How can an atheist have a relationship with God?

[Athée]

Yes, I think we can expect our E-categories to remain as constructs in our minds that, although useful for our general lives, won't quite get good traction on all of God's engagement with our reality. And another problem is that there are limitations and complications (not just complexities) with the use of any theory of knowledge, and none of them is perfect and without needling disconnects in thought.

So, don't count your chicken eggs laying in a row in the Foundationalist's coop. They might not hatch as expected if the coop is placed in the wrong environment.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

What parts of God's engagement in our world could they get traction on do you think?
It seems to me that you are saying that it is possible that God might be the kind of thing that we can have a relationship with but not knowledge (in the justified true belief tradition) of. Is that close?

 

[victorinus]

I for one am willing to explore what he´s asking.

how will you know what he is asking?

 

[quatona]

how will you know what he is asking?

In the way we always try to understand what a person means: contextually, by the way he describes and asks, by means of additonal questions etc.
(Pretty much the same way us non-believers try to find out what exactly the respective believer means when saying "God", for example.)
Look, when a guy asks me "Why are the four canaries of a car changed in spring and autumn?", I know what he´s talking about even though his use of words isn´t found in any dictionary or etymology book.

 

[victorinus]

In the way we always try to understand what a person means: contextually, by the way he describes and asks, by means of additonal questions etc.
(Pretty much the same way us non-believers try to find out what exactly the respective believer means when saying "God", for example.)
Look, when a guy asks me "Why are the four canaries of a car changed in spring and autumn?", I know what he´s talking about even though his use of words isn´t found in any dictionary or etymology book.

what do you do when someone asks for your definition of a word?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What parts of God's engagement in our world could they get traction on do you think?

What parts? The answer to that will depend upon the person you're asking, Athée, and as to the quality of traction that that person perceives to actually obtain in any given situation. But, I'll offer the following ideas as my suggestions:

The parts of God's engagement in the world with which we most likely will gain substantial traction will be those that are, for the most part, simple and/or general. For instance, if we want to assert that Jesus was at the least a real, historical person, we can more than likely draw up some order of assertions about His presence in history that (may) qualify as justified true belief. We might also be able to discern some justification about which interpretations of the Bible more closely reflect any intentions of the 1st century authors of the New Testament. On a more practical level, we might be able to look at evidences about the legitimacy of some Church dogmas, such as the position of the Pope and decide that we can come down on one side or the other on the debate, and while doing so be recognized as having justified true beliefs about our conclusion. Now, I'm not saying that simple and general aspects of God's engagement will guarantee the traction of our Theories of Knowledge—because they are all still relative to some degree—but it is on this level that we will most likely have some basic areas in which many of us will not be too hard pressed to find agreement in large clusters, even if not unanimously.

On the other hand, those parts of God's engagement with the world that require us to go beyond the typical human means of sensory perception and cognitive rationality to identify and/or understand them, being that they are comparatively complex and specific, rather than simple and general, will offer much less in the way of definitive beliefs that most of us would discern as being justified and true. In this instance, I'd assert that the concept of the Trinity falls into this category; it is complex and specific rather than simple and general. It is not simple because it does not come at us with anything that can be qualified as merely “self-evident,” and it is not general, because unlike the conceptual relation that Jesus has as a human entity relating to the typical human discourses of human history and biology, the Trinity is conceptually “other” than human. In this instance, so too lie the various projections we all make about the nature of the Bible itself and as to just what it's being “inspired” really amounts too. So, here especially, our Theories of Knowledge will falter in gaining for us what may be accorded as definite and substantive traction, the traction many of us would like to have, and this can be the case even if it in reality the Trinity really does exist or the Bible is indeed “inspired” in some actual form outside the mere confines of our minds.

So, as you can see, even if we have Theories of Knowledge, they are susceptible to complications. As history already shows us, we will probably be able to use ToK's to guide some of our thinking in the creation of advanced apparati along with our other scientific endeavors, but these same theories will not likely take us as far as we'd like in establishing theological entities as being obviously justified true beliefs. We can attempt to do so, but depending on the complexity involved, we may instead be making a kind of category mistake when applying our theories (and thus have false expectations) about God's engagements in the world.

It seems to me that you are saying that it is possible that God might be the kind of thing that we can have a relationship with but not knowledge (in the justified true belief tradition) of. Is that close?

I'd say you're right at the door-step of understanding what I'm attempting to convey [Won't you please come on in and join me, Alice, and the Cheshire Cat at the table? ]. But, let me break this down a little: God is not going to shake hands with Cliffordian Evidentialism or even Cartesian Foundationalism, nor with any other specific epistemological structure, whether of knowledge or of the process of justification, that we can devise theoretically. In fact, as I stated before, various Epistemological Indices in the Bible suggest to me that God (in some way) pulls some of the strings on the perceptions and conceptions we have about His engagement with the world (or with us as individuals). Thus, our individual efforts to “relate” with Him will be, dare I say it, contingent. And because they are contingent, no one person will have the identical perceptions and conceptions/understandings that another person has about how relating to God should work exactly, and even if we are truly enlightened by God, we each on a human level will not perfectly agree as to what we think God is “showing us” at the moment, or as to how God is “relating” to us at the moment. But, what we can do on our part is respond to God as best we can, as well as come together to worship God in Christ on a corporate level.

To make things even more contingent, I also want to point out an upshot to what I've attempted to layout above. As you can probably tell, we face complexities with the extent to which our theories of knowledge may gain traction with the things of God, but there are many additional complications involved with Epistemology in and of itself, quite apart from Theology, that make simply being human and living in a diverse world a challenging cognitive task. Specifically, the upshot is that even if we think we've justified a true belief, this state of epistemic attainment may still not quite qualify as actual knowledge, or at least the recognition of such an attainment will be relative to the philosopher you ask …

Oh, well! At least we know the world we live in is real. Isn't it?

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[2 know him]

Hi Athee,

An Atheist cannot have a relationship with God. You see in order to have a real relationship with God you have to have intimacy with God and that comes through communing (Prayer and worship) with our Creator. But let me ask you this question: "have you ever prayed to God as an Atheist"? If the answer is yes, then you are really not an Atheist, but rather you're an agnostic.

Having stated that, I will suggest that you engage our Creator, as has been previously suggested, with sincerity and ask for our Creator to make Himself known to you.

God is not found in the physical, but rather in the Spiritual and one can only truly know God in prayer and worship, but one must have a honest disposition in order to receive an answer from our Creator.

You are not far from your God and God is not far from you, you have just been looking in the wrong place.

 

[singpraise]

This thread is very impressive and there are so many intelligent people here. I'm getting quite the education and I appreciate it.

The basis of real faith in God on a personal level, though, and obtaining a relationship with Him (if that is what Athee really wants) is simple, trusting and innocent - childlike. Clean.

All the noise in the head won't bring anyone into a relationship with God. Knowledge is good, knowledge is amazing. But the human intellect is one of the greatest stumbling blocks to faith in the God who saves.

If you learn a hundred scriptures, but don't have the humility to take it to the quiet, still place in your mind and to listen to His voice you're missing the whole point.

Atheists are some of the most highly intelligent, intellectual and great people around, on a human level (I know several, very nice people). But, their souls are not really alive (yet) in the same sense a believer's soul is alive.

Jesus is life and there is no other. Blocking Him out on purpose because of stubbornly holding onto "what I've always believed because all this highly superior book learnin' I received at Harvard.." Yeah. Not getting you anywhere.

The good thing is, once the Holy Spirit pursues someone who has even a small opening to Him in their heart He floods in in an unmistakably wondrous way that He can't be denied. Speaking from personal experience here. I have quite a bit of book learnin' myself, lol. Been there! (trying to block out God with the noise of knowledge in my head). He captured and enraptured me anyway, thanks be to God.

 

[Athée]

What parts? The answer to that will depend upon the person you're asking, Athée, and as to the quality of traction that that person perceives to actually obtain in any given situation. But, I'll offer the following ideas as my suggestions:

The parts of God's engagement in the world with which we most likely will gain substantial traction will be those that are, for the most part, simple and/or general. For instance, if we want to assert that Jesus was at the least a real, historical person, we can more than likely draw up some order of assertions about His presence in history that (may) qualify as justified true belief. We might also be able to discern some justification about which interpretations of the Bible more closely reflect any intentions of the 1st century authors of the New Testament. On a more practical level, we might be able to look at evidences about the legitimacy of some Church dogmas, such as the position of the Pope and decide that we can come down on one side or the other on the debate, and while doing so be recognized as having justified true beliefs about our conclusion. Now, I'm not saying that simple and general aspects of God's engagement will guarantee the traction of our Theories of Knowledge—because they are all still relative to some degree—but it is on this level that we will most likely have some basic areas in which many of us will not be too hard pressed to find agreement in large clusters, even if not unanimously.

On the other hand, those parts of God's engagement with the world that require us to go beyond the typical human means of sensory perception and cognitive rationality to identify and/or understand them, being that they are comparatively complex and specific, rather than simple and general, will offer much less in the way of definitive beliefs that most of us would discern as being justified and true. In this instance, I'd assert that the concept of the Trinity falls into this category; it is complex and specific rather than simple and general. It is not simple because it does not come at us with anything that can be qualified as merely “self-evident,” and it is not general, because unlike the conceptual relation that Jesus has as a human entity relating to the typical human discourses of human history and biology, the Trinity is conceptually “other” than human. In this instance, so too lie the various projections we all make about the nature of the Bible itself and as to just what it's being “inspired” really amounts too. So, here especially, our Theories of Knowledge will falter in gaining for us what may be accorded as definite and substantive traction, the traction many of us would like to have, and this can be the case even if it in reality the Trinity really does exist or the Bible is indeed “inspired” in some actual form outside the mere confines of our minds.

So, as you can see, even if we have Theories of Knowledge, they are susceptible to complications. As history already shows us, we will probably be able to use ToK's to guide some of our thinking in the creation of advanced apparati along with our other scientific endeavors, but these same theories will not likely take us as far as we'd like in establishing theological entities as being obviously justified true beliefs. We can attempt to do so, but depending on the complexity involved, we may instead be making a kind of category mistake when applying our theories (and thus have false expectations) about God's engagements in the world.

I'd say you're right at the door-step of understanding what I'm attempting to convey [Won't you please come on in and join me, Alice, and the Cheshire Cat at the table? ]. But, let me break this down a little: God is not going to shake hands with Cliffordian Evidentialism or even Cartesian Foundationalism, nor with any other specific epistemological structure, whether of knowledge or of the process of justification, that we can devise theoretically. In fact, as I stated before, various Epistemological Indices in the Bible suggest to me that God (in some way) pulls some of the strings on the perceptions and conceptions we have about His engagement with the world (or with us as individuals). Thus, our individual efforts to “relate” with Him will be, dare I say it, contingent. And because they are contingent, no one person will have the identical perceptions and conceptions/understandings that another person has about how relating to God should work exactly, and even if we are truly enlightened by God, we each on a human level will not perfectly agree as to what we think God is “showing us” at the moment, or as to how God is “relating” to us at the moment. But, what we can do on our part is respond to God as best we can, as well as come together to worship God in Christ on a corporate level.

To make things even more contingent, I also want to point out an upshot to what I've attempted to layout above. As you can probably tell, we face complexities with the extent to which our theories of knowledge may gain traction with the things of God, but there are many additional complications involved with Epistemology in and of itself, quite apart from Theology, that make simply being human and living in a diverse world a challenging cognitive task. Specifically, the upshot is that even if we think we've justified a true belief, this state of epistemic attainment may still not quite qualify as actual knowledge, or at least the recognition of such an attainment will be relative to the philosopher you ask …

Oh, well! At least we know the world we live in is real. Isn't it?

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

Lol, if you have solved hard solipsism by all means invite me to the Nobel celebration!

It seems to me that if what we are left with is a contingent and relational understanding (not knowledge) of God then we might be circling back to Hume and the idea of linking our confidence in the belief to the evidence. If it is the case that God exists and burdens our E-theories beyond what they can sustain then our recourse might be to punt to externalism to some degree. That is, we can be as confident that our belief is true as the application of those beliefs seems to generate consistent and coherent results. So if my theory of God T suggests that action A produces result R then the consistency with which A produces R would be my measure of confidence in T. The objection that I would raise against myself immediately is that if it is the case that God is not the sort of thing that can captured by T then we don't have any way of attributing meaning to A or R. That is, if it is possible on T that in the event of a both R and not R can be shown to be internally consistent with T, then any sort of confidence level becomes an exercise in futility as there is simply no way to get anything other than a positive result.
Am I making sense, I'm not sure anymore...time to go read Kant some more, at the very least he will make me feel like I communicated my ideas clearly by comparison!

 

[Athée]

Hi Athee,

An Atheist cannot have a relationship with God. You see in order to have a real relationship with God you have to have intimacy with God and that comes through communing (Prayer and worship) with our Creator. But let me ask you this question: "have you ever prayed to God as an Atheist"? If the answer is yes, then you are really not an Atheist, but rather you're an agnostic.

Having stated that, I will suggest that you engage our Creator, as has been previously suggested, with sincerity and ask for our Creator to make Himself known to you.

God is not found in the physical, but rather in the Spiritual and one can only truly know God in prayer and worship, but one must have a honest disposition in order to receive an answer from our Creator.

You are not far from your God and God is not far from you, you have just been looking in the wrong place.

If you prefer to call me an agnostic that is fine by me. I don't claim to know that no God exists, rather I would say that I am unconvinced that a god exists and my confidence in that belief is quite strong.
In any event it seems to me that you are saying that all I need to do is knock and the door will be opened. I assure you I have knocked many many many times and so far to no avail. I recognize that this doesn't fit well with your theology and so your likely response might be that I have not been truly seeking and knocking. All I can say inn response is that I don't know how to seek any harder than I have through reading the bible and praying towards a god I don't actually believe in anymore. Still nothing far...

 

[Athée]

This thread is very impressive and there are so many intelligent people here. I'm getting quite the education and I appreciate it.

The basis of real faith in God on a personal level, though, and obtaining a relationship with Him (if that is what Athee really wants) is simple, trusting and innocent - childlike. Clean.

All the noise in the head won't bring anyone into a relationship with God. Knowledge is good, knowledge is amazing. But the human intellect is one of the greatest stumbling blocks to faith in the God who saves.

If you learn a hundred scriptures, but don't have the humility to take it to the quiet, still place in your mind and to listen to His voice you're missing the whole point.

Atheists are some of the most highly intelligent, intellectual and great people around, on a human level (I know several, very nice people). But, their souls are not really alive (yet) in the same sense a believer's soul is alive.

Jesus is life and there is no other. Blocking Him out on purpose because of stubbornly holding onto "what I've always believed because all this highly superior book learnin' I received at Harvard.." Yeah. Not getting you anywhere.

The good thing is, once the Holy Spirit pursues someone who has even a small opening to Him in their heart He floods in in an unmistakably wondrous way that He can't be denied. Speaking from personal experience here. I have quite a bit of book learnin' myself, lol. Been there! (trying to block out God with the noise of knowledge in my head). He captured and enraptured me anyway, thanks be to God.

I'm not saying this to be combative but it seems to me that your approach is rather similar to gullibility. Moreover it is like a broken compass that points in a different dorection each time. Which is to say that if we apply this method for finding truth of childlike acceptance then we could with childlike faith and openers accept Islam, or Hinduism or even racism for that matter. It seems to me that there is nothing you couldn't just believe with this childlike faith and so as a method for discovering things that are true it ends up defeating itself.
Thoughts?

 

[quatona]

what do you do when someone asks for your definition of a word?

I´ll give it.

 

[Deadworm]

2. JESUS: CONNECTIONS WITH EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY AND EXTRABIBLICAL SOURCES:

This post is intended to address the philosophical distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions for credibility. I don't claim that these connections "prove" Jesus' claims, resurrection, and miracles. But these eyewitness connections do satisfy necessary conditions for credibility and thus should give pause to skeptical assumptions about Jesus.

(1) In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 Paul lists the sequence of resurrection appearances that he "in turn had received." Received from whom? Well, the answer can be found in Galatians 1:11-17 and 2:1-10. There Paul makes it clear that he made 2 trips to Jerusalem to consult first with Peter and Jesus' brother James, and then with Peter, James, and John, to validate His Jesus' story with eyewitness testimony. Paul notes that they made no corrections in his version of the Gospel. We can safely assume that the series of Easter appearances that Paul reports found confirmation in their testimony. More importantly, Paul is the last witness of the Risen Jesus and his resurrection appearance transforms him from a guilt-free hitman for the Pharisees into the greatest and most effective apostle. 3 times Paul celebrates his life-changing resurrection appearance, thus giving support to his travel companion, Dr. Luke's accounts in the Book of Acts.

(2a) Papias (60-120 AD) writes: "And [John] the Elder said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took special care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements."

Papias says he prefers "a living voice" to written documents. By this, he means that he prefers information that living disciples of Jesus (John the Elder and Aristion) and direct disciples of Jesus' disciples conveyed to him orally to written sources. Papias's learns from the eyewitness John that Mark was Peter's interpreter, a claim that finds independent support form 1 Peter 5:13). John's claim, mediated by Papias, that Mark wrote the Gospel that bears his name derives independent support from the Latinisms in Mark and from Justin Martyr of Rome who refers to Mark as "Peter's memoirs" (Dialogue with Trypho 106:3). Justin grew up in Samaria in the early 2nd century. Peter was martyred in Rome around 64 AD.

Interestingly, some eyewitnesses and those close to them complain that Mark mixes up the sequence of events in Jesus' life. But Peter never wrote an sequentially correct biography of Jesus. As John tells Papias, Mark knows not the sequence of events, but the actual incidents and miracles of Jesus' ministry, which he gleaned from Peter's teaching sessions for edifying purposes. Thus, this controversy indirectly attests an eyewitness connection with Jesus.

(2b) Papias writes: "Matthew put together the SAYINGS [Greek "logia"of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could."
The Gospel of Matthew is originally composed in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. For this reason, some scholars claim that Papias's source is mistaken. But Papias never says that Matthew wrote the Gospel; rather, he says that Matthew wrote a "sayings" collection, and Christians "interpreted them (the sayings) as best they could." This sounds like the modern sayings source Q that the scholarly consensus identifies as a sayings source used by Matthew and Luke, but not by Mark and John. Q is from the German "quelle" (= source). It represents the major sayings collection that was circulated east of the Jordan River. The Coptic Gospel of Thomas consists of 114 sayings of Jesus and represents the sayings collection that circulated east of the Jordan, and eventually found its way to Egypt. Q, then, is a translation from the original Aramaic. When Greek authors mention "Hebrew," they include "Aramaic," which is, after all, a Hebrew dialect. Apparently, an unknown editor combined Matthew's Q with Mark to produce the Gospel of Matthew and Matthew's name was extended from the Q source to the entire Gospel by association. In any case, Papias is a legitimate witness to a large sayings source traceable to Matthew, an eyewitness of Jesus. Even apart from this, if Mark is essentially giving us Peter's teaching notes, why wouldn't the apostle Matthew use Mark as one of his sources?

(3) The historical credibility of Mark's preservation of Peter's memoirs can be supported by striking details that are embarrassing and unlikely to be fabricated. Here are just 3 examples: (a) The Gospel concedes that Jesus' family considers him mad and actually tries to physically restrain Him (3:19-21). This rejection prompts Jesus to complain that no prophet is "honored among his own kin and in his own house (6:4)." Even John 7:5 sadly concedes, "His own brothers did not believe in Him." (b) Hostility at Nazareth creates an atmosphere in which Jesus "is unable" to perform miracles there. In other words, He apparently tries and fails! (The "except" clause in Mark 6:6 is recognized by scholars as a later gloss.). (c) Jesus does not succeed in curing the blind man at Bethsaida on His first attempt. A 2nd effort is needed to complete the healing (8:22-26). These embarrassing details are surely historical reminiscences and, as such, lend added credibility to Mark's most awesome miracle stories.

(4) Acts 16 begins the famous "we" passages in which Luke was an eyewitness to events recorded. Luke is present with Paul when Paul's companions meet with Jesus' brother James and the Jerusalem "elders," including the surviving eyewitnesses (see Acts 21). It is during these encounters that Luke evidently gains eyewitness sources for his own Gospel. Luke discusses his access to eyewitness testimony in the prologue to his Gospel (Luke 1:1-4). It is likely during this trip to Jerusalem that Luke gains access to Mark's Gospel, Q, and unique materials originally in Aramaic (called L by scholars).
Most intriguing is Luke's reference to "several" earlier Gospels. We can only be sure that uses Mark and Q. He apparently does not use Matthew or John. His allusion suggests the existence of other Gospels from eyewitnesses that got lost and might yet be discovered by archaeologists. This prospect is in my view the most exciting possibility for modern archaeological digs and searches.

 

[singpraise]

I'm not saying this to be combative but it seems to me that your approach is rather similar to gullibility. Moreover it is like a broken compass that points in a different dorection each time. Which is to say that if we apply this method for finding truth of childlike acceptance then we could with childlike faith and openers accept Islam, or Hinduism or even racism for that matter. It seems to me that there is nothing you couldn't just believe with this childlike faith and so as a method for discovering things that are true it ends up defeating itself.
Thoughts?

Not at all true. Hinduism and Islam are false religions. I'm far from gullible. I've studied many faiths/religions in depth and read many of their texts.

For many years I searched for the truth about God, and discovered that truth is only to be found in Christianity and a personal relationship with God. You can't scientifically "prove" the existence of God and you can't logic your way into believing.

You either have an open, yet discerning, mind and heart or you do not. You can stubbornly choose to keep God shut out for the rest of your life if you want to, because you have the free will (gift from God) to do so.

Good luck to you, I wish you all the best in your searching and on your journey.

 

[Athée]

Not at all true. Hinduism and Islam are false religions. I'm far from gullible. I've studied many faiths/religions in depth and read many of their texts.

For many years I searched for the truth about God, and discovered that truth is only to be found in Christianity and a personal relationship with God. You can't scientifically "prove" the existence of God and you can't logic your way into believing.

You either have an open, yet discerning, mind and heart or you do not. You can stubbornly choose to keep God shut out for the rest of your life if you want to, because you have the free will (gift from God) to do so.

Good luck to you, I wish you all the best in your searching and on your journey.

It seems like you are making my point for me. When investigating Islam and Hinduism you approached the topics with critical study, looking for evidence, fact, corroboration etc. But then you ask me to investigate Christianity with a childlike innocence. Why the different approach for your preferred religion, why didn't you approach Islam with childlike innocence and faith?

 

[Athée]

2. JESUS: CONNECTIONS WITH EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY AND EXTRABIBLICAL SOURCES:

This post is intended to address the philosophical distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions for credibility. I don't claim that these connections "prove" Jesus' claims, resurrection, and miracles. But these eyewitness connections do satisfy necessary conditions for credibility and thus should give pause to skeptical assumptions about Jesus.

(1) In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 Paul lists the sequence of resurrection appearances that he "in turn had received." Received from whom? Well, the answer can be found in Galatians 1:11-17 and 2:1-10. There Paul makes it clear that he made 2 trips to Jerusalem to consult first with Peter and Jesus' brother James, and then with Peter, James, and John, to validate His Jesus' story with eyewitness testimony. Paul notes that they made no corrections in his version of the Gospel. We can safely assume that the series of Easter appearances that Paul reports found confirmation in their testimony. More importantly, Paul is the last witness of the Risen Jesus and his resurrection appearance transforms him from a guilt-free hitman for the Pharisees into the greatest and most effective apostle. 3 times Paul celebrates his life-changing resurrection appearance, thus giving support to his travel companion, Dr. Luke's accounts in the Book of Acts.

(2a) Papias (60-120 AD) writes: "And [John] the Elder said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took special care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements."

Papias says he prefers "a living voice" to written documents. By this, he means that he prefers information that living disciples of Jesus (John the Elder and Aristion) and direct disciples of Jesus' disciples conveyed to him orally to written sources. Papias's learns from the eyewitness John that Mark was Peter's interpreter, a claim that finds independent support form 1 Peter 5:13). John's claim, mediated by Papias, that Mark wrote the Gospel that bears his name derives independent support from the Latinisms in Mark and from Justin Martyr of Rome who refers to Mark as "Peter's memoirs" (Dialogue with Trypho 106:3). Justin grew up in Samaria in the early 2nd century. Peter was martyred in Rome around 64 AD.

Interestingly, some eyewitnesses and those close to them complain that Mark mixes up the sequence of events in Jesus' life. But Peter never wrote an sequentially correct biography of Jesus. As John tells Papias, Mark knows not the sequence of events, but the actual incidents and miracles of Jesus' ministry, which he gleaned from Peter's teaching sessions for edifying purposes. Thus, this controversy indirectly attests an eyewitness connection with Jesus.

(2b) Papias writes: "Matthew put together the SAYINGS [Greek "logia"of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could."
The Gospel of Matthew is originally composed in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. For this reason, some scholars claim that Papias's source is mistaken. But Papias never says that Matthew wrote the Gospel; rather, he says that Matthew wrote a "sayings" collection, and Christians "interpreted them (the sayings) as best they could." This sounds like the modern sayings source Q that the scholarly consensus identifies as a sayings source used by Matthew and Luke, but not by Mark and John. Q is from the German "quelle" (= source). It represents the major sayings collection that was circulated east of the Jordan River. The Coptic Gospel of Thomas consists of 114 sayings of Jesus and represents the sayings collection that circulated east of the Jordan, and eventually found its way to Egypt. Q, then, is a translation from the original Aramaic. When Greek authors mention "Hebrew," they include "Aramaic," which is, after all, a Hebrew dialect. Apparently, an unknown editor combined Matthew's Q with Mark to produce the Gospel of Matthew and Matthew's name was extended from the Q source to the entire Gospel by association. In any case, Papias is a legitimate witness to a large sayings source traceable to Matthew, an eyewitness of Jesus. Even apart from this, if Mark is essentially giving us Peter's teaching notes, why wouldn't the apostle Matthew use Mark as one of his sources?

(3) The historical credibility of Mark's preservation of Peter's memoirs can be supported by striking details that are embarrassing and unlikely to be fabricated. Here are just 3 examples: (a) The Gospel concedes that Jesus' family considers him mad and actually tries to physically restrain Him (3:19-21). This rejection prompts Jesus to complain that no prophet is "honored among his own kin and in his own house (6:4)." Even John 7:5 sadly concedes, "His own brothers did not believe in Him." (b) Hostility at Nazareth creates an atmosphere in which Jesus "is unable" to perform miracles there. In other words, He apparently tries and fails! (The "except" clause in Mark 6:6 is recognized by scholars as a later gloss.). (c) Jesus does not succeed in curing the blind man at Bethsaida on His first attempt. A 2nd effort is needed to complete the healing (8:22-26). These embarrassing details are surely historical reminiscences and, as such, lend added credibility to Mark's most awesome miracle stories.

(4) Acts 16 begins the famous "we" passages in which Luke was an eyewitness to events recorded. Luke is present with Paul when Paul's companions meet with Jesus' brother James and the Jerusalem "elders," including the surviving eyewitnesses (see Acts 21). It is during these encounters that Luke evidently gains eyewitness sources for his own Gospel. Luke discusses his access to eyewitness testimony in the prologue to his Gospel (Luke 1:1-4). It is likely during this trip to Jerusalem that Luke gains access to Mark's Gospel, Q, and unique materials originally in Aramaic (called L by scholars).
Most intriguing is Luke's reference to "several" earlier Gospels. We can only be sure that uses Mark and Q. He apparently does not use Matthew or John. His allusion suggests the existence of other Gospels from eyewitnesses that got lost and might yet be discovered by archaeologists. This prospect is in my view the most exciting possibility for modern archaeological digs and searches.

I have a ton of things to do leading up to Christmas but I will reply as soon as I ha actually done some research on the points you are raising.
Peace
Athée

 

[singpraise]

It seems like you are making my point for me. When investigating Islam and Hinduism you approached the topics with critical study, looking for evidence, fact, corroboration etc. But then you ask me to investigate Christianity with a childlike innocence. Why the different approach for your preferred religion, why didn't you approach Islam with childlike innocence and faith?

First of all, I never once stated you shouldn't investigate Christianity with critical study, look for evidence, corroborate facts, etc. Of course you should do all of those things. I did them, too.

I searched for the truth about God, as I stated. There is only one truth about God. Please don't twist my words or my intentions regarding false religions or the truth about God (which is not a religion at all, but a relationship). You have no idea how I approached any topic all those years ago, so please do not presume to do so. I get that you're trying to make yourself out to be intellectually superior to me, fine. Perhaps you are intellectually superior. Good for you.

I get that you don't get my message to you, and that's also fine. There is no point to discussing it any more with you, although these other fine people here will do so, I'm sure. You're not familiar enough with Christianity to understand me when it comes to the "child like" verses spoken by Jesus, and I'm short on time.

Peace.

 

[Athée]

First of all, I never once stated you shouldn't investigate Christianity with critical study, look for evidence, corroborate facts, etc. Of course you should do all of those things. I did them, too.

I searched for the truth about God, as I stated. There is only one truth about God. Please don't twist my words or my intentions regarding false religions or the truth about God (which is not a religion at all, but a relationship). You have no idea how I approached any topic all those years ago, so please do not presume to do so. I get that you're trying to make yourself out to be intellectually superior to me, fine. Perhaps you are intellectually superior. Good for you.

I get that you don't get my message to you, and that's also fine. There is no point to discussing it any more with you, although these other fine people here will do so, I'm sure. You're not familiar enough with Christianity to understand me when it comes to the "child like" verses spoken by Jesus, and I'm short on time.

Peace.

Fair enough, I should not assume, so I will simply ask.
When you investigated the other religions did you approach their truth claims with childlike faith? What does childlike faith mean to you, how does it work in practice?
As for my understanding of Christianity you are welcome to rate my knowledge however you like. I considered myself born again for several years, have read the Bible through multiple times and continue to study it out of interest. It may be that from the lofty heights of your own knowledge that this seems woeful, in which case congratulations on your dillegence In any event, you are of course not obligated to defend you views or methodology in the face of my questions. That said, I hope you will continue the conversation, as I enjoy your thoughtfulness and insights.

Peace

 

[singpraise]

Fair enough, I should not assume, so I will simply ask.
When you investigated the other religions did you approach their truth claims with childlike faith? What does childlike faith mean to you, how does it work in practice?
As for my understanding of Christianity you are welcome to rate my knowledge however you like. I considered myself born again for several years, have read the Bible through multiple times and continue to study it out of interest. It may be that from the lofty heights of your own knowledge that this seems woeful, in which case congratulations on your dillegence In any event, you are of course not obligated to defend you views or methodology in the face of my questions. That said, I hope you will continue the conversation, as I enjoy your thoughtfulness and insights.

Peace

The short answer: Yes, I approached the investigation of other religions with an open mind.

I was raised Catholic, although no longer practicing (am now Protestant), I have much respect for it. I have never been an Atheist. I tried to not believe in God but it never made sense to me. I actually couldn't wrap my mind around how God possibly could not exist. I still don't understand how a person can live a whole life without knowing God.

I was more a person who was searching for the REAL God, not a false god (what I'd found in Buddhism, New Age, etc.), who never fully captured me. It's hard to put it into words and it was a long time ago. I knew God existed I just didn't know HIM at that time. There was always something missing and I could feel it deep in my heart. I possibly had found even up to 99% truth but hadn't found Him, my Savior.

So, I searched (seems an inadequate word - I was longing for truth, passionately seeking truth) for Him across the universe, in the Bhagavad Gita, the Torah, the Qu'ran, etc., and then ... found Him in my room, alone in a quiet moment with a simple little Christian text called something like How to Pray to God, it contained the Salvation Prayer. I asked Him into my heart, for real for once. Changed my life forever from that moment on.

You and I have had very different experiences, needless to say. But I find it hard to imagine that if you were truly born again how you could possibly now be turning your back on the truth. That's astonishing. However, it makes me feel maybe you never really knew God to begin with. Or, maybe I'm just lucky that He revealed Himself to me when I finally humbled myself enough to open my heart and really became willing to listen and believe. It had and still has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with reality.

 

[singpraise]

Athee,

I'm new here so I don't know your story (if perhaps it's posted elsewhere or was previously posted). If you don't mind my asking, will you share what caused you to abandon your belief in God? If it's too private I understand and apologize in advance.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I think there is a place, and for many (most, all?) of us, the necessity of both in our approach.

I say that because for some of us, at least I know myself, if I had never critically examined Christianity, I would always have lingering doubt that just PERHAPS what I put my faith in could be produced by my own mind - though that certainly invests my own mind with a great deal of power, beyond what I can believe possible! Still, for me, it was necessary.

But at the same time, if that is ALL we have, and we stand aloof from God, challenging Him, demanding that He prove Himself - well, God for His own reasons could certainly choose to do so, but generally speaking, such a prideful stance will be met only with resistance. At some point, we really do have to humble ourselves and open ourselves to possibilities, or else the heavens will be nothing but a solidly closed door.

How each person goes about this is probably different. If nothing else, it's good perhaps to ask God's patience and help in the process, even if one doesn't believe, if one wishes to find God. What have you got to lose? If I'm wrong, just a few words spoken to empty air. But if I'm right, there is eternal glory that be gained. Not a bad risk, if you ask me.