Jesus and the Temple's Destruction
Were the Synoptic Gospels Written Before or After AD 70?
© Brian Tubbs
Apr 20, 2007
This article makes the case that the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written BEFORE the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple.
The most cataclysmic event of the first century for Judeo-Palestine was the First Roman-Jewish War (aka “the Great Revolt”), which lasted from 66 to 73 AD. One of the tragic episodes of this war was the destruction of Herod’s Temple in 70 AD.
In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus appears to predict the Temple's destruction. In Mark’s Gospel, for example, Jesus is recorded as saying of the Temple structure: “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another, that shall not be thrown down” (Mark 13:2 NKJV). Scholars almost universally agree this is a reference to the Roman destruction of the Temple. The question is: Did Jesus prophecy this or was the account of this “prophecy” written after the event itself?
Liberal and non-Christian scholars almost unanimously fall in the non-prophecy camp. They assume that the Gospels had to be written after the destruction of the Temple. They don’t even consider the possibility that Jesus may, in fact, have made the prediction before the Temple’s demise – and that the Gospels were written and in circulation before the event. Conservative, evangelical scholars of course have no problem accepting Jesus’ ability to make such a prophecy.
Accepting the premise that accurate prophecy is possible puts us, of course, in the area of miracles. Are miracles possible? Can a rational, enlightened person seriously entertain the possibility of Jesus turning water into wine or feeding five thousand people with a few loaves and fishes? If not, then such a person is also unlikely to consider the possibility that Jesus accurately predicted Jerusalem’s demise. More probably, the “prophecy” was added later to enhance the Gospels’ case that Jesus was divine.
Philosopher Winfried Corduan explains that this anti-supernatural bias is seriously flawed, especially when it comes to examining the life of Jesus. “What we read in the Gospels are apparent physical impossibilities, but…we can allow for these as long as we have evidence that they might be the work of God who is free to supersede His created laws,” writes Corduan. In other words, if God is real, He can certainly work miracles. If Jesus was the Son of God, then surely, He could have performed miracles and made accurate prophecies.
This author would like to suggest that the destruction of the Temple should not, in and of itself, constitute a basis for dating the Gospels. After all, a Christian claiming that the Temple prophecy proves Jesus’ divinity would likely be accused of “begging the question” by non-Christian scholars. If that’s true, then the non-Christian should not assume the prophecy to be written in after the fact, for such an assumption is based on a premature judgment at best and impudent prejudice at worst.
Using Acts to Date the Synoptic Gospels
If one sets aside anti-supernaturalism as a bias, the remaining evidence is pretty strong that the Synoptics were written much closer to the life of Jesus than most liberal scholars give them credit.
Take the Gospel of Luke. If the author of Luke and the author of Acts were one and the same, then Acts was most likely written during the early 60s AD. Why? First, Acts makes absolutely no reference to the First Jewish-Roman War (which began in the late 60s AD). This is puzzling when you consider that Acts is a record of early church history. It would be rather odd to omit such a significant event. It would be like a modern US history textbook not mentioning September 11, 2001. One would conclude that the book was probably written and published prior to that date.
Additionally, Acts does not mention the martyrdom of Paul or Peter. This is significant for two reasons. One, it does mention the death of James (Acts 12). Surely, the writer of Acts regarded Paul and Peter as much as James. The answer to that is “Of course, he did.” This is clear by the fact that Peter dominates the first several chapters of Acts, and Paul the rest of the book. Paul’s troubles with the law are well-documented in Acts, and it is absolutely unthinkable that his martyrdom would be skipped. The ONLY logical explanation is that Acts was written before Paul was put to death. Scholars universally agree that Paul was martyred in Rome during the 60s AD – some say as early as 62 or 63, others put it at 67 or 68.
The strongest answer provided by liberal scholars to the incompleteness of Luke-Acts (incomplete in terms of its failure to reference the destruction of Jerusalem and the deaths of Peter and Paul) is that the author died before he could complete it. This theory of Luke’s premature death is intriguing, except there’s no evidence for it in early church tradition. If, in fact, Luke died during the composition of his work, it would seem highly likely that at least one of the early church fathers would have mentioned this fact. Remember that early Christian correspondence, from such luminaries as Papias, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Clement, etc., is FULL of references to the apostles, the Gospels, and the other New Testament works. The absence of any reference to Luke’s premature death – particularly one that supposedly took place during the composition of a canonized book! – stands as a serious refutation to this theory.
Since Luke follows the composition of Mark (and probably Matthew) and precedes that of Acts, this article concludes that all three of the Synoptic Gospels can be dated between the mid-30s and the late 60s AD – well within a generation of Jesus of Nazareth. Therefore, Jesus did, in fact, prophecy the destruction of the Jewish Temple.
*********
SOURCES include:
Is the New Testament Reliable? By Paul Barnett
No Doubt About it: The Case for Christianity by Winfried Corduan
"The Gospel of Luke" according to Wikipedia
"When Was the Gospel of Luke Written?" according to HarvardHouse
The copyright of the article
Jesus and the Temple's Destruction in
Protestantism is owned by
Brian Tubbs. Permission to republish
Jesus and the Temple's Destruction in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
Comments
Apr 21, 2007 1:49 AM
redback :
The history of these things is interesting to me.
Leaving the relative accuracy of my online searches aside, I read Nero reigned between AD 54 and AD 68. I read the Bible is silent on the when and how of Paul's death. Other sources Peter & Paul around the same time circa AD 64. I read Herod's temple took around 46 years to 're-construct', was destroyed in AD 70. "According to Bible scholars, 26 - 34 AD was the time frame during which Jesus was crucified" making the prophecy angle more likely Bible-wise. But I aint no scholar so what's the totality of the opposing argument? (Creative editing works both ways IMO so one should also ponder what was edited out)
<i>"The ONLY logical explanation is that Acts was written before Paul was put to death."</i>
If it wasn't mentioned in Acts as you say nor in other Books as I've indicated, I wonder why it was left out altogether.
You talk of the Books being incomplete because of a missing reference to Paul's death and the first Jewish-Roman War. No Book finishes mid-sentence or mid message, do they? I ask this because my old tattered Bible 50+ years old, does in fact finish mid sentence in Revelations but the missing page/s is obvious.
At times I wonder about the natural ending of a Book given the original manuscripts were incomplete or destroyed etc. If Paul had been killed say when the last verses were with the "printer" so to speak....? Too late for one Book and difficult to get the context to put it in another Book...depending when they were written.
How is the sense of the true end of each Book confirmed? Does this make sense?
Apr 21, 2007 5:32 AM
Pink :
.
The building, destruction, and rebuilding of the temple is an ongoing theme in the Bible and is central to Christianity as well as Judaism.
.
It is about the resurrection. And it has to do with the human relationship with the creation forces.
.
.
Apr 21, 2007 5:51 AM
Paper Turtle :
Interesting--Solomon, traditionally ascribed as author of Ecclesiastes, rebuilt the temple. One of Ecclesiastes' themes is the impermanence of human things. The temple into which Solomon invested so much "blood, sweat, and tears" is destroyed after the time of Jesus. Solomon probably thought the temple would last forever--or at least for much longer than it did.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle
Apr 21, 2007 7:43 AM
Pink :
.
The temple is analgous to the human being and it has been from its inception.
.
Apr 21, 2007 8:20 AM
Pink :
.
The Jews have always been a heady bunch.
.
We have received much from them for which we can be very thankful.
.
Apr 21, 2007 11:53 AM
Brian Tubbs :
I understand your question. There are thousands of manuscript copies of the New Testament books, and scholars (from all corners of the spectrum) generally agree that (give or take a few word choices or phraseology differences here and there) the Acts we have is basically the Acts as it was originally penned.
When I refer to Acts as "incomplete," I mean it from the present standpoint. There's no evidence whatever that Acts was perceived as incomplete at the time it was written.
Apr 21, 2007 11:54 AM
Brian Tubbs :
Perhaps, but again, Pink, let's not lose sight of the actual, physical, historical building. That's the central point of this discussion - did Jesus accurately predict the Temple's demise or was that prediction added in by the Gospel writers well after the Temple was destroyed? The evidence supports the former.
Apr 21, 2007 2:03 PM
Pink :
.
I believe Jesus was talking specifically about his personal self.
.
That is the idea that I see as central to Christianity..
.
I think "you" guys have got it all wrong.
.
But, so what? Christianity is all about having a personal one on one relationship with God.
.
:)
.
Apr 21, 2007 3:50 PM
Brian Tubbs :
I think it was a double meaning. The Bible is full of those.
Apr 22, 2007 3:02 AM
redback :
<i>"I understand your question."</i>
Never mind, but I don't think you got to the answer to my question. And I understood what you meant by 'incomplete'. I simply extended that concept.
<i>"...There's no evidence whatever that Acts was perceived as incomplete at the time it was written."</i>
I ponder: "Did you study law, Brian?" as I re-read my post. ABC
The date and nature of Paul's death as I understood it from the websites I went to, was not only not referred to in Acts but in no other Book either. I don't know if that's true. But if it is true, the WHY of it all goes beyond Acts and the 'integrity' of the claimed prophecy and the timing of the Books.
This link below is interesting as it explains how Acts is divvied up...with the last segment cited:
<i>"(3.) Chaps. 21-28, Paul at Rome, and the events which led to this."</i>
Translation? That Paul's later death may be irrelevant as least to the purpose of Acts.
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/acts.htm
So, why didn't Luke(?) fit it in in subsequent books. Relevance again?
Subsequent posts to mine have gone into another realm of study...to what extent an allegory or the double meanings you allude to, exist. Acts talks of the development of Chrisitanity and THE man, Paul, dies in the midst of it. How much of a fuss can be made of this, in overall Biblical context? How much relative reporting will 911 get in 2000 years time?
Your article does not expand enough on the opposing view's reasoning. That's "their" argument, I guess, not yours. Just hard for this ol' brain to work through. :)
Apr 22, 2007 10:05 AM
Migisi :
.
"Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another, that shall not be thrown down" (Mark 13:2 NKJV).
.
<i>One of Ecclesiastes' themes is the impermanence of human things.</i>
.
Good connection. Was Jesus 'predicting' the ruin of that particular Temple and Jerusalem itself, or was he making a general observation about the temporary existance of Man and material things? Using the Temple as an example that even those massive impressive structures would crumble into dust. I think the latter. Jesus knew Jewish scripture, including Solomon's wisdom.
Apr 23, 2007 10:00 AM
Pink :
.
In this case, I believe Jesus was using a purposeful metaphor that everyone understood quite well. Of course, the leagalists played their little word game trying to confuse the issue. THEY knew what Jesus meant--full well.
.
But, I wonder. Does anyone know if there was a argument in Judaism about the human body being the Temple of God--that Solomon's Temple was designed to represent the human body in abstract as a place where God indwelt?
.
.
Apr 23, 2007 10:08 AM
Paper Turtle :
No, but I don't think its a stretch.
See 1 Cor 3:16 and 6:19.
.
The OT Jews were very aware of the connection between mind, body, and spirit, so it would make sense to me that they would see the bodies as temples for the "housing" of their spirits.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle
Apr 23, 2007 10:15 AM
Pink :
??
.
Again, I'm questioning the thinking so I can understand your discussion.
.
Demons were real and entered into bodies and took possession. So, you are saying that people actually believed that God was a spirit that could move freely from place to place. Is there some kind of evidence you can present to show they thought this way? I know there was a doctrine that Rabbi Isaac Luria developed regarding the Shekina Glory of God--that was when--in the 15th century or so? That said that God left part of [His] being behind after the creation and that, further, it was the feminine aspect of God's identity--a Spirit that roamed freely on earth.
.
.
Apr 23, 2007 10:29 AM
Paper Turtle :
<i>Is there some kind of evidence you can present to show they thought this way?</i>
.
There is, but I can't find it right now; I'll have to do a more thorough search. Seems to me, though the OT is full of examples of the spirit of God moving about. Look at Exodus (I had another example but its left my mind for the moment).
.
Yes Shekinah--the feminine presence of God, sometimes equated with wisdom. There is a tradition that God was at one time both male and female (read about this in a recent issue of <i>Biblical Archaeological Review</i>).
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle
Apr 23, 2007 10:33 AM
Pink :
.
The thinking comes out of Lurianic Judaism--a form of Kaballah.
.
But, I'm wondering if the ancients thought of spirits as being omniscient or only as being able to be in one place at a time. I think they held that God was only able to be at one place at any one time.
.
But, it is a side issue to your discussion. Please excuse my interuption.
.
Apr 23, 2007 11:24 AM
Stephen Grube :
There is absolutely no doubt that Jesus was speaking of himself when he referenced the temple's destruction... None of us here are ingonrant to the correlations but the ressurection is maybe the grandest proof of the anology being about him specifically.
Thinking about it like this: I can predict my own death if I am willing to put myself in harm's way BUT I certainly could not predict (let alone complete) my own ressurection. This was proof of his 'metaphor' and even more proof of his being one with the Father.
Apr 23, 2007 11:30 AM
Paper Turtle :
And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters (Gen 1:2, KJV translation only)
.
The spirit of the lord departed from Saul, and he was tormented by en evil spirit sent by the Lord [fits of rage]. (1 Sam 16:14)
.
Beltheshazzar, chief of the magicians, I know that the spirit of the Holy God is in you and no mystery is too difficult for you (Daniel 4:6)
.
The wind blows where it wills, and you can hear the sound it makes, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes; so it is with everyone who is born of the spirit. (John 4:8)
.
The other example I was thinking of before was Ezekiel (the hyperactive prophet). I seem to remember at least one or two mentions there of God's spirit moving in the story of Ezekiel), but they didn't show up on my search (I probably was using the wrong search words).
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle
Apr 23, 2007 6:59 PM
Brian Tubbs :
Jesus spoke in multi-dimensional meanings all the time. Not contradictory, but multi-level. In the case of the Temple reference, it's clear that Jesus' most obvious and direct reference is to the Temple. He was predicting its destruction. But he was also speaking of himself.
Apr 23, 2007 7:04 PM
Brian Tubbs :
I took a couple undergrad law classes and contemplated law school at one point, but never formally took it. My parents always thought I'd go into law. :)
It may be because it's late and I'm tired, but I'm not sure I understand your questions. In the interest of keeping my articles from getting too long, I usually don't have time to fully develop any of the sides - which is why I like these discussions.
My basic points are:
1) Evidence is strong that Luke wrote his Gospel AND Acts as a two-volume monograph to Theophilus.
2) It is unlikely (HIGHLY unlikely, I would say) for Luke to stop Acts where he does if it was written in the 70s or 80s AD. He would have almost certainly continued the saga to include the martyrdom of Peter and Paul - and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. Those events are just too significant for him to leave out.
3) Ergo...we can pretty safely surmise that Luke-Acts was written BEFORE Jerusalem was destroyed, thus dating it to the 60s AD.
Those are my arguments.
Apr 23, 2007 8:48 PM
redback :
Thanx, Brian. Just joshing about the law! :)
Sometimes statements have more meaning by what they exclude or don't say. A lifetime ago, mine was a medico-legal career without directly relevant degrees. And as an aside, people who say then and now: "I wasn't saying that" aren't, by default, telling me what they are saying.
You are talking about a chronology of events not mentioned in Acts because of Paul's death. And it makes sense. But I'm pondering the 'what ifs'...there is a damaged page, a missing manuscript covering a few verses to a Chapter, or whatever. I was pondering the old scribes finishing off each Book with a conclusion or intended finale. I'm thinking judgements were made not expecting the quizzes of 2007.
<i>"If it wasn't mentioned in Acts as you say nor in other Books as I've indicated, <b>I wonder why it was left out altogether.</b>"</i> re Paul's death.
I know you were focussing on Acts, but reasons may exist outside it that may or may not add to the points you make.
What would the loss of Paul be expected to have on the recording through Acts of the development of...the rise and rise of...Christianity? Or his martyrdom to that of Christ's? A reflective respectful ponder, Brian...not a call to arms. :)
2pm. Tuesday...well before bed time here. :)
Apr 23, 2007 9:30 PM
Brian Tubbs :
<i>What would the loss of Paul be expected to have on the recording through Acts of the development of...the rise and rise of...Christianity? </i>
I think the issue, at least in terms of dating the composition of Acts, isn't so much that the writer (Luke) would HAVE to mention Paul. Rather, the issue is that Luke spends so much time talking about Paul's life, including his arrests, beatings, shipwrecks, awaiting an audience with Caesar, etc. - that it would be rather peculiar for Luke to just STOP the story where he did -- if, that is, he wrote it 10-20 years later. Take some time to re-read the last few chapters of Acts, if you haven't done so lately, and you'll see what I mean.
<i>Or his martyrdom to that of Christ's? A reflective respectful ponder, Brian...not a call to arms. </i>
No call to arms here. :) And, certainly, Christ's martyrdom is much more significant. Paul would be the first to tell us that - and did. Again, though, Luke set the standard by giving us so much info on Paul's ministry and his troubles with the law. It just seems odd that he would stop Acts where he did, unless that's where events WERE when he was drafting it.
As for the missing pages theory, that's not in evidence based on the manuscript copies we have. And the New Testament books are the BEST attested documents of ALL ancient literature when it comes to manuscript copies.
Apr 24, 2007 6:18 AM
Migisi :
.
<i>that it would be rather peculiar for Luke to just STOP the story where he did</i>
.
When did Luke die?
Apr 24, 2007 6:35 AM
Pink :
.
I know the points you are making; but, that idea of God isolates [His] Spirit in one place at a time.
.
Our idea, today, is that the Spirit of God is able to be everywhere at the same time.
.
Apr 24, 2007 7:12 AM
Paper Turtle :
<i>I know the points you are making; but, that idea of God isolates [His] Spirit in one place at a time.
.
Our idea, today, is that the Spirit of God is able to be everywhere at the same time.
. </i>
I don't disagree. I was just supplying the passages to support your question.
.
Earlier this morning I was thinking of the story of Jacob's ladder (Gen 28:10-19). Jacob was fleeing from his brother Esau. On his way to Harran, he stops for the night and takes a stone for his pillow. He then dreams about the ladder. When he wakes, he says, "Truly the Lord is in this place, and I did not know it" (vs 16).
.
The irony here is that the stone he took for a pillow was a stone from a pile of stones designating a shrine (which had been in existence from the time of Abraham). In other words, this was supposedly a place which was charged with God's presence, and yet Jacob was so unaware he thought nothing of disturbing a shrine in order to sleep more peacefully.
.
I see a lot of parallels in this story to humankind's search for a relationship with God. How about you?
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle
PS--it would seem that both the presence of the shrine, and Jacob's actions imply a belief that God was NOT always everywhere present. I have a hard time understanding that belief--but then again, life was very different then, and nomadic "pagans" carried their gods with them as they traveled.
.
PT
Apr 24, 2007 7:13 AM
Brian Tubbs :
<i>When did Luke die? </i>
A long time ago.
:)
Sorry, couldn't resist
Apr 24, 2007 7:33 AM
Brian Tubbs :
Early church tradition places Luke's death between 76 and 84 years of age - sometime in the first century. It's hard to narrow it down further than that.
Apr 24, 2007 7:57 AM
Pink :
.
I think the ideas of pantheism entered into our thinking and now we see God's Spirit as being omniscient.
.
Some Kaballahists teach that--before Creation--God was all that was in existence. Nothing was that was not God. So, all that is in creation is made up of parts of God. It is as though everything that is is an aspect of God and that everything that is wants to reunite with God. In this sense, you and I and everyone and everything else is a part of God.
.
.
Apr 24, 2007 8:34 AM
Stephen Grube :
I am in line with your thinking here Phil.
To dive deeper into what your saying and to make a better understanding of this we need to look at the sin facotr here...
God was only allowed himself to be present at the Temple 'then' because it was the only place were the sin of the world could actively be ammended (temple sacrifice). Now this Old Testament understanding is SO vital in order for us to understand what you are indeed saying as well. (I believe you are saying)
If God chooses to only be present were sin is being ammended then God's character or abilities, for lack of a better word on the tip of my tongue, NEVER changed but the circumstances did.
We now, through Christ, are able to come into union with God right were we stand. No sacrifice or material act can be performed in order to please God because we are not the ones mimicking 'their' sacrifice.. THEY were mimicking the sacrifice that was to come... Jesus Christ!
So praise God for following through on his promise! Right?!?!? Now we just have a few more small promiss left to fulfill.
Apr 24, 2007 8:42 AM
Stephen Grube :
I guess I need a specific passage to look at from you... Because what I am reading He speaks only of the Temple's destruction in a minimal way and overtly makes the claim of it's rebuilding in 3 days... That's the key. The temple may have been destroyed but it was NEVER rebuilt in 3 days. Only Jesus' body was raised after 3 days.
Apr 24, 2007 9:09 AM
Migisi :
.
Reason I ask, when did Luke write Acts, and did he die before he had a chance to finish it?
Apr 24, 2007 10:42 AM
Brian Tubbs :
I understand what you're getting at. There's no evidence that I'm aware of (and I would acknowledge it - if I knew of it) that Luke died in the middle of composing Acts. BUT...
I think it's possible that Luke may have hoped to pen a third volume and died before doing so. That IS possible, but it doesn't challenge the likelihood that Acts (the second volume) was written and circulated in the 60s AD. I personally think that Luke was trying to rally some support for Paul, who was imprisoned in Rome and awaiting an audience with Caesar. I think Theophilus may have had ties to some people who could possibly help Paul. That's my thought. I can't prove it, but it makes sense.
Apr 24, 2007 11:36 AM
Paper Turtle :
<i><b>Steve wrote:</b>
We now, through Christ, are able to come into union with God right were we stand. No sacrifice or material act can be performed in order to please God because we are not the ones mimicking 'their' sacrifice.. THEY were mimicking the sacrifice that was to come... Jesus Christ!</i>
.
Yes--that's the significance of the turn curtain when Jesus was crucified (Lk 25:45, Heb 6:9)
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle
Apr 24, 2007 11:48 AM
Stephen Grube :
=) *nodding*
Apr 24, 2007 12:10 PM
Pink :
.
You certainly have a way of putting your fingers on an issue and you have here.
.
I don't think I've ever seen it put so plainly before, ie., God only going where sins are being forgiven or 'amended' as you wrote.
.
See, I think Christianity blows that idea away. If we see sin as a symptom of a social disease of bigotry and inhumanity, we can more readily understand God's love for the sinner. When your child is sick, your love for it is made more evident as you do everything in your power to help bring your child back to health. You don't stay away because you can't stand to be in the presence of sickness and pain.
.
Apr 24, 2007 1:51 PM
Paper Turtle :
.
<i><b>Phil wrote:</b>
Some Kaballahists teach that--before Creation--God was all that was in existence. Nothing was that was not God. So, all that is in creation is made up of parts of God. It is as though everything that is is an aspect of God and that everything that is wants to reunite with God. In this sense, you and I and everyone and everything else is a part of God.</i>
.
Yes--I like this. I think its true. We are part of All That Is. Thich Naht Hanh, a Buddhist, has written several books discussing the similarities between Buddhisn and Christianity. He says that everything is made up of everything else--it "inter-is" with all things. One of his examples: a flower is made up of the earth, rain, the sun, and all the other things which went into its being in this persent moment. The flower also contains the person beholding it, and the person contains the flower, and so on.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle
Apr 24, 2007 4:45 PM
redback :
Another interesting technique is to substitute another question: <i>"Rather, the issue is..."</i> so after my attempts, I'll let the question die. :) Re-reading Acts won't answer it.
Apr 24, 2007 7:22 PM
Brian Tubbs :
I'm not trying to dodge anything. I'm having trouble understanding some of your posts. I did the best I could in responding to the one in question here, and you seem to be accusing me of dodging and sidestepping. And frankly, I don't appreciate it. State your question clearly so my limited intellect and poor comprehension skills can grasp it, and I'll do my best to answer. If I don't answer properly, it's because I'm not "getting it." It's NOT because I'm trying to manipulate or sidestep or anything like that. Okay?
Apr 24, 2007 9:46 PM
redback :
You are not unique, Brian. It is not an uncommon practice here to isolate one quote and cite it in response leaving the substance of a post to wither on the vine. By the time the cited quote is flogged to death, its context and sense within the original post, is lost. I was simply curious about Paul's death (in context) among other things when I intiated responses to your article.
There were a number of issues raised and you covered some. And now on review I surprise myself I actualy had the patience to politely raise it 3 times without ME reading any response to it!!!
<i>"...State your question clearly so my limited intellect and poor comprehension skills can grasp it..."</i> :( :(
And if I ask questions here, it's not because I'm attacking you or me taking sides or being precious or protective of a position or know the answer. Okay? backatchya!!!
Hmmm...when (and how) did Paul die that supposedly dates Acts???
<b>POST 1:</b>
<i>"...If it wasn't mentioned in Acts as you say nor in other Books as I've indicated, I wonder why it was left out altogether...."
<b>POST 10</b>
The date and nature of Paul's death as I understood it from the websites I went to, was not only not referred to in Acts but in no other Book either. I don't know if that's true. But if it is true, the WHY of it all goes beyond Acts and the 'integrity' of the claimed prophecy and the timing of the Books...." "...So, why didn't Luke(?) fit it in in subsequent books. Relevance again?
<b>POST 21</b>: "If it wasn't mentioned in Acts as you say nor in other Books as I've indicated, <b>I wonder why it was left out altogether."</b> re Paul's death." (Original was in bold)</i>
If you have answered somewhere, I apologise. <b>BUT</b> understand that when I stated the question can die, I haven't changed my mind. There is a mood here that is not conducive to the discussion I seek.
Apr 25, 2007 10:35 AM
Migisi :
.
Chiming in:
.
<i>Hmmm...when (and how) did Paul die that supposedly dates Acts???</i>
.
Paul's martyrdom supposedly took place near Rome at a place called Aquae Salviae towards the end of the reign of Nero. In the "Chronicle" of Eusebius (Catholic Church historian), Paul's death occurs between 67 and 68. But a different entry in "Chronograph of 354" (also written by Eusebius) figures Paul's death in 55AD. Other historians say 64AD. (Info from Catholic Encyclopedia)
.
I can't see how Paul's death can be used to accurately date the Book of Acts, since there's no concensus about when Paul died. Act's writer, Luke, supposedly died in 84AD. If Paul died in 55AD, that gave Luke 29 years after Paul's death to finish the Book of Acts. Or 16 years, if Paul died in 68AD.
.
My thinking is that Paul's martydom was intentionally left out of Acts, either by Luke or by the Church, so the focus would remain on Jesus, and not Paul. Just my pondering.
Apr 25, 2007 11:56 PM
redback :
Hi Migisi...thanx for comments. The art of crosschecking is free-range. It doesn't have to prove a point one way or the other.
There IS speculation about when Paul died. There is NO speculation (yet) that Paul's death and its manner, is NOT mentioned in ANY book of the Bible. Absolutely happy to be corrected.
The omission by accident or design of details of Paul's death, may lead to speculation there was NO message of value needing to be added to ANY Book...or it simply missed publishing timelines thus any reference to it outside the Bible along with any other scripture-related text "discredits" the truth of it?
As per the Bible, Paul's divinely inspired mission met with a divinely knowable death without divine final message. Should his martyrdom warrant a lesser or greater coverage than Peter's? I did question his comparative martyrdom to Jesus' in my first post as a sort of scattergun part of a global question.
Does working forward from the esitmated 29 years from his conversion to first captivity, bring about a similar result to working backwards? I've read online one ancient translation of Acts was based on 2000 fragments of papyrus. I'm thinking a Bible of total fact is not a Book of Complete Fact if it is incomplete.
A part of my baggage is project management & related basic research skills. And I'm not even skilled-up enough on this topic to qualify as a novice. I'm neither a Defender nor Enemy of the Faith.
May 1, 2007 12:09 PM
Brian Tubbs :
<i>My thinking is that Paul's martydom was intentionally left out of Acts, either by Luke or by the Church, so the focus would remain on Jesus, and not Paul. Just my pondering. </i>
That doesn't seem consistent with the rest of Acts. The focus of Acts isn't really on Jesus. It's on the early church leaders. In fact, the book is called "Acts of the Apostles." And Acts DOES tell us about the martyrdom of James and Stephen - and details all the troubles Paul had with the law, including being imprisoned, beaten, shipwrecked, etc. Why go through all that detail and then leave out Paul's death?
Why resist the obvious implication that Acts was written and circulated PRIOR to Paul's martyrdom?
May 2, 2007 8:20 AM
Migisi :
.
I've studied Acts in detail (chapter by chapter, verse by verse). Check the Suite Archives.
.
<i>Why resist the obvious implication that Acts was written and circulated PRIOR to Paul's martyrdom?</i>
.
It's ~implied~, but not a proven fact. But for discussion, I'll say Acts was written and circulated BEFORE Paul's death. It's clearly an incomplete work, a "to be continued" which leads to the expectation of a sequel or ending. Luke lived many years after Paul's death. He had plenty of time to write about Paul's death and finish Acts - and circulate the sequel/ending too. If he didn't finish it, why not? If he did finish it, where is it?
May 2, 2007 10:09 AM
Oliver Dusenbury :
Acts 5:1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
5:2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
5:4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
5:5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
5:6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
5:7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
5:8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
5:9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
5:10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.
5:11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.
May 2, 2007 10:11 AM
Pink :
.
Don't mess with the big guy.
.
May 2, 2007 10:59 AM
Stephen Grube :
Yeah... and?
I've known that story my entire life... do you have a point?
May 2, 2007 11:13 AM
Oliver Dusenbury :
You must have been a very smart infant and suckling to have known that story your entire life!
I do not have a point. I have a mirror.
May 2, 2007 11:25 AM
Migisi :
.
Yep, we had fun with Peter scaring the life out of those two ol' folks back in Acts, didn't we. No good deed goes unpunished. Tee hee.
May 2, 2007 2:38 PM
Pink :
.;
Remember the parable of Seven At A Blow?
May 3, 2007 8:02 AM
Brian Tubbs :
The question from the article is...
Did Jesus prophecy the destruction of the Jewish Temple (as well as his own)?
How one answers that question typically says a lot about how they approach the Bible. Most liberal scholars say "No" because they reject supernaturalism and do not consider Jesus to be the Son of God (at least not in the traditional evangelical sense). Most conservatives say "Absolutely" because they have NO trouble with supernaturalism. Jesus was God and therefore Jesus could easily have foreseen and prophecied future events.
Dating the NT writings is usually based on one's presuppositions concerning the supernatural. A naturalist (and a naturalist is usually liberal) will date the NT writings AFTER the destruction of the Temple, whereas a conservative sees no reason to do so.
May 3, 2007 2:52 PM
Pink :
.
What if Jesus did mean the statement to be a prophecy? Then, it would lose all its deeper value.
.
What would be the point? That it proves the supernaturalness of the Bible? Does Jesus look good if he's a seer? Sounds like Jean Dixon or Edgar Cayce to me.
.
Why on Earth does Christianity have to be supernatural? That makes it rediculous. "Let us reason together."
.
May 3, 2007 5:53 PM
Oliver Dusenbury :
Spot on, Pinky.
Also in Mark:
Mark 13:24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,
13:25 And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.
13:26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.
Poppycock.
The stars will never fall to earth. One star falling to earth would destroy it.
The moon does not produce its own light. I ain't no scientist, but doesn't the moon reflect the light of the sun?
Since those statements are silly, why would a modern person believe that any human will see Jesus coming from the clouds with great power and glory, unless they have eaten some hallucinogenic chemical?
May 3, 2007 8:06 PM
Brian Tubbs :
<i>Why on Earth does Christianity have to be supernatural? That makes it rediculous. "Let us reason together."</i>
There are several problems with this question and your assumptions behind it. First, asking why Christianity has to be "supernatural" is like asking why a Dairy Queen Blizzard has to be ice cream. Christianity IS supernatural, because it's based on GOD - and God is a supernatural being. All religions (except atheism) are based on God, in fact, and that makes them by definition SUPER-natural. Your question really is rather odd, Pink.
Second problem is you assume (or seem to assume) that people who believe in the supernatural are somehow unwilling or unable to REASON with others. I'll grant that this is sometimes the case with some people, but it's by no means universal or even the norm. Some of history's greatest philosophers were religious figures. You know this. In fact, MOST of them were religious figures that they believed in God and the supernatural.
Finally, your choice of the word "ridiculous" is self-indicting if anything. I find it "ridiculous" that you would even ask the question you did - and more so that you would hammer it home like you did. It is not "ridiculous" to believe in God (Oliver's drive-by rantings notwithstanding). It's not "ridiculous" to believe Jesus was divine. And following from those two premises, it's not "ridiculous" to believe that Jesus could have rose from the dead. If he was divine, he very easily could have done so.
Christianity is not ridiculous and 2.3 billion people in the world today agree with me.
May 3, 2007 9:58 PM
redback :
<i>"...Christianity is not ridiculous and 2.3 billion people in the world today agree with me."</i>
I don't believe 'Christianity' is ridiculous either but the question is self-fulfilling as those who would admit to believing in something ridiculous would probably be in the minority.
And I believe it's predominantly supernatural but with ambiguous human features. But that's just me. I ponder: Could 2.3 billion Christians be right on all matters that matter. Could 1.2 billion Muslims be equally wrong. What about the relative 'righteousness' of the other 50% approx.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm
Politicians would love that level of research/support BUT it all depends on how the count is done and what's asked.
Refer hotlink above: <i>"...depending on the definition used, the percentage of Christians in the U.S. are between 0.1 and 75% of the total population."</i>
(Also depends how one defines 'A Christian Nation')
Do the 34,000 separate Christian groups that have been identified in the world, find more cause for separation them being united? What does the Pope think and does it really matter.
The ressurection has a revered place in Christianity and I respect that. But there has to be more symbolism in it (as yet unstated) as we are talking about an unkillable God, aren't we.
<i>"John 8:58
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"</i>
All questions transerred to academic ones.
May 4, 2007 12:17 AM
Paper Turtle :
<i><b>Phil wrote:</b>
.
Why on Earth does Christianity have to be supernatural? That makes it rediculous. "Let us reason together."
. </i>
What inspires you? What motivates you to ask questions? Isn't the answer: the things which are mysterious? What engages your mind? The things you wonder about.
.
Do you give a lot of thought to the shoes you put on each morning? Do you ponder the meaning of your refrigerator? I'm not being facetious here. My point is the things you can explain become just things. They have no "life" in them. After a while we stop fully seeing them.
.
For me, one of the most compelling aspects of God is his/her mysteriousness. No human will ever fully grasp the nature of God. We can't even fully understand our own lives. So we keep asking questions, keep wondering, keep seeking.
.
Spirituality is not just in the mind. Reason, and reason alone, can be a cold and cruel thing. We need the balance of feeling, of spirit, to make us fully human.
.
I have witnessed things in my life I am content to call miracles. One of those concerns my daughter, who, as in infant received second degree burns over a large portion of her body. I prayed that she would not be permanently scarred as a result of this injury. My prayers were answered. After she was healed, the doctor told he he was completely amazed. Because of the severity of her burns he was convinced she would carry scars for the rest of her life. No matter what explanation anyone might offer for her lack of scars, the fact remains that no one knows *exactly* why.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle
May 4, 2007 5:33 AM
Pink :
May 4, 2007 5:43 AM
Paper Turtle :
I hate it when you do that. ;-)
Now you've got my curiosity all stirred up. :)
peace and love,
Paper Turtle
May 4, 2007 6:07 AM
Pink :
.
I don't know how that happened. It has to be a mistake. I tried to change the subject line and it disappeared. I never noticed it ended up being a blank post. Sorry about that. :) It was not my intention.
.
The post I made has "It's Rediculous" in the subject line.
.
May 4, 2007 7:44 AM
Migisi :
.
<i>No matter what explanation anyone might offer for her lack of scars, the fact remains that no one knows *exactly* why.</i>
.
I'm glad for her recovery, Paper. I really am.
.
There are ~many~ things for which we don't have exact answers... YET. As Man learns more about his physical world, natural answers replace supernatural answers. And I think Man's insatiable curiousity about the 'mysterious' inspires and motivates him to seek and discover those natural answers.
.
Just my thinking, of course.
May 4, 2007 7:58 AM
Paper Turtle :
You know, I'm not really big on supernaturalism. On the other hand, I *like* the idea that some things are miraculous or magical. I think seeking after a purely rational answer for *everything* sort of takes the fun out of life.
.
And, magic or miracle aside, there *are* things which (at least currently) defy rational explanation--ESP for example. We don't even know exactly how it is the brain takes the funny shapes I'm typing and turns them into sounds and concepts. We have no idea where creative inspiration comes from.
We might never know the answers. Does it really hurt to contemplate some of these things and say, "Wow! That's pretty miraculous" (meaning, something wonderful we can't explain)?
peace and love,
Paper Turtle
peace and love,
Paper Turtle
May 4, 2007 8:32 AM
Migisi :
.
<i>We might never know the answers. Does it really hurt to contemplate some of these things and say, "Wow! That's pretty miraculous" (meaning, something wonderful we can't explain)?</i>
.
Doesn't hurt one bit - unless we claim that supernatural forces are behind everything unexplainable, and we stop searching for - or discount entirely - the natural answers.
.
I say "Wow" when I learn a natural answer. Like finding out how a homing pigeon homes... discovering how the balance/imbalance of brain chemicals affects our thoughts and behaviors... why a mother bird turns her eggs in the nest. That's 'Wow' stuff to me, and knowing the natural answer doesn't make that answer any less awesome and wonderful - and inspiring. I may never know the answers to the unexplainable, but somebody will someday.
May 4, 2007 9:58 AM
Oliver Dusenbury :
Brian, the number of people who believe in the truth of something has NO significance regarding its truth. That kind of argument is called Argumentum ad numerum. The cigarette companies in the 1950s used it.
Over one billion people believe that the moon was split in half by Mohammad. What happens when there are more Muslims than Christians? Will you then finally accept Islam?
The same goes for Superman or any other supernatural superhero: Just because a billion children believe doesn't make it so.
Belief in something because "history's greatest philosophers" believed in it is also a distraction.
What would NOT be a distraction in a so-called religious discussion area? Discussing what the Bible says.
Jesus-As-Written said:
Matt. 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
25:42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
25:46 And these shall go away into EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT: but the righteous into life eternal.
Many times have I been hungry and thirsty, but when people ignored my obvious (to me anyway) need, I did not in the moment or afterwards wish "everlasting punishment" to those who I felt wronged me.
Matt. 25:41-46 tells us a lot about Jesus-As-Written's character. Everlasting punishment for slights that most people would forgive very quickly? Not someone I would like as my invisible friend.
The echo of Jesus-As-Written is not always a very healthy voice to have in your head.
May 4, 2007 10:37 AM
Brian Tubbs :
<i>Brian, the number of people who believe in the truth of something has NO significance regarding its truth. That kind of argument is called Argumentum ad numerum. The cigarette companies in the 1950s used it.</i>
Oliver, I agree with you! (Mark this one for the record books)
BUT....that's not the argument I made.
Pink said that Christian supernaturalism was "rediculous" (by the way, Pink, it's "ridiculous"), and I was basically saying - "Well, then, 2.3 billion people are ridiculous along with me."
The point is that Christianity is not some fringe, hocus-pocus, unenlightened mystical belief system. And in making that point, it's legitimate to cite the 2.3 billion adherents.
HOWEVER...I'm not - repeat: NOT - arguing that Christianity and all its claims are true because 2.3 billion people embrace it to one degree or another.
May 4, 2007 10:41 AM
Brian Tubbs :
If God is real and He is the Master of Nature as you put it, then it's nothing for Him to intervene in Nature, change things, supersede things, etc.
Our society has traffic laws. One of which is that we're supposed to stop at red lights. But an ambulance on its way to the hospital can turn on the sirens and the lights - and go right through that red light. The traffic laws are temporarily suspended for that ambulance. Miracles work the same way. God steps in and suspends or supersedes the laws of nature - laws that He (if He's real, that is) put into place.
Now, obviously, if God ain't real, then I agree with YOU! Miracles and the supernatural would be RIDICULOUS! Absolutely. But if God's real, well then....who are YOU to tell God that He can't do miracles?
May 4, 2007 11:30 AM
Oliver Dusenbury :
You are selling cigarettes here.
Again: The number of adherents to a system of belief has NO BEARING on whether that system is full of "hocus pocus" or not.
Why not spend your effort telling us what God IS instead of grasping at the straws of what Christianity is NOT?
May 4, 2007 1:18 PM
Pink :
.
Picking and choosing.
.
You sit back and pick and choose the response you feel you can be successful at answering. Otherwise, you ignore those that take away the facades.
.
May 4, 2007 2:10 PM
Oliver Dusenbury :
He does not seem to want to discuss what he means by God.
It would be like me talking about phelamberins. If you check into all my posts, you will see that I've used all the letters in the word phelamberins: don't play that game with me, I don't have to 'splain nothin' just because you (insert attack here).
Picker and chooser, yuppers. Amen Pinky.
May 4, 2007 2:23 PM
Pink :
.
I guess I'm coming to a place where I've had it here--for the most part anyway.
.
There doesn't appear to be any concerted effort to uncover any in depth understanding beyond the simplistic babble of dogma and doctrine.
.
Too bad--there could be some worthwhile discoveries. But, why would any one want to feed their mind with a worthwhile discovery?
.
May 4, 2007 6:23 PM
Oliver Dusenbury :
I'll bite. What worthwhile discovery do you wish to serve?
May 4, 2007 7:38 PM
Pink :
.
Discovery?
.
The uncovering of something that already exists?
.
That's what we mean by discovery?
.
Okay. How can we possibly know something that we haven't yet discovered?
.
We can't know what we're going to discover. We can predict; but, we cannot know exactly.
.
Can we?
.
May 4, 2007 7:45 PM
Oliver Dusenbury :
But what do you wish to discover?
May 4, 2007 8:39 PM
Brian Tubbs :
Pink, you've accused me of picking and choosing what to respond to - to my own favor and at the price of diminishing the value of these discussions. I don't believe these are fair charges. What seems the case to ME is that if I don't agree with you, then I'm being .
Nevertheless, here's a point-by-point response to one of your key, recent posts...
<i>The idea of the supernatural reaches beyond naturally occuring events.</i>
Agreed
<i> I don't buy into such situations. Maybe I'm that naturalist type that Brian refered to recently in one of his posts. God, if anything, has to be the master of nature.</i>
Agreed, and wouldn't the "Master of Nature" be able to suspend nature or intervene in nature?
<i> Otherwise, [He] ends up being some sort of a behing-the-curtain wizard pulling levers and strings that keep everything running.</i>
This is NOT a logical statement.
<i>That's what I mean when I say, "otherwise it's rediculous". </i>
It's spelled "ridiculous" - and while your little image of the wizard behind the curtain is worded in a deliberately ridiculous way, you have NOT provided any substantive, logical arguments against the concept of a God above Nature.
Let me say it plainly: IF GOD IS REAL, then He/She/It is GOD! Right? God, by definition, is the Supreme Being - the all-powerful intelligent force that oversees and is responsible for the universe.
What this really boils down to Pink is: Do you believe in God?
It's obvious that you don't, and thus, the whole thing is ridiculous hocus-pocus to you.
<i>Self indicating? Come on, give me a break!</i>
That would be "self-indicting"
May 4, 2007 9:32 PM
redback :
<i>"All questions transerred to <b>academic</b> ones."</i>
Me bad. I meant to refer to "rhetorical" questions, not academic ones in my preceding post. I don't know the answers to the questions I pose, simply not expecting answers this time. Thus, tis now truly academic.
I'm not limited by the limits of another's post when I provide my response. I don't qualify my posts with "I'm not saying..." so I hope my method doesn't confuse.
The majority of the world apparently disagree with Christianity to some extent. That has some context some of the time.
May 5, 2007 10:47 AM
Migisi :
.
<i>Pink, you've accused me of picking and choosing what to respond to ...</i>
.
You do that, Bri. I do it too. When I've only got time for a brief response, I choose posts that require only quick replies. I confess that I forget to go back and reply to the hard/deeper questions - which so often get lost in a long and active thread. Maybe we should repost our questions/comments if we really want a response - not to badger anyone, but to simply jog memory.
.
<i>Do you believe in God?</i>
.
I'm assuming you mean 'God of the Bible' by your capital 'G'. Is that right?
May 5, 2007 10:55 AM
Pink :
.
You say that it is obvious that I don't believe in God?
.
Is that so?
.
How did you come to that conclusion?
..
After reading your post the second time, I don't think you have a clue as to what it means to be logical.
.
You should watch this presentation:
.,
http://www.godisimaginary.com/video10.htm
.
Just because I don't believe in the "god" in whom you believe, that means I don't believe in God?
.
That is ridicuous--or would that be ludicrous?
.
:)
.
We're all in the same boat, Brian.
.
Thanks for pointing out my spelling error.
May 5, 2007 11:03 AM
Oliver Dusenbury :
Brian is in the rear of the boat, looking at what has past him by, thinking he is the Captain.
May 5, 2007 11:10 AM
Pink :
.
Brian labors under a heavy burden.
.
He has chosen a career as a church pastor and can hardly be expected to respond reasonably with those who bring up the hard questions. He has a career to protect and develop.
.
That's why it's important to separate oneself from the world.
.
It's really too bad that he is unable to break free of the fetters than keep him in bondage. He might, otherwise, be able to understand the value of the "Social Gospel" against which he seems to kick.
.
May 5, 2007 11:47 AM
Brian Tubbs :
Just for clarification, I really am not opposed to everything that's typically associated with the "Social Gospel." Our church supports our community homeless shelter, crisis pregnancy center, and other families throughout the area with various needs (as we are able to do so). Christians should live out their faith by helping others, and I applaud churches for doing this. What bothers me is when churches ONLY do community service.
May 5, 2007 12:39 PM
Pink :
.
The Social Gospel is more directly involved with the idea that Humanity is on a progressively steady improvement due to the influence of Jesus on civilization.
.
That's what Fosdick preached and it is why he feared the Fundamentalists.
.
May 5, 2007 2:33 PM
Brian Tubbs :
My understanding of the "Social Gospel" has always been broader than Fosdick and certainly broader than the idea that mankind is progressing. I'm not sure, in fact, that all Social Gospers would agree with you here. Many believe that mankind is degenerating, thus all the more reason to double our efforts at reform.
Nevertheless, as I say, I'm not opposed to all of the tenets of the Social Gospel movement. I think they served as a good counter-balance to the extremist pre-millenials who wanted to wait on rooftops for Jesus' return and do nothing for the tangible ills of society.
May 5, 2007 3:29 PM
Pink :
.
The idea of a social gospel is complex, that's for sure.
.
I'm all for it and I think Evangelical Fundamentalism is an evil scourge on humanity.
.
Sorry.
.
:)
.
Marry Ann Williamson stands head, shoulders, and waist above Billy Graham in my mind.
.
May 5, 2007 4:14 PM
Brian Tubbs :
Has anyone ever told you that you're given to exaggeration and stubbornness? Anyone?
I think Rick Warren is an interesting figure in Christian circles today. He is essentially COMBINING evangelical fundamentalism with the Social Gospel movement. He's saying that it doesn't have to be either/or - it can be (indeed, SHOULD be) both/and. I am watching his ministry with interest.
May 5, 2007 4:36 PM
Pink :
.
Wait until you are in a position where you are able to look back over the past three quarters of a century.
.
You might change your perspective.
.
And, remember when you get there? I'm giving you permision right now to feel good about it.
.
May 5, 2007 8:59 PM
Oliver Dusenbury :
.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17889148/site/newsweek/ is where Rick Warren loses a debate to Sam Harris. Rick Warren tries to attack Sam Harris by saying that his work sounds like it is angry. Sam says:
.
"I would put it at impatient rather than angry.
.
Let me respond to this notion of answered prayer, because this is a classic sampling error, to use a statistical phrase.
.
We know that human beings have a terrible sense of probability. There are many things we believe that confirm our prejudices about the world, and we believe this only by noticing the confirmations, and not keeping track of the disconfirmations.
.
You could prove to the satisfaction of every scientist that intercessory prayer works if you set up a simple experiment.
.
Get a billion Christians to pray for a single amputee. Get them to pray that God regrow that missing limb. This happens to salamanders every day, presumably without prayer; this is within the capacity of God."
.
Like the Drano Challenge, no Christian will test their faith. They are not so much afraid that the test will fail, they are afraid that their imaginary "God" will send them to EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT for DARING to test it, in spite of the words in Mark!
84 Comments
