apologists love to focus on the conversion of “enemies”—James and Paul. What I am more curious about, and what I haven’t seem them address, is what about the failure to convert friends with these same facts?
In conclusion, John certainly presents an independent version of Jesus’ resurrection. Too independent. If John is accurate, we seriously question the historicity of the Synoptics, and the effectiveness of the minimal fact theory.
Great post. I am thoroughly enjoying this series; very thoughtful and informative.
ReplyDeleteThanks again for the great post and analysis! Great stuff!
ReplyDeleteI'm reading Scripting Jesus by L Michael White and think you would really enjoy as it details these types of things with handy charts and parallel analysis of differences in the gospels and non-canonical early texts.
Just came across your blog and have spent a few hours reading your deconversion story. I really appreciated your writing and am looking forward to reading you blog. I use to read Ken Pulliam's blog every morning and have really missed it. Your blog is going to fill that spot. I to have deconverted from christianity after many years. My anger is more directed at myself and how could I have been you foolish. This is not on the topic but just wanted you to know how much I appreciated your knowledge and your wonderful way of writing.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Philistine and cerbaz.
ReplyDeleteMy blog could never fill the spot of Ken Pulliam. He was far more regular, and extremely well-studied.
Actually, in the Minimal Facts Approach you only need to focus on item #5, but of course you know the award winning book The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary R. Habermas and Mike Licona address all the points you raised already, so no need to respond to you there.
ReplyDeletehttp://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/garyhabermas.htm
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
This actually is all you need. Group hallucinations are impossible; swoon theory doesn't work because he wouldn't look much like a risen Messiah; and people don't willingly allow themselves to be put to death when they could have saved their lives.
What is common in skeptic history is they have a real hard time clingingly on any of the theories to explain away the origin of the disciples' beliefs. That should tell you something.
It was an accomplished fact.
Free choice Thomas. Free choice!
ReplyDeleteThe reason why Jesus didn't stay after He was resurreced is because the world didn't want Him, so He lets us try it on our own. He returns when like Israel was enslaved for 430 years they hath an ear to hear.
That's how it works. I wouldn't want it any other way.
4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible
ReplyDelete1) There can't be an eternity of the past of cause and effects because mankind would have approximated into that alleged past eternity, as all things in nature would be, so we would not still be sinning to the extent we still do along the exponential progression of conscience we are clearly on. Similarly, heat death would be far greater than it is for a universe(s) older than 13.7 billion years, and any alleged universe we were in would have undergone far more heat death than has already occurred.
2) The universe can't come from nothing, because the overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is that all things in nature have a cause with trillions of causes and no hard evidence something happens all by itself from nothing. And that which does not exist can't produce anything for it doesn't exist! For the atheist no time existed, therefore according to him without time this universe can't come into being and we should not exist.
3) Don't misrepresent God of the Bible in forming your arguments, otherwise you are on the wrong hill and not dealing with the character and nature of God being shown to you on this other hill.
4) If you want to suggest an eternity of the past of cause and effects outside the natural realm of supernatural beings or things, again, since mankind would have derived from that alleged past eternity, we would not still be sinning to the extent we still do along the exponential progression of conscience we are clearly on.
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Rom. 1.20).
4 Step Minimal Facts Approach, Proving the Resurrection of Jesus and that He is God
1. Without assuming Biblical inerrancy, what can we glean from the Scriptures? Over 95% of skeptical scholars who do their thesis work, are accredited and have peer review journal work done on the resurrection in the past half century (see Gary R. Habermas) agree Paul really wrote and really believed what he wrote in 1 Cor. 15 and Gal. 1 & 2.
2. In these three chapters, Paul said he spent fifteen days with Peter and also time with James, the brother of Jesus, which would be within five years from the cross. Paul was converted two years after the cross then went away to study the word of God for three years, after which time, he returned to Jerusalem whereupon he got to know Peter and James. Later on he met up with John. And he continued to see them again over the years. They all testified to having seen Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings.
3. People do not willingly allow themselves to die for something they know is a lie. So the Apostles really believed they saw, talked with, touched, walked with and even ate with Jesus in various group settings after He died on the cross which convinced them He is God and so became bold proclaimers when before they were doubters.
4. Therefore, it must be true they saw Jesus alive from the dead, since all naturalistic explanations have been exhausted these past two thousand years. Amen.
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/4stepproof.htm
Burden of Proof
ReplyDeleteThe burden of proof remains on the person who wants to deny the existence of God and resurrection of Jesus. Shutting your mind down is not a valid option.
To argue against the existence of the uncreated Creator, you would first need to show how something can come from nothing despite the overwhelming evidence of trillions of causes in nature, or, explain how the universe could always have existed even though mankind would not still be sinning to the extent we still do along the exponential progression of conscience we are clearly on. Unless and until you do that, you have been unable to overturn the evidence for God, and therefore have no grounds to believe in atheism or agnosticism. Be honest with yourself.
If you now concede God exists, but don't want to accept Christ as your Lord and Savior, you still need to find a naturalistic explanation to account for the origin of the disciples' beliefs without which lead inextricably to the resurrection of Jesus proving He is God. Unless and until you do that, you have been unable to overturn the evidence that Jesus is God, and therefore, you have no grounds for deism or any other faith.
It's safe to say Paul and Peter talked about more than just the weather for 15 days, and Paul did say in 1 Cor. 15 that he received this message from someone: "I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures" (1 Cor. 15.3). The early creed for the original disciples was given: "And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures" (v.4), and "he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve" (v.5) and "James" (v.7). This oral tradition continued in building the first churches.
We have 11 sources of the martyrdom of the original apostles (see The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 2004 by Gary R. Habermas). Paul was almost killed 7 times in the Bible before he was finally martyred around 65 A.D. Suffice it to say he and the disciples knew what would happen given their prior experiences and the martyrdom of James and Stephen. Antipas was also martyred recorded in Revelation 2.13 which was written about 95 AD. Jesus even said to his disciples they would be put to death as He was.
http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?3476-4-Step-Proof-for-God-amp-Minimal-Facts-Approach
Oh, this will be fun! I wish I could still eat popcorn.
ReplyDeleteWhat amazes me is the elaborate rationalizations people will come up with to justify to themselves what is (to us) obviously bullshit or (to them) a matter of faith: either you have Jesus in your heart or you don't. The only effect that "arguments" such as Parture's have is to impress people who don't understand logical argumentation.
ReplyDelete(It isn't, of course, worthwhile to address Parture's actual "argument"; he's been posting the exact same drivel for years, not even modifying it according to skeptical response. If you like beating your head against a brick wall, be my guest; I lost my taste for the activity years ago.)
But people such as Parture himself are clever enough to construct these elaborate rationalizations, so simple ignorance or stupidity really don't work as explanations. It could be simply cynical manipulation, but then why present it here, where Dagood and his regular readers will instantly see through the fallacies, equivocations, and outright lies? We are the last people a dishonest apologist would try to manipulate, and (much as I love you, dude) the readership for this blog isn't big enough to effectively troll for the ignorant and stupid.
If Parture really had faith, he wouldn't need to construct an elaborate rationalization for himself; and it doesn't make sense that if he constructed it for others, he would bother to present it here. Thus the only real conclusion that we can come to is that he doesn't actually have faith, he doesn't really believe in any god, and some part of him actually realizes this lack of faith and is completely terrified. His faith isn't his comfort, his "comfort", such as it is, comes from the rationalization itself. But it's such thin comfort that he must perversely seek resistance so he can convince himself of his own intellectual superiority.
Bad news, Parture. If there were a God, he knows you don't have faith, and you're fucked. If there isn't, you've made an utter fool of yourself for nothing. Sucks to be you.
Parture,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comments. Although my appreciation is probably not in the means you intended.
Because this is first introductions, I think it is appropriate we are honest with each other. I suspect you of being a Christian troll. You’ve regurgitated the same outdated polemic across other sites; you don’t respond to the point being made, and you write with dismissive arrogance resulting in an unconvincing, uninteresting, non-impacting style.
Perhaps you are not a troll…if not this is fair warning you have made a remarkably poor first impression. Time to step it up.
I thought of responding to your comments for three reasons:
1) By the slimmest chance you really were looking for interaction;
2) Perhaps provide information to on-lookers; or
3) Amuse myself.
It is the second item causing me to pause and thank you. I have some great readers. You mention sources for the disciple’s martyrdom. I could ask you, “What sources?” and I quickly realized that my readers already KNOW the sources. They know them better than you. They have read ‘em—not just some book that mentions them. (And seriously? The Case for the Resurrection by Habermas? Isn’t that so last year? Licona’s The Resurrection of Jesus came out this October. Try and keep up.)
If you had bothered to read my comments on that Clay Jones’ blog after seeing it mentioned you might have realized my familiarity with martyrdom sources. That IS where you found me, after all.
See, my readers have already heard all these Christian apologetics. Or, if they have not, they feel free to ask questions. ‘Cause I will interact with my readers to the best of my ability. They are free to walk away saying, “I am not convinced” and I don’t throw myself on the floor, pounding my heels crying, “Romans 1:20! Romans 1:20!”
Your apologetic nonsense reminds us how thin the arguments are. How tired, how dried up. How oft-repeated only to keep the faithful in line; unexpected to ever convince anyone with an inquisitive nature.
Here, we’ll try one (1) question. Call it a test case.
The point about Doubting Thomas was not whether he had free will. We agree he did (to the extent such a concept exists.) We agree he had intelligence. We agree he could see, hear and reason. The question was this: If the evidence of an empty tomb, Disciple’s report of seeing post-resurrection Jesus, and the ability to fully investigate the claimed events within 24 hours of occurrence…if all that was unable to convince Doubting Thomas, (a friend to the claim!) why would we expect the same evidence to convince anyone 2000 years later?
You have more patience than I do, Dagood.
ReplyDeleteI think it unlikely that Parture will even bother to respond to your test case. I think it even more unlikely that if he were to respond, he would even grasp the question you are asking or attempt to answer it directly.
However, I most definitely would like to be surprised by Parture's response. Even if history suggests only the slimmest chance of something new, slim is not equal to zero. And that, I think, is the difference between a skeptic and a believer: we do always not only allow for but hope for that slim chance we will be proven wrong. That's the only way to learn, n'est pas?
The Barefoot Bum,
ReplyDeleteIn the early centuries of the Church the common doctrine was that upon death Christians suffered a period of judgment prior to entering Heaven. However, there was one explicit exception—martyrs. They received a direct pass straight to heaven. No waiting.
In fact, a special position in the church was created for people who were condemned to death, but due to Emperor changes, or changes in Roman policy, were then released. Martyrdom has always held a special significance in Christian circles.
The problem for our current times is there really isn’t anything to be martyred about. No Christian hangings. No imprisonments, tortures, wild animals, crucifixions or flaying alive. Christians have it pretty good. Their churches get tax breaks; their beliefs get (at the least) tacit governmental support. Their politicians are elected.
They are left looking for things to be “martyrs” about. Not being able to have a crèche at the local town hall? The horror! Living in a society where movies show an occasional breast? The inhumanity! They are left manufacturing illusionary hyperbole as to how they are being “oppressed” because there simply isn’t anything left.
I would normally agree with your assessment this endless quest for approval regarding rationale confirmation in Christian belief is a demonstration of internal suspicion of insufficiency. (I have often wondered whether the obsession with debates demonstrated by Christian apologists is associated with a desire for some means to qualify their belief as being arguable reasonable.)
But having been immersed in the culture, I slightly disagree. Pasture is different; he is a martyr. Don’t believe me? Just ask him. If he posts on some heathen’s site—that is being a martyr. If we disagree with him—that is doubly being a martyr. If we use strong language, or sarcasm, or make fun of him—that is triply being a martyr.
It is a game he cannot lose. Even if we completely ignore him (the least possible martyrdom possible) he has already achieved his goal of being oppressed simply because we didn’t believe him and he “entered the den of lions” managing to escape with his faith intact.
If we respond with disbelief, facts or argument—he is like the peasant in Monty Python’s The Holy Grail:
“Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I'm being repressed!”
”Oh, what a giveaway! Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw him, Didn't you?!”
Dagood,
ReplyDeleteYou certainly have a more "inside" view of the concept. Even in revolutionary politics (at least "left-wing" radical politics), the idea of actively seeking out martyrdom is foreign and slightly repugnant. There is, of course, the idea of spoiling for a fight, and being ready to suffer for the cause, but it's a different vibe, I think.
Still and all, why would someone seek martyrdom in the first place? Again, it's not like only martyrs go to heaven; the truly faithful go there as well, no? In all of these phenomena, I'm catching a whiff of defensiveness, of an internal struggle with faith itself, an insecurity born of indecision and equivocation.
Only someone lacking confidence in his faith (perhaps repressed) would seek out martyrdom, because he must believe without it his entry into heaven is in substantial doubt.
(And the Holy Grail analogy is not quite apt; the constitutional peasant is actually being "repressed" (or at least assaulted); the humor comes not because he has himself sought out martyrdom, but because he is interpreting in a political sense what is essentially a personal conflict.
ReplyDeleteWhether it was apt or not I always enjoy a holy Grail quote. :)
ReplyDeleteTo address your question, Larry, if your belief in salvation is fairly works based, then you find yourself needing to earn it by "working out your salvation with fear and trembling." there was a time when I felt I wasn't acceptable to God unless I was willing to endure persecution on a regular basis by risking rejection or ridicule for my stance on issues, sharing beliefs about God, or behaving differently than the culture (not drinking for example). Persecution is often viewed as a requisite part of christianity.
Whether it was apt or not I always enjoy a holy Grail quote. :)
ReplyDeleteLikewise.
[I]f your belief in salvation is fairly works based, then you find yourself needing to earn it by "working out your salvation with fear and trembling."
I believe you, but I'm simply unable to comprehend such a mindset.
Larry, said, "If Parture really had faith, he wouldn't need to construct an elaborate rationalization for himself..."
ReplyDeleteI didn't think it was elaborate at all, but so simply anyone can understand it even you.
Larry said, "it doesn't make sense that if he constructed it for others, he would bother to present it here."
I presented it here because obviously there are several lost souls here that need saving.
Larry said, "Thus the only real conclusion that we can come to is that he doesn't actually have faith, he doesn't really believe in any god, and some part of him actually realizes this lack of faith and is completely terrified."
Since the Bible teaches and I agree completely we should substantiate things unseen and prove all things, then I am all for that in the Spirit of Truth. I was born-again Jan. 2001 and never once did I doubt that the 2nd Person of the Trinity entered His creation to die on the cross for the sins of the whole world to saved whosoever is willing to receive this precious gift of forgiveness of sins by His precious blood and regeneration of our spirit with eternal life for the Holy Spirit to indwell.
Since I also can't overturn the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God and the NEW 4 Step Perfect Proof for God that is in complete agreement with the revelatory faith that I had that one day in January when I realized all things sum up in Christ, the only difference between us is I give into reality obedient and you remain disoedient to reality in your spirit of independence from God. That's what Hell is for, for those who want that. I wouldn't complain about it, since it is what you want in your heart of hearts.
http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?3476-4-Step-Proof-for-God-amp-Minimal-Facts-Approach&p=8159#post8159
Larry said, "His faith isn't his comfort, his comfort, such as it is, comes from the rationalization itself. But it's such thin comfort that he must perversely seek resistance so he can convince himself of his own intellectual superiority."
It's not about intellectually superiority since nothing I have said is so complicated to understand. It's about your conscience and spirit which are dead to God. The Holy Spirit does gie me comfort in my faith, the very faith God gave to me, because I came to Him with an honest heart. If you were to search Him out with all your heart and soul, you would surely find Him also. He turns nobody away who is willing to be genuine and sincere.
The only person rationalizing himself here is you since you would need to overturn the 4 Step Proof for God, but you don't. All you do is shut your mind down. How's that being honest with yourself, others or God?
Larry said, "Bad news, Parture. If there were a God, he knows you don't have faith, and you're fucked. If there isn't, you've made an utter fool of yourself for nothing. Sucks to be you."
Once-saved-always-saved. I can never lose faith for just the reason the Bible gives that those who are born-again "they shall never perish" (John 10.28).
My faith is proven, yours isn't.
DagoodS wrote, "if all that was unable to convince Doubting Thomas, (a friend to the claim!) why would we expect the same evidence to convince anyone 2000 years later?"
ReplyDeleteThomas was subject to the same proof you and I are which is that the original disciples believed they had seen Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings (one of those meetings was without Thomas). Since no naturalistic explanation can account for this and nothing is new under the sun, no matter how drab and dull it is to you and repeated over and over, the fact remains you got nothin'.
Think of the grace that came upon Thomas that it was needed Jesus to come before Thomas so that Thomas would believe. But his situation was unique because he had spent three years with Jesus and God foreknow Thomas' choice. You would not want to spend three years with Jesus so Jesus would never have selected you, and He would never come before you in a personal visit in Person because even then you would not accept Him, so why does He need to show Himself to you except at the Great White Throne to cast you into Hell?
Dagoo said, "In the early centuries of the Church the common doctrine was that upon death Christians suffered a period of judgment prior to entering Heaven. However, there was one explicit exception—martyrs. They received a direct pass straight to heaven. No waiting."
ReplyDeleteWhether some taught this incorrectly, the fact of the matter clear in God's word is that nobody is in heaven yet as the Bible says, not even David a man after God's own heart is in heaven yet, "For David is not ascended into the heavens" (Acts 2.34).
Yes, the martyrs and overcomers (Rev. 20.4-6) receive a special reward of returning with Christ to reign during the 1000 yeas and non-overcomer believers lose this rewards, by going to outer darkness outside the light of rewards of reigning with Christ for that ime. You wouldn't want it any other way: there are consequences for Christians. Though we can't lose eternal life, we certain can lose some or all the rewards God desires for us. But after the 1000 years rewards are done away with. Just think all the times a Christian is called to "overcometh" in the Bible and the special reward mentioned each time to that particular overcoming mentioned (see Rev. 2 & 3).
The same is true of the first rapture before the Tribulation starts. Only those believers alive at the time who keep the word of His patience, are watchful and prayerful will be taken up "before the throne" (Rev. 7.9) before the Tribulation commences with the blowing of the first trumpet (8.7). The condition is clear (Matt. 24.40-42, Luke 21.36, Rev. 3.10). These are conditional statements.
Take our desire to talk about the word of God as the pleasure and joy in our hearts to do the will of God, share the gospel, experience His easy yoke, and even speak to you logically about nature that it proves God which is why even without the gospel we are "without excuse (Rom. 1.20).
The Lord has led me lately to see the Tribulation is from 2015 to 2022 with 100% certainty which is amazing grace if you think about it, because when you see the events unfold you may reconsider your stance.
ReplyDeleteSince you don't want to deal with the 4 Step Proof for God or see the prophecy of Daniel predicted to literally the first day of the 4 day inspection of Jesus would take place before He died on the cross, then maybe you will look at the here and now.
4 Step Proof,
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/new_4step_proof.htm
Daniel's Prophecy,
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/DanielAmazing.htm
Total Lunar Tetrad and H3 Solar Eclipse,
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/return_of_Jesus.htm
Enjoy! I know I do.
Parture,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the response. You seem to agree that the evidence presented to Doubting Thomas was insufficient prior to Jesus’ appearance. So we wouldn’t expect it to be sufficient now.
Parture: …and He [Jesus] would never come before you in a personal visit in Person because even then you would not accept Him…
.
I’ve always found these types of arguments absolutely insane. First the apologists goes through a number of arguments, presumably believing they are adequate to the task. When that fails, they freely admit more arguments make it less persuasive. Does that make sense? Let’s see if I have this straight. I am supposed to be convinced by:
1. Paul wrote and believed Gal. 1-2 & 1 Cor. 15.
2. Paul was converted 2 years after crucifixion.
3. They all testified to having seen Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings.
4. People do not willingly die for a lie.
but, But, BUT….
If we have:
1. Paul wrote and believed Gal. 1-2 & 1 Cor. 15.
2. Paul was converted 2 years after crucifixion.
3. They all testified to having seen Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings.
4. People do not willingly die for a lie.
5. Jesus personally appears to me now. Today. In 2010.
Then the apologist claims I wouldn’t be convinced. How in the blue blazes does it make any sense whatsoever that items 1-4 should persuade, but items 1-5 should not?
I will say, Parture, you gave me a good laugh. Prince William is the anti-Christ? I will be looking out for his clever political move by becoming the President of the United Nations. (You guys don’t really understand what little power the UN has, do you?)
Parture,
ReplyDelete"The Lord has led me lately to see the Tribulation is from 2015 to 2022 with 100% certainty which is amazing grace if you think about it, because when you see the events unfold you may reconsider your stance."
Will you reconsider your stance when this doesn't happen? Or will you revise your "100% certainty", as Hal Lindsey and all other eschatologists end up doing?