The Bible: Is the Author God, Man or Both?

Only in a very loose sense. Here is the pertinent section.

quote:

---

But I am much inclined to think that Luke and the other New Testament writers who spoke of hell below and heaven above were speaking metaphorically. The same is largely true for us today. People still loosely talk of heaven "above" and hell "below" without being committed to any sort of outmoded cosmology. Luke himself strongly implies that something other than a literal "going up to heaven" is involved here, for clouds are mentioned in his Ascension account ("a cloud took him out of their sight" [Acts 1:9]), and clouds are biblical symbols of the presence of God (Exodus 19:9, Daniel 7:13, Mark 9:7).

​

The Ascension of Jesus was primarily a change of state rather than a change of location. So I think what Luke was literally saying was that Jesus was passing from the presence of the disciples into the presence of God. Many Christians identify the cloud that Luke mentions with the Shekinah, the Old Testament sign of the glory of God (Exodus 19:16, 40:34-38). We see this sign of the presence of God at the tabernacle (Numbers 9:15), at Solomon's temple (II Chronicles 5:13), and at the transfiguration of Jesus (Mark 9:7). See also Matthew 26:64, where Jesus tells the high priest, "From now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven" (cf. Revelation 1:7).

​

the earth, and then kept moving until he got to heaven, as if heaven were located somewhere in space. The Ascension of Jesus was primarily a change of state rather than a change of location. Jesus changed in the Ascension from being present in the realm of space and time to being present in the realm of eternity, in the transcendent heavenly realm. I will merely add that philosophers and scientists alike, quite apart from theological considerations, have discussed models that involve passing from one space-time manifold to another, and such a concept seems to be coherent.13

---

In Daniel 7 vs 2 Daniel said that in his vision by night the for winds of heaven were stirring up a great sea. (Sea was symbolic symbol of evil or hell.) He then goes on to say that the 4 beasts were coming out of the sea.
All of this is apocalyptic Jewish writing at its finest and when it talks about the throne of The Ancient of Days it can only be talking about a heavenly vision. It also does go on in verse 27 to say that all of the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be given to the people of the saints of the Highest one.....
In addition when you read the explanation for the vision from verse 15 on it is clear that this vision is something that will take place over a large span of time, whereas Daniel observed it all through this vision in a very short span of time. It is obvious that Daniel understood this vision as being a vision through the veil that separates God’s world from our own. Matthew did not IMHO mean it to be understood that way. Verse 30 starts off with saying that the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky which is Jewish apocalyptic and symbolic language for Jesus’ vindication as seen in His resurrection nd ascension. Not really. In the first place we have direct records in the Gospels which we can accept or reject and I don’t agree that they are greatly elaborated accounts. Jesus’ choice for disciples was a rather mixed bag which included a tax collector who had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. I see no reason for Him not to include a zealot. The idea was that hearts were to be changed and it looks as though Judas’ wasn’t. Presumably different churches would have different documents and Paul seems like the kinda guy who would like to have the message delivered in his words not someone else’s. He did, as we can see in my discussion with Jazzns correct correspondence in his 2nd letter to the Thessalonians but that didn’t seem to have anything directly to do with the teachings of Jesus. It is however a valid point. To be frank, I really didn’t have much of a point, but Luke does say that he has drawn on many sources. Sure, but even Paul writes that all that he is saying and doing is a waste of time if Jesus wasn’t resurrected. I get that and it is a good point. I just on balance find the evidence for the bodily resurrection as I have outlined it more compelling. Life is a funny thing. It is all about perceptions. You and I can look at the same books and experience the same world through similar cultures and yet come to diametrically opposed conclusions. I see theism as being the only truly plausible conclusion to come to for the reasons that you find totally unconvincing. The whole Christian story just makes so much sense of my life and the world as I experience it. I certainly have many questions but I have extremely little doubt of the truth of the essential tenets Christianity. I know that you are equally convinced of yours.I’ll be sure to look you up in the next life and we can compare notes as to who was right and who was wrong over some brew or whatever we’ll be drinking then.

Hi Paul. Sorry to be so slow getting back to you. It’s been busy lately and for Jazzns I will reply to you as soon as I can. If Jesus literally moved from an existing from this universe or dimension into another one it is something that they would have had no language for. They go back to Daniel to come up with words that would give meaning to what happened. They have Jesus literally moving up into the cloud which represents the presence of the Glory of God so that it has both literal and symbolic meaning. Of course not. Jesus was Jewish who lived and taught while understanding His life and teachings in a Jewish context. The language in the NT is lifted right out of the OT. I should just have said records rather than direct records. My point though that we do have records of the events that would have been taken from earlier accounts as Luke mentions that would have been from eye witnesses. As I said we can choose what it is that we will believe about the records we have. Matthew would have had a strong financial interest in maintain the status quo. With Judas I don’t see it being a religious devotion but a nationalistic devotion. One point of the message of Jesus is that He was reaching out to everyone and it would be consistent with what He taught that He would have a revolutionary amongst His disciples.The NT is clear that they were talking about a bodily resurrection. NT Wright is considered by many to be the finest NT scholar we have today. Here is what he has to say on the subject.
Jesus’ Resurrection and Christian OriginsI disagree with your premise. I have read the debates between N T Wright and the people like Crossan and Borg and the Crossan/Borg position, (although not completely the same), is basically based on the idea that we know from human experience that once people die they stay dead. In other words we know at the outset that a physical resurrection is impossible so then any other explanation has to be better.Frankly, assuming these guys are theists, (or more likely deists), then presumably they believe that we are the result of a greater intelligence. This then means that at some point we would require a miraculous event to get things rolling. Why then would they deny any possibility of another miraculous event?If we accept the possibility that it is possible for God to intervene in this way then the bodily resurrection of Jesus fits much more plausibly into the accounts that we have than any other explanation IMHO.

Hi JazznsSorry to be so slow replying but I just haven't had the time. I don't disagree with that. Frankly if the 2nd book, assuming it was written by Paul, is trying to explain away the fact that Jesus hadn't returned again then I would be fine with that. I'm just not convinced that it is the case. As far as your last statement is concerned you are probably right, but I wasn't trying to make the point in order to prove it's accuracy. My point is only to try and understand what Paul meant by what he wrote. Well I'd say yes and no. If you go back another verse Paul writes that "there are those who are saying peace and security and then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labour pains.......".They lived in turbulent dangerous times. Paul is writing about the destruction of war.Paul then goes on to say though that they are sons of light and that and as he says in verse 9 that they are not destined for wrath but that that they are destined for salvation and so they should not live in fear. IMHO what is plain reading for us in the 21st century does not give clearly the same understanding as it would a 1st century Thessalonian. I agree that even if what you said is correct it would not diminish the character of God. As I said, I am just trying to understand Paul’s point as he intended to have it understood. We have no indication who it is from but Paul is saying that it should be disregarded as the revolt in Judea hasn’t begun let alone the destruction of Jerusalem. In verse two Paul says that the Day of the Lord hasn’t yet happened and that they should disregard any letter or message that has told them otherwise. If the term Day of the Lord was referring to the final return of Christ they would have hardly needed a letter from Paul to tell them that.The Day of the Lord is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. That is not going to happen until the rebellion has commenced. As Paul says from your quote:

quote:

---

For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.

---

Jesus’ political message was that the way to defeat the Romans was through His message of changing Roman hearts by loving them, by turning the other cheek and going the extra mile. He told them that the coming revolution was going to bring about their destruction. I believe that His whole message is that it isn’t our enemies be they Roman or anyone else that is the real enemy, but that the enemy is evil itself and the only way to defeat evil is through His message of love, forgiveness, mercy, truth justice etc.The man of lawlessness would be referring to the Roman emperor in all likelihood. Not that long after the death and resurrection of Jesus the Roman emperor Gaius Caligula believed himself to be in some sense divine. He was angry with the Jews anyway and had a huge statue of himself placed in the Temple in Jerusalem. If he hadn’t been murdered in AD 41 there Roman-Jewish war would likely have begun 25 years earlier.I believe that Paul saw this as important because Jesus had taught that these things would happen before He came again and of course He also taught that no one except the Father knew the hour or the minute. (Thankfully for us it has been a good many minutes and hours. ) I know that the authorship of this letter is controversial but personally I believe that it was written by Paul. In order to better understand the NT from a non-Christian perspective I have a great book compiled by the Jewish NT scholar utilizing her own work in collaboration with other Jewish scholars. The book is entitled The Jewish Annotated New Testament and I recommend it. It seems that the authorship question seems largely to be based on the understanding of the meaning of the letter. If you are correct in your understanding then it probably wasn’t written by Paul. If however my understanding is correct, ( the scholar that I primarily use for this understanding is again N T Wright), then it is fairly safe to assume that the writer actually is Paul. People still say today that the Kingdom of God has already come. That is actually the essence of the Gospel message but as Jesus says, it is not a kingdom of this world. It is a Kingdom for this world that is meant to bring Christ’s message of truth, peace, forgiveness and love to the world in anticipation of the time when time itself comes to an end. This has nothing to do with the failure of the end times prophesy. I recommend N T Wright’s newest book How God Became King, or Scot Mcknight’s book The King Jesus Gospel. As I have already said, it is my view that the we who are alive ‘ part is written to alleviate the concern for loved ones who had already died and to reassure them that their position would be no different than anyone who was still alive whenever it is that Christ returns. The thief in the night is about the coming destruction that will result from the coming rebellion. Well in one sense he did come back with the resurrection but also as to the time of final judgement He said that no one knows the hour or the minute. Any idea that the time was imminent would have been from their own speculation. For reasons I have already given I disagree. Essentially The Day of the Lord was used to indicate God’s judgement on Israel for the times they failed to follow Yahweh. As a result it was used to indicate destruction at the hands of their enemies or it could mean God’s final judgement. Here is an example where it is clearly being used to indicate the former from Zachariah 14:

quote:

---

1 A day of the LORD is coming when your plunder will be divided among you. 2 I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city

---

The idea that the Day of the Lord could be used to denote the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem by the Romans is that it would be the result of not following the non-violent teachings of Jesus.

Essentially he is saying that it could have been that way or it could just be them doing their best to put into words something they had no language for.
As for the last statement, I have to admit I have had difficulty understanding how you can keep missing the obvious. In a sense this goes to the heart of my understanding of the NT accounts. Yes the books of the NT are either specific letters or as in the case of the Gospels they are compilations of earlier writings and oral accounts put together to form a complete narrative. Yes, there would have been interpretation of what it all meant and there would be disagreement.I’ll engage in a little cognitive dissonance for a minute and assume that deep down you do really believe in the resurrection of Jesus, and so we’ll look at the NT in light of that.We read through the Gospels and see consistently that the disciples just didn’t get it. We have them arguing over who is going to sit at His right and left hand where they clearly have the idea that Jesus is going to lead them in a successful revolution with the help of Yahweh. There are times when they seem to be getting it but in a sense they are projecting on to Jesus their own aspirations.In the end Jesus goes to the cross and they see the whole movement coming to a crashing halt as so many previous movements had done. But then comes the resurrection. What now? There has been no revolution but they now see Jesus as being vindicated by the one Jesus called Father. Now they have to go back into the history and the readings and sort out what it all meant. They have to sort out what it means to their own lives. We don’t know what Jesus told them other than what is left to us.Initially there didn’t seem to be a great need to write about things as the eye witnesses would still have been around, but as the years passed it became obvious that they would require the stories to be documented. In these stories they would be influenced by their own understanding of what was to be understood about the meaning of the resurrection was and what message it was that Jesus taught and how they were to react to it. I’m sure there are some stories that were distorted with the result that there are inconsistencies in the various accounts. As I’ve said before I would be far more distrustful of stories that were completely congruous.Things haven’t changed today. Just as our knowledge of the natural world continues to grow it is my belief that through good scholarship our knowledge of what Christ’s life meant for the world continues to grow. Just as modern scientists build their knowledge on the findings and even the errors of their predecessors, modern theological scholars build on the work of their predecessors. Yes All we can do is speculate. I certainly agree that Jewish religious belief would have been very much tied in with their nationalistic aspirations.I don’t agree that there was a violent side to His ministry unless you are talking about knocking around a few tables. He did agree that His message would result in divisions even in families. I guess it would be like someone in Holland in 1942 telling his family and neighbours that the way to defeat the Nazis was to love them. There just might have been some serious discussion around that idea.Our thoughts on Judas are mere speculation but I think that there would be a strong likelihood that He viewed Jesus as someone who would be a thorn in the side of the revolutionaries. Of course maybe he was just being mercenary. Obviously Paul believed in a resurrection. Also obviously we have to understand what Paul means by resurrection. Here is what N T Wright has to say on the subject from a talk he gave recently.

quote:

---

1. Resurrection in the First Century

​

We begin with the central meaning of resurrection in the first century. After generations of confusion we must reaffirm that the Greek word anastasis and its cognates really do refer to a new bodily life given to a human body that had been dead. Anastasis was not a clever or metaphorical way of speaking of a ‘spiritual’ or ‘non-bodily’ survival of death. The ancient Greeks and Romans had plenty of ways of speaking of such a thing, and anastasis was not one of them. Some people still suggest that when the first disciples said that Jesus had been raised from the dead what they really meant was that his cause, his kingdom-agenda, would continue, or that they had a sense of his continuing presence with them, forgiving them their failures and encouraging them to carry on with his work. Well, they did indeed believe his kingdom-agenda was going on, and they did believe he had reconstituted them to carry that work forward; but the reason they believed both of those things was because they really did believe he had been bodily raised from the dead, leaving an empty tomb behind him. This was not, as is sometimes suggested, a mere ‘resuscitation’, a return to exactly the same sort of bodily life as before; but nor was it a translation into a non-bodily mode. When Paul describes the resurrection body as ‘spiritual’, the word he uses does not mean ‘a body composed of spirit’, but ‘a body animated by spirit’ — or, in this case, by God’s spirit.[2]

​

I have argued elsewhere that we cannot understand the historical rise of the early Christian movement unless we take as basic their belief that Jesus really was raised in this bodily sense. Of course, one might say that they were mistaken; but I have also argued that the best reason for the rise of that belief is that it really did happen. The other explanations — that the disciples were the victims of a delusion, that one or more of them saw a vision of Jesus such as has often been reported by people after someone they love has died, and so on — simply do not hold water historically. To mention only the last of these: such visions were as well known in the ancient world as they are today, and the meaning of a vision like that was not that the person was suddenly alive again, but rather that they were indeed well and truly dead.

​

But I want to move on from that argument. This is not only because I and others have made the case at some length already. It is also because it is easy to be distracted by the question ‘but did it happen?’ from the question ‘but what does it mean?’ As we consider Jesus our contemporary, the event remains vital but the meaning is all-important. We in the church have often downgraded the meaning into terms of private spirituality or the hope of heaven; but it goes far deeper and wider than that.

​

The question ‘But did it happen?’ was the question asked by the Enlightenment, not only about the resurrection but about a great deal besides. Some devout Christians have shied away from this question, believing with Proverbs 26.4 that if you answer a fool according to his folly you will be a fool yourself. In this instance, I have taken the opposite view, based on Proverbs 26.5, that you must answer the fool according to his folly, otherwise he will be wise in his own eyes. It remains enormously important that we investigate the historical origins of Christianity. As the Holy Father himself has insisted, what actually happened in the first century matters, because we are not Gnostics: we believe in a God who came into the very stuff and substance of our flesh and blood and died a real death. Yes, and rose again three days later.

​

My argument, however, is not that we can somehow ‘prove’ the resurrection of Jesus according to some neutral, objective canon of plausibility. That would, indeed, be to capitulate to the folly of the Enlightenment. My argument, rather, is that we can, by historical investigation, reveal the folly of all the other explanations that are sometimes given for how Christianity got going in the first place. This forces us back to the much larger question, which of course the Enlightenment did not want to face: might it after all be the case that the closed worldview of some modern science is incorrect, and that the world is after all created by and loved by a God who is not distant, detached and unable to act within the world, but rather by a creator who remains mysteriously present and active within the world in a thousand ways, some of them dramatic and unexpected?

​

I have often used as an illustration the idea of a college or school being given a wonderful painting by an old member. The painting is so magnificent that it must be displayed, but there is nowhere in the present college buildings that will do it justice. Eventually the college decides to pull down some of its main buildings and rebuild them with this picture as the central feature. Then, in doing so, they discover that several things nobody really liked about the college the way it used to be — the layout, the architecture, the inconvenient rooms — were solved in the new arrangement. The gift was rightly given to the college, but the college, in order to accept it, had itself to be transformed. That, I suggest, is what happens with the resurrection. You can’t fit it (of course) into the modernist worldview of the European Enlightenment. But, when you dismantle the eighteenth-century Deism which insists on God and the world being utterly separate, and when you demolish the pseudo-scientific prejudice which says that the space-time world is a closed continuum of cause and effect, you find that not only will the resurrection of Jesus make excellent sense; it will address, and help you solve, all kinds of other things about the modern worldview which have caused, and still cause, problems. We might, for a start, look at the modern western systems of democracy and finance . . .

​

But to return to the first century. Many Jews (not all) believed in bodily resurrection as the ultimate destiny of all God’s people, perhaps of all people. They clearly meant bodily resurrection, as we see (for instance) in II Maccabees 7. But it won’t do simply to say that the early Christians, being devout Jews, reached for that category in their grief after the death of Jesus. The early Christian view of resurrection is utterly Jewish, but significantly different from anything we find in pre-Christian Judaism. There, ‘resurrection’ was something that was supposed to happen to everyone at the end, not to one person in the middle of history. Nor had anyone prior to the early Christians formulated the idea that resurrection might mean the transformation of a human body so that it was now still firmly a human body but also beyond the reach of corruption, decay and death. Nor was there in early Christianity, as there was in Judaism, a spectrum of belief about life after death. They all believed in resurrection — that is, in a two-stage post mortem reality: that those who belonged to Jesus would die, would then rest ‘in the hand of God’ (Wisdom 3.1), and would then at a later stage be raised. In some of my writings I have referred to the first stage as ‘life after death’, and to the second as ‘life after life after death’.

​

One of the most striking differences between Christian belief and pre-Christian Jewish belief is that nobody expected the Messiah to be raised from the dead — for the obvious reason that nobody expected the Messiah to be killed in the first place. We have evidence for plenty of messianic or would-be messianic movements in the century or so either side of Jesus. They routinely ended with the violent death of the founder. When that happened, his followers faced a choice: give up the movement, or find yourself a new leader. We have evidence of both. Going around saying your leader had been raised from the dead was not an option. Except in the case of the followers of Jesus of Nazareth.

​

I conclude from all this — which could of course be spelled out at much more length — that we can only understand early Christianity as a movement that emerges from within first-century Judaism, but that it is so unlike anything else we know in first-century Judaism (and the unliknesses bear no resemblance to anything in the pagan world) that we are forced to ask what caused these mutations. The only plausible answer is that they were caused by the actual bodily resurrection, into a transformed physicality, of Jesus himself. Put that in place, and everything is explained. Take it away, and everything remains puzzling and confused. Of course, there is a cost. One cannot simply say, ‘Well, it looks as though Jesus of Nazareth was raised from the dead’ and carry on with business as usual. If it happened, it means that a new world has been born. That, ultimately, is the good news of Easter, the good news which the rationalism of the Enlightenment has tried to screen out and which the church, tragically, has often forgotten as well. But to address this we need to move to the next section of this lecture.

---

Here is the link to the whole talk.
‘Christ is Risen from the Dead, the First Fruits of Those who have Died’It is not that I’m ignoring them. I do however understand that the accounts are written by fallible humans doing their best to convey the truth of what happened.Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Interesting article and there is no doubt it happens. The question of course is that what happened to the disciples.I just don't think that the argument for it being the case holds up. I don't see it as something that they would have imagined to be the case, or even something that they would have desired to have happen.I also believe that if it was a case of cognitive dissonance that the eventual narratives would read very differently. For example it wouldn't show the disciples as being such dolts and for that matter in showing Peter, one of their primary spokesmen, as behaving so cowardly.

Sorry to be slow responding but I’ve been away on a brief vacation. I’ll reply to all of the posts to me as I find time but for now I’ll just quickly address the question of cognitive dissonance.IMHO cognitive dissonance makes no sense. In order for them to have experienced cognitive dissonance they would have required some previous idea of what it was they were describing. Jesus often referred to Himself as The Son of Man which He drew from Daniel and particularly Daniel 7. We then go to read in chap 10 and read about a Christ like figure.

quote:

---

4 On the twenty-fourth day of the first month, as I was standing on the bank of the great river, the Tigris, 5 I looked up and there before me was a man dressed in linen, with a belt of the finest gold around his waist. 6 His body was like chrysolite, his face like lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and his voice like the sound of a multitude. 7 I, Daniel, was the only one who saw the vision; the men with me did not see it, but such terror overwhelmed them that they fled and hid themselves. 8 So I was left alone, gazing at this great vision; I had no strength left, my face turned deathly pale and I was helpless. 9 Then I heard him speaking, and as I listened to him, I fell into a deep sleep, my face to the ground. 10 A hand touched me and set me trembling on my hands and knees. 11 He said, "Daniel, you who are highly esteemed, consider carefully the words I am about to speak to you, and stand up, for I have now been sent to you." And when he said this to me, I stood up trembling. 12 Then he continued, "Do not be afraid, Daniel. Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them.

---

This would have been the type of experience that we would expect if they were experiencing cognitive dissonance. There is no Gospel account of a face like lightning etc.Then in Daniel 12 we read the following.

quote:

---

1 "At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people--everyone whose name is found written in the book--will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. 4 But you, Daniel, close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge." 5 Then I, Daniel, looked, and there before me stood two others, one on this bank of the river and one on the opposite bank. 6 One of them said to the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, "How long will it be before these astonishing things are fulfilled?" 7 The man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, lifted his right hand and his left hand toward heaven, and I heard him swear by him who lives forever, saying, "It will be for a time, times and half a time. When the power of the holy people has been finally broken, all these things will be completed." 8 I heard, but I did not understand. So I asked, "My lord, what will the outcome of all this be?" 9 He replied, "Go your way, Daniel, because the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end. 10 Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand.

---

This describes the Jewish understanding of what resurrection would look like. We don’t see the disciples describing Jesus coming back shining like a star. In the revolt in 135AD Simon Bar Kosiba was given the name Bar Kokhba which meant son of the star as taken from Numbers 24:17. Any idea that the messiah would return after death would be understood in expansive writing that would include luminosity, stars etc.Again, in the story of the transfiguration we have an account of Jesus whose face shone like the sun’ and His clothes turning white. Instead of that we have Jesus eating fish and being very physical.I cannot see any evidence that an experience of cognitive dissonance that would lead them to the experiences that they describe. They would have had no anticipation expectation or even hope that Jesus would be resurrected in the manner that they describe. I just do not see cognitive dissonance as being at all plausible.

Cognitive dissonance is more than that. It isn't just finding a way to keep the movement going. It is about them actually believing something that is born out of a desire for it to be true, but is in contravention of the facts. The point is though, that if this were the case they would at the very least come up with something that would be consistent with existing scriptures or something that they would have in some way anticipated. There was no thought that anyone would be resurrected in the manner that they describe. I quoted Daniel 7 because Jesus often did particularly in calling Himself "Son of Man". They would come up with something like the transfiguration but they would have no reason to come up with the resurrection stories that are in the NT. It is more than that. This is from Daniel 7.

quote:

---

13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

---

The "son of man" may well be human but he is also anointed by God.

I do happen to believe that Paul wrote Thessalonians 2 but I agree that it is an open question as to authorship though. I don’t think that I’m being defensive, as it is just a subject that came up that we were discussing and I gave my opinion. I have to disagree with that. If Marcion had won his position the world would have become even more anti-semitic than it has been.I see it this way. In spite of what Paul K says I believe that the evidence for the bodily resurrection Of Jesus makes far more sense than any of the other alternatives. I believe that the resurrection came as a complete surprise to His followers. Since that time theologians and scholars such as Paul have been piecing everything together to make sense of what it all meant. The material that they have were the memories of the disciples and any of His other followers, some of which would have been oral and some which would have been written down, thorough the Hebrew scriptures through which Jesus drew His own self understanding, and through God working through human imagination.I see us currently in a period of a revival of human understanding of God working in and through us thanks to the proliferation of new material such as the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as access to so much through the internet. As I’ve said earlier I see N T Wright as being the leading scholar in this regard. I read N T Wright’s commentary and he agrees. The end part of 1 Thes 4 is about Christ’s return in Jewish apocalyptic style. The first part of Chap 5 is about their current situation. The Roman propaganda was that the peace would hold without problems. Paul is saying that the Roman message is not to be trusted.Essentially Paul seems to be bringing things together this way. He is talking about Christ coming again when all things will be put right. He then talks about the fact that there are turbulent times ahead but that that by remaining faithful they can be encouraged by the fact that in the end all is well.Paul had started out the letter in 1:3 by saying We continually remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ. The whole letter is about encouraging their faith even in troubled times. I’m sorry but I’m not clear about your point here. I can’t see where I’m not believing Him. I certainly agree with Kingdom of God theology. Well, if you are right and the letter was written after the revolt then my argument doesn’t hold water. I’m of the opinion that Paul did right it making it prior to the revolt. I think I provided evidence that the term Day of the Lord is about God’s judgement which can be understood eschatologically, politically and militarily. Jesus preached against violent revolution and Paul’s letter is a continuation of that political theme. Absolutely they believed that the Kingdom of God was present and that they were part of it. That Kingdom as established by Jesus would reach its fulfilment when Christ returned again. I’m not clear on your point here. Hopefully my last paragraph clears it up. Firstly, I have no doubt that many followers of Christ at that time expected Jesus to return in their lifetimes. This group may have included Paul. I don’t know. There have always been people in all ages who have believed that, and as Jesus had been with them so recently the people of that era would have been more likely to anticipate that than people are today.However here is the passage from Luke 21.

quote:

---

20 "When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. 25 "There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. 26 Men will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. 27 At that time they will see the Son of Mancoming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near." 29 He told them this parable:"Look at the fig tree and all the trees. 30 When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near. 31 Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near. 32 "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. 34 "Be careful, or your hearts will be weighed down with dissipation, drunkenness and the anxieties of life, and that day will close on you unexpectedly like a trap. 35 For it will come upon all those who live on the face of the whole earth. 36 Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man." 37 Each day Jesus was teaching at the temple, and each evening he went out to spend the night on the hill called the Mount of Olives, 38 and all the people came early in the morning to hear him at the temple.

---

Look at the first verse(20) in the quote. It is talking about Roman soldiers. Look at verse 21. If this was about Christ’s return what would be the point of fleeing to the mountains. Look at verse 23. If it is about the end of the age why would anyone be in distress whether they are pregnant or not? Look at 24. It is obviously about the fall of Jerusalem. Look at 25 — 26. This is Jewish apocalyptic writing
Turbulent upheaval when taken with the earlier verses would be the destruction of Jerusalem.With that backdrop let’s look at verse 27 and then at the same time look at Daniel 7 vs 13-14.

quote:

---

13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

---

Luke is obviously referring back to this passage in Daniel. In Daniel’s vsion which is taken from a heavenly perspective we see the Son of Man coming to the Ancient of Days’. It is not about Him coming to the Earth.The point Luke, (Jesus), is making is that this. All along Jesus is telling them that violent revolution is going to lead to the destruction of Jerusalem. (The earlier verses in Daniel 7:1-8 were about the great beasts which represented the nations that brutalized the Israelis, which is consistent with this understanding of Luke.) I’m not even suggesting that He knew this from being able to look into the future. He is saying though that if they keep it up the Romans will do what they always do. Now Jesus is saying that when they see that happen then His message will have been vindicated and that they will then be able to know that His political message was correct and that they will understand that Daniel’s vision will have been fulfilled, including His Kingdom as told in verse 14 in the quote from Daniel 7.In verse 28 we can see that then they will know that their redemption is assured and so they should lift up their heads. In verses 29-31 He is just saying that there will be better times ahead after the time of destruction as He will have established His Kingdom and that it is near to them.Now in verse 32 Jesus is saying that this will all happen within a generation which it did in the war of 66-70AD. I agree that there is a harsher tone to Thes 2 and that is an argument that supports your position. I may not have made my position clear. The Kingdom of God had already been established either by Jesus prior to the crucifixion or at the time of Pentecost. I don’t see the Kingdom of God as being anything but real and not a metaphor. In 1 Thes 4 Paul is writing about Christ’s return in Jewish apocalyptic style, (not to be understood literally) and in chap 5 he is talking about social turmoil with the message that they should be comforted because in the end all will be well because of his message in chap 4. Firstly as I said earlier the Day of the Lord can’t be referring to Christ’s return as if it were there would be no need for a letter to tell them it had already occurred. I understand Paul’s point to be that he is referring back to again to the quote from Daniel 7 when Christ comes to the Ancient of Days and establishes the kingdom of which they are a part. Paul understanding that the rebellion and the results of it will be the vindication or proof of the message of love and peace that Jesus brought and so he does tie the two together.Lets’ extend your quote from the NIV. (I don’t know what translation you used.)

quote:

---

1 Now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2 for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 While people are saying, "Peace and safety," destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. 4 But you, brothers, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief. 5 You are all sons of the light and sons of the day. We do not belong to the night or to the darkness. 6 So then, let us not be like others, who are asleep, but let us be alert and self-controlled. 7 For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk, get drunk at night. 8 But since we belong to the day, let us be self-controlled, putting on faith and love as a breastplate, and the hope of salvation as a helmet. 9 For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. 10 He died for us so that, whether we are awake or asleep, we may live together with him. 11 Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing.

---

Again, it is a message of encouragement so that when the great upheaval happens they will know that in spite of all that they can be assured that Daniel’s vision will have been fulfilled and that Jesus’ Kingdom has been established and that all will be well, so they should go on living lives that are holy and that they should, as Paul says, build each other up which is what he is trying to do with this letter.My only purpose is to try and understand within context what the Thessalonians would have understood when they read this letter. Frankly I’m not trying to defend and particular position. I’m just like you, searching for truth in an ambiguous world.

If it is based on fact it isn’t cognitive dissonance but of course it is important that they don’t know it contravenes the facts. I think we likely do agree on that. I agree OK. Here is what you said. So you are saying that they experienced some form of vision or hallucination of Jesus after the crucifixion. WE all know of people who believe rightly or wrongly that they have experienced the presence of loved ones after they have died. In this case we have groups of people experiencing a post-resurrection Jesus. Also, if this was the case it would only mean to them that Jesus had gone to be with the God and they would be reassured but they wouldn’t have called it a resurrection.Even if you are right it sure seems to me that it would be a case of cognitive dissonance to get from that to a Jesus who they believe is physical and eats fish. Which is the point I’m making.I am saying though that in order for cognitive dissonance to occur there has to be some expectation of what it is that they have come to believe and in this case that expectation doesn’t exist. You are splitting hairs. All of the Gospels use the term Son of Man repeatedly and if you go to Revelation you can see the term used as well. For example: Rev 14:14: I looked, and there before me was a white cloud, and seated on the cloud was one "like a son of man" with a crown of gold on his head and a sharp sickle in his hand.

I accepted Christianity about 30 years ago largely based on the writings of C S Lewis. Having said that when I go back and read Lewis now I find so much more there than I did originally. In all honesty a great deal of it may just have been that someone with his intellect was a Christian and what he said generally was very plausible.After that I went along as a Christian for many years in a general sense in roughly the same manner that I think most Christians do but about ten years ago I decided that I wanted to do more than just go along. I decided to figure out just what it was all about. It is so easy just to use Bible verses to give an explanation to everything without having to go beyond that.In terms of the topic of this thread it was relatively easy just to ignore things that seemed odd or that were in conflict with other parts of the Bible. I never really believed that it was dictated by God but I certainly tried to understand it in somewhat that manner. Frankly just about all Christians I know do that and frankly when I look at their lives in general I don’t think that it is a bad route to go, but I had decided that I wanted more.In addition to theology, I was also very interested in science, although I had absolutely no background in it. I started reading on the science side Hawking, Greene, Sagan and others. For Christian scholarship I went back to Lewis, and then N T Wright in particular, along with several others including Tim Keller. I read Dom Crossan and Marcus Borg, although where they are in conflict with Wright I found Wright’s views to be more compelling. In addition there were several authors, most notably John Polkinghorne, Alister McGrath and Francis Collins who combined their scientific knowledge with their Christian beliefs. For the last several years this forum has been very helpful in both fields as well.With that as background I’ll try to stay on topic and summarize my current views.To start with I’ll quote myself from the OP.

quote:

---

Firstly I contend that it is more plausible to believe that human intelligence and morality are more likely to have evolved from an intelligent moral first cause than from mindless particles without even considering the question of a first cause for the existence of particles.

​

On the assumption then that we have evolved from an intelligent moral first cause then it is more plausible to assume an ongoing interest and interaction by that pre-existing intelligence than not.

---

I can’t prove that position but I personally find it much more compelling than the idea that existence and sentient life are the result of an incredibly fortunate combining of atoms, in a very fortunate environment that is able to support such an existence.I have come to believe that the Bible is written by a large body of men who have been inspired to write down their stories and their understanding of God. Much of what is written would have been drawn from their own experience, but likely a great deal more of it was drawn from either the oral tradition or from earlier written material. The fact that they were inspired does not make what they wrote inerrant but I believe that when taken in context of the entire narrative we can always learn from it and in many cases we can learn from it is a negative sense. (In other words where they talk about Yahweh condoning genocide or stoning we can look at the entire context of the much wider narrative and understand that this was not of God but came from the human condition of a lust for pride and power.)I believe that what we have done for a variety of reasons, that has largely grown out of the reformation, is that we have allowed the Bible to become the focus of Christian worship, instead of understanding the Bible as one way of gaining an understanding of God and His character. As Christians we are called to be Jesus followers and by seeing Jesus as the anointed one through whom God revealed Himself to His creation. Of course our source for that is the Bible and IMHO there is the one essential in the story that is required so that the Bible is more than just history and the teachings of a 1st century teacher/philosopher/prophet. That essential is of course the resurrection. It isn’t that the resurrection proves Jesus’ divinity but it does vindicate His ministry. As is obvious from the discussion with PaulK there are different views on the truth of the resurrection and for that matter just what did resurrection mean to the authors. I found two books in particular very useful in this regard for seeing both sides of the issue. The first one was a debate between Marcus Borg and N T Wright and the second was a debate between Dominic Crossan and N T Wright. All three are renowned N T scholars who have come to different conclusions.In the end I am firmly convinced of the fact that Jesus was bodily resurrected. The question then is, in light of that, how do we understand the Bible. As far as Jesus and the OT go I see it this way. Yes there prophesies in the OT in which we can understand as in a sense foretelling Jesus even though I don’t think that is how the original authors would have seen it. I believe that in most, if not all cases the authors were actually talking about Israel itself and its future with Yahweh as King. I believe that Jesus came to understand that He was standing in the place of Israel and that God would act through Him, through Israel, for the world. Being the ultimate lay person I hunted around until I found something by Wright that covers this and I think this essay from a web site devoted to him largely covers this. JERUSALEM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT by Tom Wright. It is a bit of a read but worthwhile for anyone who is truly interested.Then we also have to decide how it is that we are to understand the NT. I don’t believe that the N T authors are infallible either but I do believe that what they have written is a relatively accurate account of the events and teachings surrounding Jesus and that 3 year span of time. Once again, the essential part is the story is the resurrection. Without that then the Jesus stories are of no more importance than a collection of sayings by Mahatma Gandhi. Yes there are inconsistencies and there is disagreement, but when we look at the variety of views held by Christians today it would be very surprising to me that there wouldn’t be differences in the views and details of what we have written in the NT. Each writer would have their own personal and cultural influences along with their own understandings of what it all meant, and we are still trying to sort it all out today.It is my view that we continue to gain knowledge and that it is in a sense a parallel or even a continuation of human evolution. I’ve mentioned this book before but I found the book by Robert Wright who calls himself a materialistic agnostic titled The Evolution of God interesting in this regard. IMHO we should form our theology by our own experiences, by the experience and wisdom of others, by the Scriptures and by science which I view as a natural theology. Our understanding and knowledge of God continues to evolve.I have found that this understanding of the Scriptures, along with my Christian faith has given me a sense of the world that is highly consistent with my own life experience, human history and also with my very limited understanding of science and the natural world.That is a very long answer to one short paragraph. I think that this just reinforces my point. If we read the Bible the way I believe that we should, and read those passages in context, then it is all meaningful. But what is plainly read by you today may very well be very different than what would have been plainly read by a 1st century Thessalonian.Here is an excerpt from the talk/essay by N T Wright that I provided the link for earlier.

quote:

---

This understanding of Jesus’ message is confirmed as we turn to St. Paul and note his
clear awareness that the days of Jerusalem, as he knew it, were strictly numbered. This is how his conviction must be interpreted that the ‘day of the Lord’ was imminent. Contrary
to the thinking of both scholars and pietists of many backgrounds, Paul was not
envisaging the ‘Parousia’ as an event which had to take place in his lifetime, and which
would result in the ending of the space-time order. If that were so, how could he possibly
write in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2 that the church should not be alarmed if they received a
letter saying that the ‘day of the Lord had come’? If Paul meant by ‘the day of the Lord’
the end of the space-time universe, the Thessalonians would presumably not need to be
informed of the fact via the Roman postal service! Instead, Paul here reflects the early
Christian tradition, going back to Jesus himself, according to which Jerusalem was to be
destroyed, and according to which that destruction was to be interpreted as the wrath of
God against his sinful people. In the same Thessalonian correspondence, Paul asserted
that the wrath of God had indeed come upon them ‘to the uttermost’ ( 1 Thess. 2:16.)

​

It is this awareness of an imminent end to the way the Jewish world had looked for
so long, rather than an imminent end to the space-time universe, that drove Paul on his
mission with such urgency. From his own point of view he lived in an odd interim
period: judgment had been passed on Jerusalem, but not yet executed. There was a
breathing space, a ‘little time’ in which people could repent, and in which the message
of Jesus could spread to Gentiles as well as Jews (though it always remained, for Paul, ‘to
the Jew first’). When Jerusalem fell, Jews on the one hand would undoubtedly blame
those who had reneged on their Jewish responsibilities, including those Jewish Christians
who, like Paul, had been enjoying fellowship with pagans and regarding it as the
Kingdom of God and the true expression of the covenant God made with Abraham. On
the other hand, Gentile Christians would probably respond by regarding Jews as an odd
early stage in the purposes of God, allowed in at the beginning of the new worldwide
movement but now destroyed or at least marginalised. It was in order to avoid this
double danger, which would mean that the principalities and powers had won after all
and that Christ had not after all created a new humanity, that Paul engaged on his
mission, with the aim of creating Jew-plus-Gentile churches on Gentile soil before the
fall of Jerusalem. This explains both the urgency of his mission and the language in
which he expressed that urgency. It also explains the collection of money which he took
to Jerusalem: this was not just an example of poor-relief, but a demonstration to Jewish
Christians that Gentile Christians were in solidarity with them and a reminder to Gentile
Christians that they were a junior part of the same olive tree.

---

Jesus’ message was also very much a political message. Instead of armed rebellion against the Romans He espoused a message of peaceful co-existence. As Wright says, He didn’t see the Romans as the enemy. He saw the enemy as being evil itself and you can’t combat evil with armed rebellion. The only weapon against evil in the final analysis is love. You can change peoples’ behaviour by fear, but you can’t change their hearts that way.The resurrection of Jesus vindicated His message and His messiahship but the result of the revolt would be the vindication of His political message vis-a-vis the Romans and they would then know that Daniel’s vision of the Son of Man in Daniel 7 and become reality in and through Him. My point would be that Paul sees a connection between the two if for no other reason than he believed that the parousia, (whatever that might look like), could not take place until after the revolution and the destruction of Jerusalem. Absolutely. He is saying that the revolt in spite of what they might have heard had not begun. If the Day of the Lord was referring to the parousia they wouldn’t require a letter to advise them of it. It would be the destruction of Jerusalem and specifically the temple which be precipitated by the rebellion. No, my point is that in 1 Thessalonians 5 Paul is saying that when the rebellion and the results of the rebellion come that they should be encouraged because they will know that Jesus has been enthroned in the language of Daniel 7. They should be encouraged and that they should arm themselves with the breastplate of love and faith and the helmet of the hope of salvation. The discussion is valuable for me as well. Thank you. My search for what I believe to be truth has actually removed a great deal of the ambiguity for me. It has made sense of so much for me. Yes there is ambiguity and maybe I can explain how we live with the ambiguity in an unambiguous way. . All through the Bible and in all religions as far as I can tell we find rules or laws. There are the shall and the shall nots. I think that the message of Jesus - the Christian message — is that the laws are a foreshadowing or a path to the real thing. Paul writes, (I can’t remember where off hand), that all things are permissible for him but not all things are good for him. It isn’t about what we do or don’t do that is what makes us what we are, but it is the desires of our heart. Look at the Lord’s Prayer. We are forgiven as we forgive. True forgiveness by humans can only come from the heart. Yes we can give up the right to seek revenge but it is all together something different to actually desire that the one who has given us grief will prosper. In other words, it isn’t about what we do or don’t do, IMHO it is about where our hearts are — do we love selfishly or unselfishly — can we find our joy in the joy of others and so on.The point of all that is that there is ambiguity about how genuine love is played out in our daily dealings but the call to love unselfishly and even sacrificially is unambiguous.Hope this helps.
Cheers
Greg

But my point is that there is NO basis for their particular belief as it is entirely beyond any previous expectation that they might have had. I’m sure we all know of people who have lost someone close to them. They might say that their dead loved ones are with the Lord or that on some way or another they are ok, but they don’t conclude that they are alive again. Also these occurrences are with individuals not with groups of people.If what you suggest had been the case, the obvious reaction would have been that He was with Yahweh and that they might even say that in some way or another He was reigning on high but it is a huge (and in my view unbelievable), stretch, to think that they would come up with anything approaching the story that they tell. People then, just as much as people now, know that death is final. The stories that the NT tells concerning the resurrection is outside of what anyone would have anticipated.Paul’s first letters were within 20 years and Mark was probably compiled within about 30 years of the time of the resurrection. Paul dealt directly with the eye witnesses of the resurrected Jesus and was so convinced that he completely reversed the direction of his life both spiritually and physically.And actually we don’t know how much the disciples had to do with the Gospels. Quite likely they aren’t directly the authors but it is very likely that they had a lot of input into them either orally or from something that they had written. Well I believe that I have, it is that just that you don’t accept it. Maybe prior expectation is the wrong term to use so I’ll just say that there would have resolved the conflict with something that would have been consistent with the Jewish understanding of things.Here is a quote from N T Wright from his book Simply Christian.

quote:

---

One theory which would go against this conclusion [that the rise of Christianity is best explained by Jesus' bodily resurrection] was very popular a few years ago but is now widely discredited. Some sociologists suggested that the disciples had been suffering from ‘cognitive dissonance’, the phenomenon whereby people who believe something strongly go on saying it all the more shrilly when faced with contrary evidence. Failing to take the negative signs on board, they go deeper and deeper into denial, and can only sustain their position by shouting louder and trying to persuade others to join them.

​

Whatever the likely occurrence of this in other circumstances, there is simply no chance of it being the right explanation for the rise of the early church. Nobody was expecting anyone, least of all a Messiah, to rise from the dead. A crucified Messiah was a failed Messiah. When Simeon ben Koshiba was killed by the Romans in AD 135, nobody went around afterwards saying he really was the Messiah after all, however much they had wanted to believe that he had been. God’s kingdom was something that had to happen in real life, not in some fantasy-land.

​

Nor was it the case, as some writers are fond of saying, that the idea of ‘resurrection’ was found in religions all over the ancient Near East. Dying and rising ‘gods’, yes; corn-kings, fertility deities, and the like. But — even supposing Jesus’ very Jewish followers knew any traditions like that — nobody in those religions ever supposed it actually happened to individual humans. No. The best explanation by far for the rise of Christianity is that Jesus really did reappear, not as a battered, bleeding survivor, not as a ghost (the stories are very clear about that), but as a living, bodily human being.

---

For both of us though we view this from different starting points. My starting point is that I am a theist. Your starting point is presumably as an atheist or possibly agnostic accepting the possibility of a deistic god. (If I’m wrong in that just let me know.) As a Theist, based on, amongst other things, what I wrote in the OP, then the resurrection stories as told in the NT is IMHO by far the most plausible answer for the historical accuracy of what happened. As an atheist, (if I may take the liberty of calling you that), the idea of God bodily resurrecting Jesus is completely implausible. If you give any credibility to the accuracy of what is in the Gospels then I just can’t see how there can be ant doubt about the fact that Jesus saw himself in the position of the Son of Man in Daniel’s vision. This is from Matthew 16:

quote:

---

13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" 14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15 "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." 20 Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

---

Obviously Jesus had tied together the messianic themes and Daniel’s vision in His own self understanding. As an aside I’m not at all convinced that Daniel actually understood his vision to beabout an individual. I’m inclined to think that he understood the son of man to be Israel itself. I believe that Jesus saw Himself as the Son of Man as He saw Himself standing in for Israel and that the Jewish history up to that point was coming to its conclusion in and through Him. From that point of view there is nothing that can be considered relevant in the whole Bible. As for the temporal distance we don’t actually know. We can be pretty certain that the Gospels weren’t compiled in their present form for decades after the resurrection but we have no idea when the writings on which the Gospels were based were written.I don’t doubt that after the resurrection people went back to their scriptures to understand what had happened but the term son of man occurs 83 times in the NT of which 78 times are in the Gospels. (Interesting, I just looked that up.) I think that we are very safe in assuming that Jesus actually applied the term to Himself and that the use of the term is much more significant than it only meant that He was human. The question that needs answering is whether He got it right or not and on that we obviously disagree.

It is very easy to sit back today and be critical of their scriptural understandings.(I'd also be very careful about using terms like the rest of the Jews. They were a very diverse group in the same way Christians are today.) Jesus drew from the Scriptures a very different understanding in one way or another, (as near as we can tell today), than any one else. Certainly the disciples didn't get it until after the resurrection and frankly we are still trying to understand it today.In some ways it is like us trying to understand the Gospels written in the first century in 21st century terms. The Hebrew Scriptures had been written hundreds of year before their time. You also have to remember that people then, just as they do now, intertwine their religious beliefs with nationalism, even though in the case of Christianity it is very clear that that is exactly what we are not supposed to do.AS I said to Paul, in the case of Daniel I don't think that there is much doubt that Daniel himself would have understood the "Son of Man" figure to be representative of Israel. He would have understood his vision to mean that at the end of all the trials that they faced at the hands of the beasts, (representing the nations that conquered Israel and sent them into exile), that there would be the subsequent vindication of Israel for their faithfulness. Jesus it seems reinterpreted that vision in such a way that He would stand in for Israel and that their vindication would happen through Him.

Hardly, it had happened to every other messianic claimant in that era. Once again, there were all the other messianic movements including the Maccabees. No. The Maccabees anticipated their resurrection without specifying a time but in this quote it obviously implies that it would be at the end of time along with all Israel. This is statement on resurrection in Macc. 2:7-13.

quote:

---

And when he was near death, he said, "One cannot but choose to die at the hands of men and to cherish the hope that God gives of being raised again by him. But for you there will be no resurrection to life!"

---

There is no claim of immediate resurrection and we can see that he is referring to an ultimate time frame when he tells the king that he will be unable to anticipate a resurrection for himself.My point was simply that after they died nobody went around suggesting that they had seen the brothers resurrected. Sure he had a visionary experience initially but he then went around preaching a risen Jesus. He obviously would have had considerable contact with the disciples before he took his show on the road.This is from 1 Corinthians.

quote:

---

12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. 20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.

---

That sounds pretty clear to me. On what do you base your statement that there was likely no input from eye-witnesses? I’d say that it would highly unlikely that there wouldn’t be input from eye-witnesses. As I pointed out earlier Luke starts off by saying that he used earlier documents. Greek was in common usage at the time so that suggests absolutely nothing. The point was simply that if their beliefs were a result of cognitive dissonance then their beliefs would have been based on something that fit their understanding of what they might have anticipated. Wright often writes about Maccabees 2. It just wasn’t included in that particular quote. He writes about Maccabees here. The Resurrection of Resurrection. Wright has written extensively on the resurrection including this book, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 3) which I’m currently reading and is over 700 pages. Please take my word for it that he mentions the fact that there was a belief amongst of some first century Jews of a general resurrection eschatologically. I agree that this situation could provoke cognitive dissonance, (except again I would point out that it didn’t in the case of any other messianic movement), but my point, which you don’t accept, that the form the accounts took are not plausibly the result of cognitive dissonance. Also it is frankly IMHO inconceivable that a movement based on the story of someone rising from the dead is going to have any traction when it starts in a community where many would know the truth of what happened or didn’t happen.

You are making a ridiculous connection where there is none. One of the brothers claimed that they would be resurrected and that the king wouldn’t be. Once they were dead there is no record of any followers because the movement which had been successful ended. Nonsense. Here is what I said. The point was that this was a situation where cognitive dissonance would have been much more likely to occur but it didn’t. The Maccabean revolt had been highly successful as they had defeated the Syrians, established the Hasmonean dynasty which had ruled Judea for 100 years and died heroic deaths. Paul’s conversion was due to a visionary experience his theology was gained from his Pharisaic background and discussions with the disciples. Let’s just compare this ridiculous statement with what Acts 9 actually says.

quote:

---

19 and after taking some food, he regained his strength. Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. 20 At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God. 21 All those who heard him were astonished and asked, "Isn't he the man who raised havoc in Jerusalem among those who call on this name? And hasn't he come here to take them as prisoners to the chief priests?" 22 Yet Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Christ. 23 After many days had gone by, the Jews conspired to kill him, 24 but Saul learned of their plan. Day and night they kept close watch on the city gates in order to kill him. 25 But his followers took him by night and lowered him in a basket through an opening in the wall. 26 When he came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he really was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. He told them how Saul on his journey had seen the Lord and that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had preached fearlessly in the name of Jesus. 28 So Saul stayed with them and moved about freely in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord. 29 He talked and debated with the Grecian Jews, but they tried to kill him. 30When the brothers learned of this, they took him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus. 31Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria enjoyed a time of peace. It was strengthened; and encouraged by the Holy Spirit, it grew in numbers, living in the fear of the Lord.

---

Did you actually read Acts 9?Let’s break down parts of what you said. Acts 9 from the above quote says, Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. I doubt they spent a great deal of time discussing the weather. For that matter as he had been persecuting members of the movement he would have already had knowledge of what they were claiming. From Acts 9.

quote:

---

26 When he came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he really was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. He told them how Saul on his journey had seen the Lord and that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had preached fearlessly in the name of Jesus. 28 So Saul stayed with them and moved about freely in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord.

---

That speaks for itself and your argument. Yes there was a belief that there would be a general resurrection but there is no record of any expectation that an individual would be resurrected ahead of the general resurrection. That has been my point all along and you keep misrepresenting what I’ve written. Read Josephus, there is a fair bit known about them. They may have had problems accepting that their messiah was dead but they didn’t claim resurrection for them. Well you claim that they had some sort of visionary experience but it would take cognitive dissonance to get from that to what they preached. All it would have taken is for one person to display the body and there was no shortage of people who would have wanted to do that. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:

quote:

---

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

---

That should be clear enough for you but likely not.

OK, except I don’t accept that description of what Paul wrote. Paul was a Pharisee and IMHO a brilliant theologian. He is writing from a different perspective than the writers of the Gospels. The Gospels are essentially the narrative of the ministry of Jesus whereas the Pauline epistles are Paul's understanding of how the Gospel narrative applies to the lives of Jesus' followers. In addition Paul is also writing to establish, build-up and inform the early Christian communities.Of course Paul could have it wrong but IMHO his writings are an accurate reflection of the Gospels and of course he is also utilizing the same Hebrew Scriptures that Jesus used. Obviously we only have a very small part of what Jesus said and did and so it is obvious that in some cases Paul would be referencing something Jesus said of which we have no record. I agree completely that Paul; could be wrong in 2 Thessalonians and the "context of the book" would not be violated. I think that maybe you are under a misconception. I am discussing what Paul meant as a separate discussion. You seem to be tying the metanarrative in with the discussion on Thessalonions. I see the issues separately. From the point of view of my Christian faith, I'm ok no matter which one of us is right.You seem to think that I have set the context, (the context being the total narrative of the what God has done, what He is doing and to a lesser degree what He will do), but that understanding has largely come from the books themselves which in turn have been confirmed through other sources. I absolutely agree that I can maintain my beliefs if your interpretation is correct. I just think my interpretation of that passage and its authorship happens to be the right one. I see it this way. Jesus brought a spiritual message but He also brought a political message. His spiritual message was that there would be a day when our world in time as we know it would end and that there would be a general judgement upon the world.His political message was that militant revolution was not the way to go in spite of the Roman atrocities. He promoted the doctrine of "loving one's enemies" with the idea that the only way to win the battle was to change hearts. His political message then was that if their militancy continued that Jerusalem and the Temple itself would be destroyed.I think that Paul is tying Jesus' spiritual message and His political message together. I believe that Paul sees the resurrection as vindicating Jesus' spiritual message and I see the destruction of the Temple as vindicating His political message. I think Paul ties them together by saying that Christ's return isn't going to happen until the destruction of the Temple occurs and that won't happen until the rebellion is started.I do want to emphasize again though that this view is taken in isolation to the metanarrative and if I was convinced that I was mistaken it wouldn't impact my overall beliefs. Paul may well have thought that it was likely that Christ would return in his life time. I think that it would be part of human nature as we still see today. People have always thought that they were in end times and there is a very good possibility and some scriptural indications that this was the case for Paul. Actually my understanding of this passage doesn't even preclude the idea that Paul may have thought that way. Paul could easily have believed that the rebellion, the destruction of the Temple and the return of Christ would all happen in his life time. It is interesting to try and sort that out but I'm happy with either conclusion.We are only discussing what it was that Paul was referring to in these passages in Thessalonians. If the author isn't Paul then so be it. That would be fine with me. I just happen to believe it is. However, in that era it was common for people to write what they believed would reflect the views of someone else. (It is unlikely that Matthew wrote the book of Matthew for example.) So even if Paul didn't write it doesn't necessarily make it a forgery. Obviously if the Thessalonians received the letters a couple of decades after Paul's death they just might figure out that it wasn't Paul who wrote it, but someone who was attempting to use Paul's teaching to apply it to their current situation.So even if Paul didn't write it I don't see that it should be considered a forgery. We should then judge the writer's views on their own merits.