Discovering God

[razeontherock]

Paul was beheaded in Rome during the reign of Nero, allegedly, according to tradition, around the same time Peter was also martyred.

Together

Stephen, another believer, was stoned to death as told in Acts, and a not as of yet converted Paul was there and oversaw it.

Not merely oversaw it, but was the one bringing charges, and insisting upon this gruesome punishment.

 

[razeontherock]

Why do the NT writers putting their lives on the line make him correct but Joseph Smith's followers not?

LDS weren't ewewitnesses. The 12 Apostles were. For them to have fabricated it, makes no sense. They could not have simply been deceived, they would have had to make it up themselves.

1st generation LDS could have simply been deceived. Nobody else saw through them magic glasses ... (trying to pass on the magic underwear connection joke)

 

[smaneck]

Could you point out which parts you feel are written by someone other than Isaiah, and which parts are more authentic? Any ideas on when the more recent parts were written?

Dear Ray,

Just because I believe the Book of Isaiah has more than one author does not mean I think the more recent chapters are any less authentic scripture.

Chapters 40-66 are often referred to as Deutero-Isaiah because they are written in a totally different style and at a different period that the earlier chapters. Some have suggested that the very last chapters were written by still another author, but I've seen strong evidence for only two authors. The author of Deutero-Isaiah is writing towards the end of the Babylonian Captivity, when Cyrus is on the move but has not yet taken Babylon. One of the reasons scholars believe this was an authentic prophecy (as opposed to one written after the fact) is because not everything predicted comes to past.

I do not believe that just because a text is pseudopigraphic that it can't contain the Word of God.

warmest, Susan

 

[razeontherock]

I have my doubts about everything written being an exact history. Plenty of them, in fact. What is history and what is allegory is a very interesting discussion, but not one for here.

However, if you believe something and share that, it is fine. I believe many things. If you would like to convince others ...

Please notice that no part of the Gospel includes "convincing others." In fact, the thread title is apt: "discovering God."

 

[razeontherock]

What proof do you have that the Gospels were not written far later by people who were never there?

When they were actually written matters not. They were public knowledge, recited daily. More to the point, performed in such a way that nearly the whole Church would have been involved in the production before too long. You couldn't come along and substantially change something in your recording of it, w/o that change being challenged and overthrown.

IOW, within God's Kingdom, the testimony of His Saints absolutely is evidence. Always has been, and always will be.

 

[razeontherock]

I don't think Stephen ever met Christ in the flesh.

An interesting question! If we were to date the event, and compare that to Stephen's age, it's almost impossible that Stephen hadn't been aware of Jesus' entire 3 1/2 year earthly ministry. Of course, that doesn't tell us where Stephen was during it ... (please note that here your criteria here is neither here nor there wrt to the Kingdom of G-d)

 

[razeontherock]

Not only that, but we only have the death of one Apostle in the text.

Pretty sure that's false

Paul and Judas at the minimum. Peter is prophecied to be martyred by no less than Jesus, so that's a take it to the bank in the text.

Who else?

Even taking the text at face value, there is no basis for saying that all of them died for their beliefs. Do we even have a clear record of what all of them ended up doing?

Yeah, we do. The Church is big on the lives of the Saints.

 

[LoAmmi]

When they were actually written matters not. They were public knowledge, recited daily. More to the point, performed in such a way that nearly the whole Church would have been involved in the production before too long. You couldn't come along and substantially change something in your recording of it, w/o that change being challenged and overthrown.

Proof that this occurred would be appreciated. I have seen you make the claim, but it is something I have never heard claimed previously and something I have found no evidence to support.

 

[LoAmmi]

Pretty sure that's false

Paul and Judas at the minimum. Peter is prophecied to be martyred by no less than Jesus, so that's a take it to the bank in the text.

Who else?

Which Judas are we talking about?

Where is it recorded that Paul died?

You don't get to take it to the bank just because it says it will happen.

Yeah, we do. The Church is big on the lives of the Saints.

I assume you mean built.

No, you have the Church's existence. That proves absolutely nothing about the Apostle's deaths.

 

[LoAmmi]

Every one of the original 12, with the possible exception of John the Revelator / theologian / beloved. We have already established that this is unique among religions, and that you still manage to poo-poo it's significance - just because you do.

We are discussing the claim right now. You claim it occurred and make it unique. Did it happen though is a far greater question. The evidence is, well, simply tradition. That's fine, but not convincing.

 

[razeontherock]

Dear Ray,

Just because I believe the Book of Isaiah has more than one author does not mean I think the more recent chapters are any less authentic scripture.

Chapters 40-66 are often referred to as Deutero-Isaiah because they are written in a totally different style and at a different period that the earlier chapters. Some have suggested that the very last chapters were written by still another author, but I've seen strong evidence for only two authors. The author of Deutero-Isaiah is writing towards the end of the Babylonian Captivity, when Cyrus is on the move but has not yet taken Babylon. One of the reasons scholars believe this was an authentic prophecy (as opposed to one written after the fact) is because not everything predicted comes to past.

I do not believe that just because a text is pseudopigraphic that it can't contain the Word of God.

warmest, Susan

Thanks This is the impression I got from my first read through. At first I was like "oh, Jeremiah part 3." 33 chapters of that, straight, is not a good Rx.

 

[razeontherock]

Proof that this occurred would be appreciated. I have seen you make the claim, but it is something I have never heard claimed previously and something I have found no evidence to support.

But be honest, you're not really looking for such evidence

When I encounter such, it is for the purposes of my own learning. I don't create some storehouse of footnotes so I can play internet gotcha.

Tell ya what, if I encounter a link I'll PM it to you if there's not a current thread that's appropriate at the time. Basically, the texts are designed in such a way that no other understanding is even plausible. Personally, I wonder if the 4 Gospels didn't come about via the Director being relieved, periodically, changing small details to better represent their own conception of things.

Of course John could be entirely different if you ask me

 

[razeontherock]

Which Judas are we talking about?

Iscariot

Where is it recorded that Paul died?

We see the progression clearly

You don't get to take it to the bank just because it says it will happen.

Speak for yourself (I get to make withdrawals, too)

I assume you mean built.

No, I meant exactly what I wrote.

No, you have the Church's existence. That proves absolutely nothing about the Apostle's deaths.

We already established this isn't about proof

 

[razeontherock]

We are discussing the claim right now. You claim it occurred and make it unique. Did it happen though is a far greater question. The evidence is, well, simply tradition. That's fine, but not convincing.

How do you define tradition? No differently than how you got the Torah; except for being written about 1,000 years closer to the event, and certainly within the natural lifespan of the eyewitnesses.

 

[LoAmmi]

But be honest, you're not really for such evidence

I am not sure why you believe you can read my mind.



I have read the Gospels. My opinion is that 2 copy from 1 and John is all on its own. No performances needed, nothing magical required.

I would be quite surprised to learn that Early Christians put on performance pieces when I'm also told that they were killed for their beliefs. Seems like a contradiction but what do I know?

 

[LoAmmi]

How do you define tradition? No differently than how you got the Torah; except for being written about 1,000 years closer to the event, and certainly within the natural lifespan of the eyewitnesses.

Surely Saving Private Ryan was made within the natural lifespan of people who fought WWII. That does not make it true, of course. Texas Chainsaw Massacre is said to have been based on a true story. (It wasn't).

Further The Amityville Horror was supposedly written by people who experienced the event, but pretty much all evidence suggests it was entirely fake.

Without someone proving that those that wrote the text were also willing to die for it, and not later people who were believers, the uniqueness is gone. So far the proof is that later people said they did, and by later I mean a long time later.

But I will let it drop. To be honest, the answer is going to be that the proof is the tradition or something very close to it. If you have some actual evidence, I would be interested.

 

[razeontherock]

I would be quite surprised to learn that Early Christians put on performance pieces when I'm also told that they were killed for their beliefs. Seems like a contradiction but what do I know?

We know the killing didn't start til after 70AD. That leaves a time period you aren't accounting for, and texts neither of us have seen.

 

[LoAmmi]

We know the killing didn't start til after 70AD. That leaves a time period you aren't accounting for, and texts neither of us have seen.

Really? I thought the Jews were killing all the ones they could find. I mean, if you'd like to tell me what I believe (the Jews and the early Christians weren't mortal enemies), that's fine. But we have the issue of Paul going around killing people to fly in the face of that.

 

[razeontherock]

Really? I thought the Jews were killing all the ones they could find. I mean, if you'd like to tell me what I believe (the Jews and the early Christians weren't mortal enemies), that's fine. But we have the issue of Paul going around killing people to fly in the face of that.

No, we have Christianity known not as such, but as "the Way," as a sect within Judaism, and meeting in the Temple daily; just not obstructing Jewish Temple worship, which seems more than fair.

Tensions between Jews and Christians generally, rose as Jews mistrusted Christians over that whole Temple destruction / siege on Jerusalem thing. This is how my side of the fence presents it, while your's has a different take that I can't recall at the moment. This much seems reasonable, as C's had been warned by G-d ahead of time to get the heck out of Dodge, which would of course make Jews suspicious that they had been traitors.

I'm not sure if Saul of Tarsus was the only high ranking Jew authorized by Rome to kill Christians, but Rome didn't take such a thing lightly. As such, it wasn't commonplace. They relished being the ones to dole out death far too much to share it too liberally. It certainly didn't happen in the Temple! As I'm sure you know, certain things were off limits there. No doubt that contributes to why Christians assembled there.

 

[LoAmmi]

It certainly didn't happen in the Temple! As I'm sure you know, certain things were off limits there. No doubt that contributes to why Christians assembled there.

Praying to a man would have been cut off right away though. It would have been viewed as desecrating the Temple. So, they certainly were not doing a performance piece there that included Jesus being HaShem.