Choosing a faith

We see this in other cases where it was the rejecting of the Christianity that he knew, (although in this case he was well informed so it doesn't really apply here), but in rejecting Christianity he seems to have rejected theism at the same time.For me resurrection is what defines Christianity. For reasons I have outlined elsewhere I am convinced that the resurrection was an actual historical event. If I were to lose that conviction I would simply revert to some form of theistic belief.

I have read many books on both sides of the argument about resurrection and I have come to the conclusion that without the resurrection Jesus would have been a failed messiah like about a dozen others.I know that's not enough for you guys but so be it. I'm not sure, possibly Buddhism, but you are probably right with the spiritual bit.

Sorry 'bout that. I took it as a serious reply written in a humourous , (and cleverly humourous at that), so I replied in a serious way.

I don't see that I ever saw it as a need. I lived just fine for the first half of my life and didn't feel a need for it. I decided in my 30's to consider it and I found that it mead sense to me after reading Mere Christianity. A number of years later I decided to go more deeply into it so I started studying books on theology and really basic science to better understand what IO believed, or what I didn't believe.All of that did result in many changes to what I believed but I remain a Christian. I think the rest of what I wrote was germane and you only copied hat was kind of a throw away remark.

There is the New Testament and the early church fatyhers.

Well, there are a number of things in the Bible that can be read into it in a fundamental way. I maintain the is Jewish hyperbole as I said before, but you insist on reading it as Faith would. I don't.

It DOES do away with the need for "Q". Once again here is the wiki site for the Two Gospel or Griesbach hypothesis.
Here is a quote from it.

quote:

---

The two-gospel hypothesis contrasts with the two-source hypothesis, the most popular and accepted scholarly hypothesis. Supporters say that it does not require lost sources like the Q source and was supported by the early Church. Proponents of the two-gospel hypothesis generally also support the traditional claims of authorship as accurate to disciples and their direct associates, which implies the gospels were written comparatively soon after Jesus's death, rather than the later dates of authorship supported by other schools of thought.

---

Many, and likely most at the time would have considered Him, a failed messiah. He hadn't mounted an army, let alone driven the Romans out of Israel. This is what, as was popularly believed, a messiah would do.Jesus had a different view of the Hebrew Scriptures and acted on it. In the Gospels however we can see that when Jesus was crucified the disciples headed for the hills not wanting top suffer the same fate. The resurrection changed all that.

I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse or not.
1/ The Griesbach hypothesis concludes Matthean priority.
2/ The Griesbach hypotheisis does not include Q
3/ Therefore with Matthean priority there is no "need" for Q.Matthean priority does not exclude "Q" but does not "need" it.With Matthean priority either position concerning Q can be argued. Yes, there are competing ideas about when the Gospels were written and the order in which they were written. Markan priority was based on the internal evidence by Streeter and ignored the external evidence.Here is a link to a book by Dennis Barton that outlines the history behind Markan priority as well as the arguments for it and outlines why Matthean priority is much more likely. You can select the chapters of interest, or just ignore the whole thing.Church HistoryOne point of interest is if "Q" actually existed then it would be more important to the early Christians and would have been preserved as more important than the Gospels. Also, the first church fathers would have referenced it as well. The Gospels point to a heavenly throne with His Kingdom being those that followed Him, without geographic boundaries. See Daniel 7.As for end times prophesies Jesus said that as to when only the Father knows. Most of the prophesies were part of His argument opposing violent revolution and what would happen if and when they went down that road. This of course was the case in 70AD. I would add that that I don't believe this was a supernatural prediction but a simple reading of the tea leaves. He was essentially saying that if you start a military conflict with the Romans then they will do what they always do and flatten the place.I agree that the early church believed that it would happen sooner rather than later but you still see some Christians believing the same thing today. Firstly the accounts were written by fallible human beings. Secondly they were individuals and knew different parts of the story. Yes there is discontinuity in the details.However, if this whole story was concocted then we wouldn't see these differences. They would have carefully aligned their stories.They are however, all in agreement that Jesus was resurrected just as witnesses to a car accident will give conflicting stories but they all agree that the accident occurred.

I think that I already answered this but I'll try again. Firstly we have Jesus quoted as saying only the Father knows. Jesus did not forecast a time of the end times, and yes some Christians have always been there to say that it is coming soon.The quote from Jesus about it happening in the life times of some that were alive then is not about end times at all. It is His message denouncing violent revolution. There was a strong faction in the country that advocated for a military revolution and Jesus realized that this was going to happen in the relatively near future. He is saying, using Jewish apocalyptic language that when it did happen, it would be best to head for the hills because the Romans would do what they always do. This all happened of source in 70AD with the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem itself.I am not saying that He knew that supernaturally. So much of the church have been so focused on seeing Jesus as wholly God they forget the wholly man nature. He would be the equivalent of those who predicted WW II in 1937. My Christian belief hangs on the contention that the resurrection was an actual historic event. The basic theistic part of my faith is simply the goodness of God and that as humans which should reflect that same loving goodness.

I agree, which IMHO is evidence of a deity that wants this to be a fundamental property of humanity. Truth is still truth with or without evidence. It is simply that we won't agree much of the time even when there is evidence, let alone when there isn't. You agreed that the Bible, (along with other holy books) is evidence, although it doesn't come close to constituting a proof.
​

How many times do I have to say it. IMHO Matthew is using hyperbole to make a point. Do I think that the rest of the parable is word for word what Jesus said; no I don't. I do believe that Matthew has captured Jesus in essence in the parable, which is consistent with the overall picture painted by the Gospels.Incidentally the NASB and the NIV translations both simply have it as eternal punishment - no fire.Even the, what does eternal punishment mean? In reading Lewis eternal punishment is about living in a world where predominate culture is self focused, as opposed to a world where the predominate culture is focused on the other.

Firstly a couple of things about the CS Lewis quote. Yes, Lewis understood it that way as has pretty much all of the church over the centuries. And I agree that Christians over the years have agreed with that. However, Christian scholarship has advanced significantly over the last 50 years. People like NT Wright, John Polkinghorne and a great many more with new material such as Qumron, with a much greater emphasis on the Bible in time and culture and with far greater access to all materials..
Lewis was not a theologian but IMHO was a great Christian philosopher.
Your quote is from Matthew 24. Here it is in context.

quote:

---

1 Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings.
2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”
4 Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you.
5 For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many.
6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.
7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places.
8 All these are the beginning of birth pains.
9 “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me.
10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other,
11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.
12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold,
13 but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.
14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—
16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.
17 Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house.
18 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak.
19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!
20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath.
21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.
22 “If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.
23 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it.
24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.
25 See, I have told you ahead of time.
26 “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it.
27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
28 Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.
29 “Immediately after the distress of those days “ ‘the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’
30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.
31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

---

As we can see in this passage it starts out with saying that the Temple will be destroyed and that people are going to suffer. He tells them that when the war starts to head for the hills. It talks about people being put to death. So when you see your quote in context it isn’t about the end of the world. It is a forecast of what is going to happen with a military revolution. I’m not saying that Jesus knew it supernaturally.
Much of the wild language in this passage are actually quotes from the both Daniel and Isiah. Look at verse 15 in the Matthean quote and then at this from Daniel 9.

quote:

---

26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.
27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.

---

This is about an event within human history, (during the Babylonian era), that will see tremendous suffering and destruction at the hands of the Babylonian Prince.
Now look at verse 29 from Matthew and compare it with this quote from Isiah 13.

quote:

---

9 See, the day of the LORD is coming —a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger— to make the land desolate and destroy the sinners within it.
10 The stars of heaven and their constellations will not show their light. The rising sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light.
11 I will punish the world for its evil, the wicked for their sins. I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty and will humble the pride of the ruthless.
12 I will make people scarcer than pure gold, more rare than the gold of Ophir.
13 Therefore I will make the heavens tremble; and the earth will shake from its place at the wrath of the LORD Almighty, in the day of his burning anger.

---

As is evident again Jesus is referencing these OT quotes and referring to earthly events. This is what He is forecasting that the Romans will do in reaction to a military revolution.I’ll repeat this verse from Matthew “30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.”Now with that in mind we can go to 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 nations and peoples 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.

---

Jesus had habit of referring to Himself as the “Son of Man” which was an obvious reference to this quote from Daniel. All through the Bible there is references to God speaking from a cloud and right back to the Exodus story where the Israelites were led by God with a pillar of cloud by day.
So, this isn’t about Jesus coming back to Earth but about Him coming to Yahweh, (the Ancient of Days).

It is also believed by Paul who had considerable close contact with the eyewitnesses as well as a little later on Papias.IMHO after having read and watched numerous debates on the issue, resurrection remains the most reasonable answer as to the rise of the early church instead of dying with Jesus on the cross. No, but there has to be a reason for their belief.

I agree with the first part and have stated that previously. Just how does Luke use Matthew if Matthew wasn't written first? It never was about an earthly throne. I just wrote a long answer to Tangle about the end time prophesies. I would add though that I don't believe that Jesus had supernatural knowledge about the future. Yes He predicted the war and what the Romans would do as a result. I agree that I overstated the case but we have the account of Peter denying Him and then this quote from John 20. However I pretty much agree with you
​

quote:

---

The disciples were afraid of the Jewish leaders, and on the evening of that same Sunday they locked themselves in a room. Suddenly, Jesus appeared in the middle of the group. He greeted them and showed them his hands and his side.

---

I agree either Markan or Matthean priority necessarily exclude Q. It kinda does beg the question then of why Streeter would come up with his hypothesis by using Q when there is no mention of it in any document. It would have been foundational in the early church had it existed. There are two lines of thought on what Papias wrote. The first is that the translation of Papias is that he wrote in the Hebrew style which could mean that he wrote it in Greek but with Hebrew references. Secondly simply that it has been lost. My own opinion from reading all that I could find, is that he wrote initially in Aramaic with the local audience but very soon afterwards translated into Greek for a much broader audience.I don't see why a very early Aramaic version would make a difference. Barton contends that it was available in Greek by 44AD. He talks about Q in Chap 8. In addition I bought and read the book Why Four Gospels by David Alan Black which is what me interested in the subject in the first place. Here is the quote 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 nations and peoples 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 was a messianic term which Jesus used often. It might not use the word throne but if you have a kingdom you probably have a throne. As I read the timeline He met them in Jerusalem and the told them to go to Galilee.