Come out of the closet Americans

[Joe Guy]

Gospel:

"And they found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together, saying, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!”Lk 24:33b-34

= you're wrong. That is a mention.

Disqualified. It doesn't say 'Simon Says'!

[Big RR]

Meade--read the other accounts of Jesus' appearances in Luke and the other gospels. They're told in a narrative style as if the writer was observing them and are laden with details--what jesus said, what the other people said, when and where they occurred, acts jesus performed, even what he ate. Now read the account of Jesus' appearance to Peter--it's not even said by Peter but by the 11; and all it says is he appeared to Peter. I see a big difference there and raise a question because of it. The details leave the account open to questioning by others (it couldn't have been 2:00 because we were getting water from the well then). Why the difference in narrative style and details? Luke reports Jesus appeared to the two men--it does not just say they said it but reported it as a narrative; however, Luke also reports only that the 11 said that peter said that jesus appeared to him as well. Other than Paul's letter it's not mentioned in the bible again and so far as I know was never stated again by peter. Presuming some divine inspiration for luke, I think that difference is there for a reason and I say I doubt it's authenticity--for some reason this perturbs (peeves) you.

You then go on to say why don't I just describe the entire bible as hearsay--even if I did, the details of the accounts are different as well. If something is hearsay, I'm much more willing to entertain it is it is laden with details then if it is a blank assertion by someone else about what another person said. If it makes no difference to you, fine--I'm neither perturbed nor peeved.

Why on earth do you even think that Jesus existed (if you do)?



You then proceed to question my beliefs; I have been quite open about them in this board, but I am not about to justify or otherwise prove them to you or anyone else who presumes to judge me and them--I'll leave that to the final judgment. We believe many of the same things and have some significant differences in others; I am content to let that stay and to enter into discussions with you about the details. However, I have never once tried to call all of your beliefs into question or asked you to justify them, and I wish that you would grant me the same favor.

The Bible tells us what we need to know about what's ahead and God's plans. Do we know every little detail?

IMHO, it might tell us much more than we comprehend; but I agree with you on all the details (even though I don't think the ones we lack are limited to "little" ones). God makes him/her/itself more an more open to us as we proceed through life--somethings we are ready to understand, others not so much.

[Econoline]

If I can back up a moment here (since I haven't had the time to post here for a couple of days)...

If it the Bible isn't truth, then there is no Christianity - only a bunch of deluded grave-bound persons.

Heh heh, my first reaction was to think that you've finally got something right, but on second thought that's way too harsh. Even without eternal life, Christianity still has value--just as the works of Albert Einstein, Kurt Vonnegut, Charles Darwin, Mark Twain, Isaac Asimov, Richard Feynman, Carl Sagan, Douglas Adams, and the rest of the folks on that poster Sue posted back on page 3 of this thread all have value.

Speaking of which, I see Joe you're avoiding admitting the undeniable. That your "knowledge" of the eternality of non-life after death is on the same basis as my own opposite stance - belief. You disbelieve the evidence and believe something else - exactly what you accuse me of. That's fine by the way - I'm not criticizing you for that - just sorry you won't admit it. Still it's nice to have contact with someone who really knows so much about eternity.

Evidence? Well, I can't speak for Joe, but my own knowledge of the eternality of non-life after death is based on the empirical evidence of (speaking of Carl Sagan) billions and billions of people over the course of human history. Anticipating your responses: (1) "It's too early to tell; eternity isn't over yet" -- fair enough, but at some point one has to make a decision based on imperfect evidence (it's never *PERFECT* in science, or even in law), and my own tentative decision is that death has, so far, turned out to be permanent for everybody who has ever lived. (2) "Two thousand years ago, several people said they saw someone alive who had previously been dead" -- Well, yeah, but it's yet to be established how reliable that testimony should be considered (especially considering how unreliable eyewitnesses often turn out to be and considering some of the biblical standards for interviewing the witnesses wasn't met, and especially considering the fact that nothing of this occurrence was recorded until decades later) so I'm going to go with the observations of all human beings for thousands (millions? depending on where you start) of years before and two thousand years after that alleged incident. (How many millennia have to have passed before the preponderance of the evidence becomes beyond a reasonable doubt?)

The preceding paragraph may have been fun and all...but I suspect what we're really arguing about here is the existence and the properties of the human soul. Yes?

If you insist on using the term "soul" as a catchall for everything we don't yet understand about the human brain/mind/psyche/personality/nervous system, I'm willing to accept it--for now, anyway. (If advances in this area continue as rapidly as they have in most other fields of science, I may change my mind at some future point before both of us are dead...but for now, I'm at least willing to be an agnostic about there being something not-yet-known there.)

But even if something we agree to call the "soul" exists, it does NOT automatically follow that whatever this thing is lasts beyond the death of the body--let alone for all eternity. So far, nothing that human beings have ever observed with our senses (including the instruments that act as our enhanced/amplified senses) has shown the capability of lasting forever. So there's really no reason for simply positing that as a possibility (let alone a certainty)--other than wishful thinking.

Far be it from me to put down wishful thinking--I certainly have done and still do (more than) my share of it, and hey, wishful thinking might arguably be called the source of all human progress--but the fact is that wishful thinking does not often conform to or predict reality, not in the vast vast vast majority of its occurrences. Sadly.

[Big RR]

and the rest of the folks on that poster Sue posted back on page 3

that's where I'll have to disagree; it has much more value than William Shatner. Hell, scientology has more value than William Shatner, if only for comic relief.

[Econoline]

Oh shit. You're absolutely right.

Consider that sentence amended to read "...and the rest most of the folks on that poster Sue posted back on page 3"

[Gob]

I think what Meade was saying is, that as long as you believe exactly what he does, as he's got it right, then the bible is clear.

[Guinevere]

That's pretty much what Meade and every other evangelical Christian seem to believe. And some of the non-evangelicals, too.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Well that's grossly unfair comment you two. All that is being discussed is whether or not the Gospels report that Jesus appeared to Peter before "the twelve". When it's pointed out that one Gospel does (and it's Peter making the claim) - is that me "believing" it does or does it? Then it's suggested well that's hearsay. Is it? And even if it is, does that mean the Gospel DIDN''T report it?

And then there's Gob's 'the gospel isn't clear'. I give the summary and ask if that isn't clear? I'm not looking for agreement that it's correct - just is it understandable? I'm not even suggesting I have all the answers although I'll try to give what the Bible says - that's the basis. Even agreeing that not everything in the Bible is clear to everyone or even to me - maybe if I read Greek like a native 2000 years ago and understood all the nuances of societal constructs I'd be better at at.

I'm certainly not going to pose around as some liberal allowing as how anything written down can be interpreted by anyone in any way that they feel like it because it's all good. Tralala.

BTW - sorry Big RR. I never mean to offend but I manage it. The point is badly made but it's a genuine enquiry. If the Bible saying "the 11 were talking about Peter having seen Jesus" can be dismissed as hearsay, then why is not the entire gospel of Luke hearsay? If you allow the first step, you must allow the second. Surely?

Joe - that was very funny... Simon says indeed! Wish I'd said that (you will, Wilde. You will).

Econo - good post. I think we agree - it's a decision based upon a belief. One takes physical evidence and posits status quo ante; the other takes physical evidence including the word of God and posits something else. It would be wishful thinking (perhaps) if it wasn't that we have God's word for it.

Obviously all those who don't believe the Bible is God's word will disagree. The Bible predicts it.

And yes I stand corrected in that the teachings of Jesus, as long as they are restricted to humans doing nice things, are "useful" but only as long as we also ignore all the teachings about salvation and hell and man's plight. Apparently he thought he'd got it right and the message was clear.

It is those who believe that part as well who are to be pitied, as Paul says, as living deluded lives. I would think that it's only the certainty that it is true - judgement and so on - that makes all the crimes committed by the churched and the unchurched even bearable in the abstract.

[Gob]

The message isn't clear, why would we be having this debate if it was?

[Big RR]

[quote/If the Bible saying "the 11 were talking about Peter having seen Jesus" can be dismissed as hearsay, then why is not the entire gospel of Luke hearsay? If you allow the first step, you must allow the second. Surely?
[/quote]

As even you said when you first mentioned that part of Luke, they were not discussing that jesus appeared to peter, they were discussing what peter had told them, and were discussing whether they believed it or not (as evidenced also by their behavior when jesus appeared to all of them).

And Like does not even discuss what peter said (nor does the bible anywhere else, so far as I know), only what the 11 say peter said. No details, no time/place/mention of what jesus did or did not do, just a report that "they said peter said..."; I am not going to repeat my previous post here, but I see that as a big departure from the narrative style and details presented on other accounts of appearances.

I see a difference.

But in a larger sense, yes, the bible is full of people reporting stories they have heard and often were not witness to; the gospels were written well after the life of jesus and stem from similar accounts (at least among the synoptic gospels); how these lead us to ultimate truths varies among each of us. The bible is a guide, but just as with any knowledge, one does not learn solely by rote, but by reasoning and thought leading to an understanding; otherwise knowledge is stagnant at best. That may beliefs are different from yours in many respects is not a negative, but a testament to the fact that we both strive to a better understanding of what we perceive.

[MajGenl.Meade]

The message isn't clear, why would we be having this debate if it was?

Because you keep saying it isn't clear and then being unwilling to substantively discuss?

[Gob]

There is nothing "substantive" to debate though, your book of wisdom holds nothing substantive for me.

[wesw]

you re driving 'em away meade..., i think its supposed to be the other way round...

i think Christianity is entirely compatible with intellectual honesty. i did not previously believe that. it was hard to admit how little i truly understood.

its good versus evil, not rocket science.

[Gob]

Wes, as you are new, I'd like to point out that, though I run Meade ragged over his daft beliefs, I respect and like him greatly as a person.

[wesw]

I realize that. I m sorry if I overstepped my bounds

[Gob]

Not at all mate, anything goes here, fill your boots!!

[wesw]

...I meant away from christianity

[MajGenl.Meade]

I couldn't drive Gob away from Christianity with a cattle prod and B.O. He's already fallen off the edge of the world!


eta I don't actually have a cattle prod

[MajGenl.Meade]

Fair enough

"only what the 11 say peter said. No details, no time/I place/mention of what jesus did or did not do, just a report that "they said peter said."

I really don't get that though.... You walk into a room and Peter plus ten others are talking about Jesus appearing to Peter. Later on, Peter or one of the ten or Cleopas or the unnamed guy tell Luke "Oh yeah when X and Y walked in we didn't wait to hear their news; we immediately told them that Jesus had appeared to Peter and we were all talking about it just now". Suppose it was Cleopas describing that scene - he's giving first-hand testimony that when he walked in, all the disciples (including Peter) were discussing that Peter had seen Jesus. Yeah I guess that's only Cleopas reporting it but why isn't it of any significance? The only point to this was that Paul says Jesus appeared to Cephas and (apparently) so does Cephas. It's not very important in itself but I don't understand why it seems so difficult to just agree that the Bible says it?

is it me? (Now don't all shout at once - form an orderly line for no-one's sake!)

[Big RR]

Meade--I understand, but then I am not actually sure peter was there--he is not mentioned by name. Further, all we know is that persons there said what peter told them--certainly if he was there you would think peter would have said it himself and provided some details of what would have understandably been one of the most amazing experiences in his entire life. Indeed, maybe he did, but that is not reported and we are left only with the phrases included. Now you reason peter was there (and maybe he was), but that is an interpretation beyond what is stated, as are some of my conclusions as well. Nothing wrong with that, we frequently have to infer things because the entire story is not reported, but I also think we should be intellectually honest and say when we do so.

It's not very important in this case, but I don't understand why it seems so difficult to just agree that reading of the Bible requires the same interpretive skills as used for reading other texts.