Who was Heli?

Part 2--

The "according to the Scriptures" bit indicates that they determined when Jesus rose from the OT (Hosea 6:2), rather than anyone actually seeing him then.
I don't understand your explanation.
"According to the scriptures" means that Jesus fulfilled a prophecy written about him in the OT scripture.
I am not a Bible schlar!
You act like you are! You've been dismissing things in the NT left and right in this thread with self-declared authority! I have to keep pestering you for evidence.
But it is widely accepted that Mark 16:9-20 were later additions, as they are absent from the earliest manuscripts. Even some Bibles note this, for example NIV, NSAB and ESV.
Yes, I know.
Here is a commentary by a Christian preacher:
Thank you for the links.
Then please do. Why does Mark omit any mention of appearances in Jerusalem? Why does Luke omit any mention of appearances in Galilee?
I don't know except that is what they choose to write under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
So why does Mark choose to omit the first appearance of the risen Jesus in Jerusalem, and instead chose to allude to an appearance perhaps weeks later?
If you are asking me why it wasn't in the short version, I don't know.

It was likely just a little over a week later if we go by when Thomas finally saw Jesus in John's gospel.

I don't believe Mark's "omission" was not included because he didn't know about it.
And I think in that scenario Luke omitting the Galilean sightings makes some sense.

For some reason, possibly dramatic effect, Luke presents the post resurrection events as happening all on the same day in the gospel, and perhaps leaves out the Galilean appearances because they do not fit that. In Acts, he says Jesus was around for 40 days, so was aware of other events. And while that is technically a contradiction, it is not something I have an issue with; it shows the author is a little flexible with the truth where it makes a better narrative, but nothing in that suggests a reason not to think it happened.
How is it a contraction?
Sounds good. When I saw you had made three posts responding to me, my heart did sink a little. But I think the birth of Christianity is a fascinating subject and it is good to have a more grown-up discussion about it.
When I was an atheist I didn't want anything to do with Christianity. The last thing I would have done was get on an online forum to discuss it. Now I agree it's fascinating.

I'm done discussing anything but the topic of this thread. Whatever you've written after your response here, I'll read
and maybe make a short comment if you say something new that we haven't already discussed. You can have the last word.
 
Jesus is the Messiah but I'm far from convinced that he is God's adopted son. I haven't finished the article on Jesus as an adopted son of God yet. I've read the reasons why some believe that he is. Now I have to read why the authors of the article think it is a false interpretation of the scriptures. I'll get back with you on this after I finish reading the article. I think my first thought on this subject is true, that Jesus is God's son from the womb (not from eternity) and not by adoption. Jesus is God's only begotten son.
Okay.

What is the Gentile way then?
The gentile way was an increasing Christology - Jesus becoming increasingly god-like, until he was believed to be part of the trinity.

There is only one way to be resurrected. It is through the forgiveness of sin that comes through belief in Jesus whether one is Jewish or a Gentile
There is only one "Way" in the NT. This article addresses all the scriptures that speak of "the Way". https://www.gotquestions.org/the-Way.html
I was thinking in a different sense. A person could be resurrected in their original body, injuries and all. This is how Luke and John portray it.

Or a person can be resurrected in a new body. This is what the Jews - the Pharisees anyway - believed.

14. But then as to the two other orders at first mentioned, the Pharisees are those who are esteemed most skillful in the exact explication of their laws, and introduce the first sect. These ascribe all to fate [or providence], and to God, and yet allow, that to act what is right, or the contrary, is principally in the power of men, although fate does co-operate in every action. They say that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies, - but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment.

This was based on scripture such as:

Daniel 2:2 Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting [a]contempt. 3 Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the [c]expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.


And really just common sense. What of someone who has been dead centuries and bones have turned to dust? Will they be resurrected as a pile of dust? Or in a new body that shines like a star?

Also remember what Paul saw on the road to Damascus - a bright light, but Jesus in his original body.

A little more speculative, but I think Jesus also alluded to this:

Mat 22:30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

I think he means they will be resurrected in new spiritual bodies that will shine like stars, and physical concerns like sex and marriage will be irrelevant.
https://www.gotquestions.org/the-Way.html
Did you develop these teachings on your own by reading the bible and studying early church and Jewish history?
What convinced you that Paul thought the resurrection of the dead would happen in his lifetime?
See here:

1 Cor 15:51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

When he says "sleep", he is obviously talking about death. He is saying to his fellow Christians, "We will not all die before the End Times arrive - the dead will be raised in new bodies, but we who are still alive with be transformed, so we too will have new bodies." He is counting himself among those who will be transformed from living to spiritual bodies; hence he though he would be alive at the time.

Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. He taught that there was no difference in Jewish or Gentile believers for we are all one in Christ. I don't believe he taught the trinity.
Agreed. The trinity was invented quite a bit later.

Then why didn't Paul tell his traveling companion these things? In Paul's writings to the churches outside of Palestine he taught, Jews and Gentiles alike that Jesus is the seed of David, the King of kings. Have you ever read the epistle to the Roman church written by Paul?
Paul was preaching the Jewish version to both Jew and gentile - that Jesus was the Jewish messiah, so had to be the seed of David, as you say.

He undoubtedly did tell Luke that, but over the next few decades beliefs changed, and the gentile version, with Jesus the product of a virgin birth, became popular - at least with gentile Christians - so Luke records that, with the genealogy qualified "as was supposed".

As for the virgin birth, I think it is recorded only in the gospels of Matthew and John who are both Jews.
The disciples were, but not necessarily the authors. The gospel of John is actually quite anti-Jewish in a them-and-us sense; the "Jews" are very much seen as a people opposed to Jesus and his followers, rather than a people that included them. Look up the word "jews" in an online Bible.

I'm not sure what you mean.
Paul believed everyone (the righteous, anyway) would be resurrected, and the resurrection process would be the same for all. Jesus was special, and singled out to be resurrected first, but what happened to Jesus would happened to everyone. Jesus was the prototype for the process, and Paul uses what happened to Jesus to determine what would happen to everyone else.

The later gentile view was quite different. To them, what happened to Jesus was unique to him. Jesus was divine, so different rules applied. His resurrection was a one off. The resurrection for the ordinary Christian would be quite different - I would guess you do not even call it resurrection, just going into the afterlife.

There was no such division as the Jewish way or Gentile way. Jesus said "And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd." John 10:16
It appears that way because they diverged so much that the Jewish way looks like a totally different religion, the religion of the Ebionites. But what Paul believed was much closer to the beliefs of the Ebionites than to modern Christianity (and that is despite the Ebionites rejecting Paul as apostate!).

There was only one set of beliefs about who Jesus was in early first century church. The apostles were constantly dealing with heretics and approving what was true.
Those two sentences contradict each other! The reality is that there were lots of conflicting views as different groups tried to understand Jesus in different ways, and each group was constantly dealing with what it considered heretics, i.e., the other groups. As well as adoptionism, others believed Jesus was subordinate to God and created later (Arianism) and still others that the father, son and holy spirit were different manifestations of god (Modalism).

What web page are you referencing? The article on the Ebionites?
Some don't date Mark at 70 AD.
Daniel Wallace is a NT bible scholar and text critic who dates Mark in the mid to late 50s.
The web page at Early Christian Writings:

Jesus never caused insurrection or riots against Roman rule. He was not a rebel leader. Jesus never taught his followers to resist Roman occupation of Jewish land. His accusation that was on the cross was that he claimed to be the king of the Jews. To the Romans this was a joke.
It is possible his attempts at insurrection got quietly forgotten by authors keen to sell the religion to gentiles, but I will accept that is speculation and there is no evidence to support it.

Either way, Jesus was crucified because he was proclaimed as the messiah. The Jews expected the messiah to lead them to triumph, see for example:

Micah 5:6 who will rule the land of Assyria with the sword, the land of Nimrod with drawn sword. He will deliver us from the Assyrians when they invade our land and march across our borders.

It did not matter what Jesus said or did. Just being proclaimed messiah was enough to make it necessary for the Romans to get rid of him in the most absolute way they could - crucifixion. And the charge sheet made that clear:

Mark 15:26 The written notice of the charge against him read: the king of the jews.

He was crucified for being the messiah, not for causing insurrection or riots against Roman rule. But it was all sedition against Rome.
 
All four gospels record that Joseph of Arimathea obtained permission to bury the body of Jesus. Joseph was rich and likely gave money to Pilate to take the body of Jesus but that is purely speculation just as you common grave is.
That is perfectly reasonable. Mark says of Joseph:

Mark 15:43 Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body.

The man was a pious Jew, who took seriously the Jewish laws. One of them says a body will not be left out over night - it must be buried. I believe he did not give a hoot who Jesus was; he just knew that the body of the crucified man had to be buried. It is possible he paid Pilate, but Pilate would have wanted to keep the mases happy at Passover, so money may not have been necessary.

Where it gets contentious is the tomb. The Romans had reason to allow the body to be taken down, but not to allow it to be buried honourably. That would contradict their purpose, which was to thoroughly degrade the supposed king of the Jews. Joseph had no reason to bury the body honourably; to him Jesus was just a criminal, and Jewish law only required him to get the body buried, not to so in any special way.

Also, the claim of a new tomb nearby makes no sense. The place where criminals were crucified would be literally the last place anyone would have a new tomb dug. This area would be the most ritually unclean area for many miles around.

The tomb was wishful thinking on the part of the Christians, who likely had no idea what actually happened.

Unbeknownst to his disciples OT prophecy was being fulfilled.

Isa 53:9 They made his grave with the wicked
and his tomb with the rich,
although he had done no violence,
and there was no deceit in his mouth.
More likely they used this verse to support their supposition that Jesus was buried in a tomb - though it does also indicate he was buried in a communal grave for criminals!

Luke 23:50 records that Joseph was against the councils plan. It also doesn't say that Joseph was there with the council that night. Maybe he got there late after they had already condemned Jesus. You don't know and I don't know. Whoever was there made up the whole council, that is, everyone that was present.
As for Joseph of Arimathea, he was a secret disciple of Jesus as well as a Jew
The gospels say ALL the council acted against Jesus, however...

Two gospels say Joseph was a member of the council, and say nothing about him being a Christian. The other two claim Joseph was a Christian, but say nothing about him being part of the council.

My feeling is that Joseph being a Christian was invented later, and gospels that used that quietly dropped him as a member of council.

All of your conspiracy theories are getting old. I don't believe that these followers of Jesus would make this stuff up. They are followers of Jesus, their goal was to be like Jesus that includes telling the truth. Jesus said to his Jewish opponents "You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies." John 844
They were trying to understand what happened as best they could. They believed the stories were true. Many were made up from OT verses; they believed they applied therefore to Jesus. Some of it was wishful thinking.

Perhaps some were just lies, but it only takes one person to lie, and the rest to believe for a story to get accepted. If the enemies of Christianity are saying the Jews stole the body, is it really wrong to counter that lie with another lie that there was a guard on the tomb?

Paul wasn't there at the tomb. He would have heard about it by Peter and John. The fact that Paul doesn't mention a tomb means absolutely nothing.
The text in bold is believed to be a very early creed, possibly dating to just a few years after the crucifixion:

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: 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 Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve.

If so, then it was written (or whatever you do with an oral tradition) by those who were there, perhaps even Cephas and the Twelve. Why would it not include the empty tomb? The empty tomb is a huge deal - so much so that it forges the ending of the Gospel of Mark - and yet it is not mentioned in this creed.

I think the most likely explanation is there was no empty tomb; it was made up later.

I don't understand your explanation.
"According to the scriptures" means that Jesus fulfilled a prophecy written about him in the OT scripture.
I think it means that they determined what happened from scriptures.

How is it a contraction?
One version, Luke, indicates it all happened in one day, the other version, Acts, that there was a forty day gap between resurrection and ascension. But as I said, I think this was editorial choice, and does not give any reason to think it did not happen.

I'm done discussing anything but the topic of this thread. Whatever you've written after your response here, I'll read
and maybe make a short comment if you say something new that we haven't already discussed. You can have the last word.
Okay, no problem.
 
But Mark does say where Jesus will be seen, and it is not Jerusalem.

Mark 16:6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

Why would he say Galilee, if he knew the disciples saw Jesus right there in Jerusalem half an hour later?


As the second gospel, Matthew is kind of a transition from the Galilean appearances of Mark, to the Jerusalem appearances of Luke and the original version of John (excluding John 21)


Once you have the Jerusalem appearances, the Galilean diminish in importance; I do not see this as so much of a problem for Luke and John. There is a theory that internal politics led to the appearances in Galilee getting skipped - possibly to reduce Peter's status, as he was from Galilee, and while Luke alludes to Jesus being seen by Peter, he skips the actual event.


I think it strains credibility to suppose there were stories circulating in the Christian community all the way from that first Easter without Mark hearing them. The events of the passion would be nearly all they talked about. And for the first few years, this was a single, small community.

Mark might have decided not to include some - and maybe the guard on the tomb is such an example - but the first appearance of the risen Jesus would have been the greatest moment in the entire history of the religion.


But we have no idea if any of that actually happened. There is no mention of Mary in Acts after chapter 1. we have no idea what she said to Peter. It is possible she told him, but it is also possible the virgin birth was made up later, after Mary and Peter were dead, and after Mark had written his gospel. This would explain why there are also genealogies via Joseph, why Jesus' family thought him mad, and why the two nativity stories are so wildly different.



No, I mean special in the usual sense, and more specifically I would assume it means Jesus had lead a relatively (or entirely?) sin-free life before he was chosen


I do not think they did, or at least not in the sense modern Christians do.


Agreed. As time passed the moment Jesus became the messiah was pushed further back in time. Paul, ca. AD 50, likely believed it was when Jesus was resurrected, Mark, ca. AD 70, believed it was at his baptism. Luke, ca. AD 85, believed it was at his birth. The author of John, ca. AD 100, believed it was at the beginning of time.


See here, for example:

2 Samuel 7:12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, 15 but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me.[c] Your throne shall be established forever.’”

Also:

Psalm 2:7 I will tell of the decree:
The Lord said to me, “You are my Son;
today I have begotten you.

Psalm 2 refers to King David, though I suspect Christians will say it is about Jesus. It is later referenced in Mark 1 and Acts 13, but that is drawing a parallel between God adopting David as his son and adopting Jesus as his son.


But Paul also is clear that what happened to Jesus is what will happen to all the righteous. Jesus was the "first fruits", the prototype. He believed all the righteous would be resurrected and adopted as God's son because that is exactly what happened to Jesus.


Okay, it looks like it addresses much of this, though from quite a different perspective.

Adoptionism was (is?) certainly a belief of some Christians, though it was declared heresy at the end of the 3rd century.


What makes you say that?


My point is exactly that John omits the baptism. By the time John was written, there was a much higher Christology, and the idea of Jesus being baptised made no sense, so it was dropped from the narrative.


No, I was never a Christian.
For the most part I think you make much ado about nothing when it comes to the post resurrection narratives. Different authors recorded different events. I don't see a contradiction
Jesus was begotten not adopted. As a Christian I am adopted by God through Christ.
The early church in Palestine was not small. It grew daily past Jerusalem into Samaria and all over Galilee. I suggest you read the book of Acts to see how Luke recorded its growth.
 
To be the messiah, to fulfil prophecy, Jesus had to be of the seed of David. i do not believe adoption is good enough for that.
okay
Women simply did not count in genealogies. This is why a genealogy via Mary does not work.
They use the verses below to link it to Mary's offspring (seed).

Gen 3: 14 The Lord God said to the serpent,
“Because you have done this,
cursed are you among all animals
and among all wild creatures;
upon your belly you shall go,
and dust you shall eat
all the days of your life.
15 I will put enmity between you and the woman
and between your offspring and hers;
he will strike your head,
and you will strike his heel.”

That is an interesting view. I will also point out stiggy's view that they skip generations, and chose to skip different ones. I think that will resolve it too.
I don't have a problem with this view. I didn't realize that they did that. They are not as exacting and precise as we are today.
Either way, Heli was not the father of Mary, which was my point in the OP.
Joseph is the son of Heli (in some geneneration) not Mary.

Luke 3:23 Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli,
 
Agreed, it makes discussion easier


My point was that in Mark - the earliest gospel - there is no suggest any of the disciples sae the empty tomb. And Mark was probably the only gospel written when there might have been some of the original disciples still alive.

In my view, the empty tomb was made up. Mark could not say the disciples saw the empty tomb, because there were people alive who knew that was not true. Indeed, he could not say the women told anyone, because no one had heard about it back then.

The later gospels had more of a few rein because the people who were there would have been dead by the time the gospels were written.


"Priority" is just a term Biblical scholars use to indicate which was first.


Agreed, but it does make it suspect. How could Mark not have heard these other accounts? Or if he did hear, why did he choose to exclude them from his gospel?

This is more of an issue for some things than others. However, the first sighting of the risen Jesus in Jerusalem later in the day is a huge deal, and it is pretty hard to imagine how he could fail to have heard Peter talk about it or alternatively why he would choose not to mention it, but instead mentioned a sighting in Galilee perhaps weeks later.


Why should I think the bits they fill it in with were true, and not fantastical rumours made up in part to counter the enemies of the group?


I am guessing somewhat from the clues available about what actually happened. I think it is clear Mark had not heard about the Jerusalem appearances, and I can only see that happening if they were made up later. Once you accept that, the other hints that we have suggest the disciples fled Jerusalem altogether.
There still was the oral tradition and perhaps some things had been written down prior to Mark writing his gospel that would have supported the Jerusalem sightings and the Galilean sightings. There would have been discussions among the leadership of the group of churches (not like the church buildings we have now but in the house churches) if stories were being made up or wrongfully embellished. I consider your perspective to be speculative.
Remember that John 21 has them working as fishermen again. Why would they do that if they knew Jesus was resurrected? I suspect that that happened before the risen Jesus was seen, and has been appended to the gospel out of place.
They didn't preach the gospel until after Jesus ascended. They were waiting for the promised Comforter/Advocate which is the Spirit of truth or the baptism of the Spirit from which they would receive power. John 15:21, Acts 1-1.
This web page makes a good argument for there being no other ending.
Thank you.

Mark, imo, is the condensed version of the gospel.
I do not believe they were written by his disciples. Luke and Mark joined the religion after Jesus had gone.
I consider myself to be a disciple of Jesus. Not an eyewitness disciple. Nor a disciple close to those that were eyewitnesses but still a disciple over 2000 years later. Luke and Mark were disciples of Jesus.
Matthew and John were not written by the disciples of that name.

Authorship of Matthew:

Authorship of John is a complex issue:
Thank you. I read them.
Christians were only excluded from synagogues from about AD 90 (that it is only mentioned in the Gospel of John is one reason to date it so late).
You must be referring to Jewish Christians.
Some Jews clearly opposed Christians before that, including Paul of course, but I think that was because Jewish Christians were not upholding the laws of the OT properly, as per Jesus' example.
No, it was because they were proclaiming that Jesus was the Messiah.

As far as I can tell the Jewish Christians were upholding the law of Moses. That slowly vanished as they came to understand more about the work of the cross especially after God open the door of salvation to the Gentiles. Acts 10.
The Pharisees believed God would appoint a messiah just as soon as the Jews properly observed the law, so those Jews who were not got persecuted.
Not the reason.
 
Not the resurrection, but the details surrounding it. The disciples had fled Jerusalem, so no one really knew what had happened. So they guessed, in part from the OT.

Mark 14:61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.
Isaiah 53:7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet He did not open His mouth.
Mark 15:27 They crucified two rebels with him, one on his right and one on his left.
Isaiah 53: 12 ... because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. ...
Mark 15: 18 And they began to call out to him, “Hail, king of the Jews!” 19 Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him.
Psalm 22:6 But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by everyone, despised by the people.
7 All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads.
Mark 15:24 ... Dividing up his clothes, they cast lots to see what each would get.
Psalm 22:18 They divide my clothes among them
and cast lots for my garment.
I understand what you mean. OT prophecy of Christ.

After his resurrection, Jesus told the 2 disciples on the road to Emmaus everything that was written in the OT about him. Later he told the rest of the disciples.

Luke 24: 27 Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he [Jesus] interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures.
Luke 24: 44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you—that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures.

Mark 15:34 seems rather odd if Jesus is part of the trinity... but makes perfect sense if he was man appointed by God as the messiah.
There are different explanations for many things that Jesus said, not just this verse, that give the sense that Jesus is speaking as a man and not God. I'm not a Trinitarian but I do believe that Jesus is God. I'm not going to discuss the incarnation with you. It's too much to explain. Maybe some other time if you are interested.
Paul makes clear the use of the OT. No one saw Jesus on Easter Sunday - that was made up later. They assumed he rose on the third day because that is what the Scriptures said would happen.

1 Cor 15:4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
Hosea 6:2
After two days he will revive us;
on the third day he will restore us,
that we may live in his presence.

Obviously these are now taken as prophecies Jesus fulfilled, but they were recorded under the assumption that that is what happened because surely Jesus wold fulfil these prophecies!
They weren't making assumptions. Many saw Jesus after his resurrection.
If you read on in 1 Cor 15 you would find-
1 Cor 15: 4 and that he was buried and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me

Acts 9: 1-18, Acts 22:17-19, 1Cor 15:8 - Paul saw Jesus after his resurrection.

The disciples and Paul actually saw Jesus after his resurrection as Paul stated. They didn't speculate what had happened by interpreting the OT. After his resurrection, Jesus explained the OT scriptures that were written of him.

Have you read the entire Bible?
 
Have you read the entire Bible?

Even if he has, doing so motivated by a desire to find "gotchas" will not yield much understanding and certainly nothing approaching the wisdom you have garnered from your reading of the scriptures.

I believe there is a parallel to the way we can look at the Bible and the way we can look at Jesus of Nazareth in this sense: Jesus was the only Man Who was fully Man and fully God. The Bible is the only book, fully God, yet written by men. If the body of Jesus had been taken off the cross and dissected before burial, skeptics might well have proclaimed with glee, "Look, he's not God. He's nothing special, He has two kidneys just like us. He even has feces in his bowels." And the smug Pixies of the world today similarly pounce on anything that shows the humanity of the men who were inspired. If insignificant details completely jived with one another in the synoptic gospels, these same Pixie-ish critics would most likely be hollering collusion.

At the risk of seeming irreverent, I would almost say that just as the Son of God took on man's flesh in the Incarnation, so the Holy Spirit took on man's language in the providential making of the Bible.
 
Even if he has, doing so motivated by a desire to find "gotchas" will not yield much understanding and certainly nothing approaching the wisdom you have garnered from your reading of the scriptures.
I'm just curious to know where he/she gets all the speculative information he/she keeps throwing out at me. If he/she hasn't read the entire Bible then it comes from somewhere else.
 
At the risk of seeming irreverent, I would almost say that just as the Son of God took on man's flesh in the Incarnation, so the Holy Spirit took on man's language in the providential making of the Bible.
Are you saying that the Holy Spirit gave the authors the exact words to write?

The gospels, though they contain similar content, all sound like they came from different authors. How does this fit in with your view of inspiration? Do you think that the authors had anything to do with choosing words and sentence structure, etc?
 
You don't know how hard I'm trying not to type my own guess about from whence it comes. I'm just not ready for another MOD ban.
I have Bart Ehrman's book "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why." that I bought years ago which I have never read. I bought it because I thought that he was a Christian. I've been thinking of reading it.
 
Are you saying that the Holy Spirit gave the authors the exact words to write?

No. I believe He gave them the exact thoughts and ideas and beliefs to express.

The gospels, though they contain similar content, all sound like they came from different authors.

Because they did. All different members of the same Body.

How does this fit in with your view of inspiration? Do you think that the authors had anything to do with choosing words and sentence structure, etc?

I believe they had everything to do with that. I don't believe they were passive stenographers whose hands were supernaturally moved by God.
 
For the most part I think you make much ado about nothing when it comes to the post resurrection narratives. Different authors recorded different events. I don't see a contradiction
Jesus was begotten not adopted. As a Christian I am adopted by God through Christ.
Bear in mind what Paul said of Onesimus

Philemon 1:10 I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten while in my chains,

To Paul at least, "begotten" could include adopted.

The early church in Palestine was not small. It grew daily past Jerusalem into Samaria and all over Galilee. I suggest you read the book of Acts to see how Luke recorded its growth.
I am talking about the first few years. Acts 1:15 gives a figure of 120 people. Clearly it grew rapidly, perhaps to 1000 by AD 40 (see here), but it was definitely small at first.

They use the verses below to link it to Mary's offspring (seed).

Gen 3: 14 The Lord God said to the serpent,
“Because you have done this,
cursed are you among all animals
and among all wild creatures;
upon your belly you shall go,
and dust you shall eat
all the days of your life.
15 I will put enmity between you and the woman
and between your offspring and hers;
he will strike your head,
and you will strike his heel.”
The woman in that verse is fairly clearly Eve - but even if it was not, there is nothing to suggest Heli here (but I appreciate it is not your argument).

Joseph is the son of Heli (in some geneneration) not Mary.

Luke 3:23 Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli,
Right, and that really was all I was trying to say in the OP.

There still was the oral tradition and perhaps some things had been written down prior to Mark writing his gospel that would have supported the Jerusalem sightings and the Galilean sightings. There would have been discussions among the leadership of the group of churches (not like the church buildings we have now but in the house churches) if stories were being made up or wrongfully embellished. I consider your perspective to be speculative.
There was certainly an oral tradition, and very like things written down too, but we do not know what that was. As you say, it would be difficult for things to be made up or embellished. And this is why I take Mark as being reasonably accurate. The gospel was written while there was a strong central church in Jerusalem, or at least very soon after, and at a time when the original witnesses were still alive.

Someone could not just make up the disciples seeing the empty tomb. But perhaps they could make up two women - who were now dead - seeing the empty tomb but not telling anyone....

They didn't preach the gospel until after Jesus ascended. They were waiting for the promised Comforter/Advocate which is the Spirit of truth or the baptism of the Spirit from which they would receive power. John 15:21, Acts 1-1.
Nevertheless it seems strange they went back to being fishermen during those 40 days before then.

I consider myself to be a disciple of Jesus. Not an eyewitness disciple. Nor a disciple close to those that were eyewitnesses but still a disciple over 2000 years later. Luke and Mark were disciples of Jesus.
Noted.

You must be referring to Jewish Christians.
I presume all Christians were banned, but yes, in a practical sense it likely only mattered to Jewish Christians.

No, it was because they were proclaiming that Jesus was the Messiah.
Okay, and they disagreed; I can believe that. Paul then disagreed that Jesus was the messiah, until he saw a vision of Jesus that said otherwise.

As far as I can tell the Jewish Christians were upholding the law of Moses. That slowly vanished as they came to understand more about the work of the cross especially after God open the door of salvation to the Gentiles. Acts 10.
Again, I will not disagree. Their argument with Jesus himself appears in part to have been that he did not uphold the law as rigorously as they believed a Jew should, and I was guessing that extended to his followers.
 
Bear in mind what Paul said of Onesimus

Philemon 1:10 I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten while in my chains,

To Paul at least, "begotten" could include adopted.
I don't quite follow this. What do you think Paul is saying here?
 
I don't quite follow this. What do you think Paul is saying here?
Onesimus was a slave who belonged to Philemon, but had left him. I guess he had run away, and maybe was in prison with Paul, but was about to go back to his master, taking the letter with him.

In this verse, Paul says he considers Onesimus to be his son; he adopted the guy as his son, while Paul - and perhaps Onesimus too - was in prison. Paul is therefore asking Philemon not to deal harshly with his runaway slave.

The point I was making was that Paul calls Onesimus his "begotten" son, even though he was an adopted son, not a biological son.
 
Onesimus was a slave who belonged to Philemon, but had left him. I guess he had run away, and maybe was in prison with Paul, but was about to go back to his master, taking the letter with him.

In this verse, Paul says he considers Onesimus to be his son; he adopted the guy as his son, while Paul - and perhaps Onesimus too - was in prison. Paul is therefore asking Philemon not to deal harshly with his runaway slave.

The point I was making was that Paul calls Onesimus his "begotten" son, even though he was an adopted son, not a biological son.
I don't see any evidence that Paul adopted Onesimus as his son, at least in the sense which you seem to have in mind. This seems to be a florid way of Paul saying that he converted Onesimus (now his 'brother', v. 16, like Philemon himself) while he was in prison. Similar language is used of Timothy elsewhere in the Pauline corpus, and most telling is something like 1 Corinthians 4:14f:

14I do not write these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children (
τέκνα). 15For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father (ἐγέννησα) through the gospel. (NASB)

These are the same terms as used in verse 10 of Philemon.
 
Back
Top