pre Mark redaction

The unknown Gospel of Papyrus Egerton 2

The unknown Gospel of Egerton 2 was discovered in Egypt in 1935 exiting in two different manuscripts. The original editors found that the handwriting was that of a type from the late first early second century. In 1946 Goro Mayeda published a dissertation which argues for the independence of the readings from the canonical tradition. This has been debated since then and continues to be debated. Recently John B. Daniels in his Clairmont Dissertation argued for the independence of the readings from canonical sources.[4] Daniels states "Egerton's Account of Jesus healing the leaper Plausibly represents a separate tradition which did not undergo Markan redaction...Compositional choices suggest that...[the author] did not make use of the Gospel of John in canonical form." (Daniels, abstract).[5] The unknown Gospel of Egerton 2 is remarkable still further in that it mixes Johannie language with Synoptic contexts and vice vers. [6]The Unknown Gospel preserves a tradition of Jesus healing the leper in Mark 1:40-44. (Note: The independent tradition in the Diatessaran was also of the healing of the leper). There is also a version of the statement about rendering unto Caesar. Space does not permit a detailed examination of the passages to really prove Koster's point here. But just to get a taste of the differences we are talking about:

This is very significant because it indicates a reading independent of and therefore prior to Mark;s redaction,

. Koster:

"There are two solutions that are equally improbable. It is unlikely that the pericope in Egerton 2 is an independent older tradition. It is equally hard to imagine that anyone would have deliberately composed this apophthegma by selecting sentences from three different Gospel writings. There are no analogies to this kind of Gospel composition because this pericope is neither a harmony of parallels from different Gospels, nor is it a florogelium. If one wants to uphold the hypothesis of dependence upon written Gospels one would have to assume that the pericope was written form memory....What is decisive is that there is nothing in the pericope that reveals redactional features of any of the Gospels that parallels appear. The author of Papyrus Egerton 2 uses independent building blocks of sayings for the composition of this dialogue none of the blocks have been formed by the literary activity of any previous Gospel writer. If Papyrus Egerton 2 is not dependent upon the Fourth Gospel it is an important witness to an earlier stage of development of the dialogues of the fourth Gospel....(Koester , 3.2 p.215)[7]

Gospel of Peter

Fragments of the Gospel of Peter were found in 1886 /87 in Akhimim, upper Egypt. These framents were from the 8th or 9th century. No other fragment was found for a long time until one turned up at Oxyrahynchus, which were written in 200 AD. Bishop Serapion of Antioch made the statement prior to 200 that a Gospel had been put forward in the name of Peter. This statement is preserved by Eusebius who places Serapion around 180. But the Akhimim fragment contains three periciopes. The Resurrection, to which the guards at the tomb are witnesses, the empty tomb, or which the women are witnesses, and an epiphany of Jesus appearing to Peter and the 12, which end the book abruptly.

Many features of the Gospel of Peter are clearly from secondary sources, that is reworked versions of the canonical story. These mainly consist of 1) exaggerated miracles; 2) anti-Jewish polemic.The cross follows Jesus out of the tomb, a voice from heaven says "did you preach the gospel to all?" The cross says "Yea." And Pilate is totally exonerated, the Jews are blamed for the crucifixion.[8] However, "there are other traces in the Gospel of Peter which demonstrate an old and independent tradition." The way the suffering of Jesus is described by the use of passages from the old Testament without quotation formulae is, in terms of the tradition, older than the explicit scriptural proof; it represents the oldest form of the passion of Jesus.[9] Jurgen Denker argues that the Gospel of Peter shares this tradition of OT quotation with the Canonicals but is not dependent upon them.[10] Koester writes, "John Dominic Crosson has gone further [than Denker]...he argues that this activity results in the composition of a literary document at a very early date i.e. in the middle of the First century CE" (Ibid). Said another way, the interpretation of Scripture as the formation of the passion narrative became an independent document, a ur-Gospel, as early as the middle of the first century![11]

Corosson's Cross Gospel is this material in the Gospel of Peter through which, with the canonical and other non-canonical Gospels Crosson constructs a whole text. According to the theory, the earliest of all written passion narratives is given in this material, is used by Mark, Luke, Matthew, and by John, and also Peter. Peter becomes a very important 5th witness. Koester may not be as famous as Crosson but he is just as expert and just as liberal. He takes issue with Crosson on three counts:

1) no extant text,its all coming form a late copy of Peter,

2) it assumes the literary composition of latter Gospels can be understood to relate to the compositions of earlier ones;

3) Koester believes that the account ends with the empty tomb and has independent sources for the epihanal material.

Koester:

"A third problem regarding Crossan's hypotheses is related specifically to the formation of reports about Jesus' trial, suffering death, burial, and resurrection. The account of the passion of Jesus must have developed quite eary because it is one and the same account that was used by Mark (and subsequently Matthew and Luke) and John and as will be argued below by the Gospel of Peter. However except for the appearances of Jesus after his resurrection in the various gospels cannot derive from a single source, they are independent of one another. Each of the authors of the extant gospels and of their secondary endings drew these epiphany stories from their own particular tradition, not form a common source....Studies of the passion narrative have shown that all gospels were dependent upon one and the same basic account of the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus. But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb. With respect to the stories of Jesus' appearances, each of the extant gospels of the canon used different traditions of epiphany stories which they appended to the one canon passion account. This also applies to the Gospel of Peter. There is no reason to assume that any of the epiphany stories at the end of the gospel derive from the same source on which the account of the passion is based."[12]

So Koester differs from Crosson mainly in that he divides the epiphanies up into different sources. Another major distinction between the two is that Crosson finds the story of Jesus burial to be an interpolation from Mark to John. Koester argues that there is no evidence to understand this story as dependent upon Mark.[14] Unfortunately we don't' have space to go through all of the fascinating analysis which leads Koester to his conclusions. Essentially he is comparing the placement of the pericopes and the dependence of one source upon another. What he finds is mutual use made by the canonical and Peter of a an older source that all of the barrow from, but Peter does not come by that material through the canonical, it is independent of them. That source is the Pre Mark Passion Narrative (PMPN)

"The Gospel of Peter, as a whole, is not dependent upon any of the canonical gospels. It is a composition which is analogous to the Gospel of Mark and John. All three writings, independently of each other, use older passion narrative which is based upon an exegetical tradition that was still alive when these gospels were composed and to which the Gospel of Matthew also had access. All five gospels under consideration, Mark, John, and Peter, as well as Matthew and Luke, concluded their gospels with narratives of the appearances of Jesus on the basis of different epiphany stories that were told in different contexts. However, fragments of the epiphany story of Jesus being raised form the tomb, which the Gospel of Peter has preserved in its entirety, were employed in different literary contexts in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew." [14]

Also see my essay Have Gaurds, Will Aruge in which Jurgen Denker and Raymond Brown also agree about the indpeendent nature of GPete. Brown made his reputation proving the case, and pubulshes a huge chart in Death of the Messiah which shows the idendepnt nature and traces it line for line. Unfortunately I can't reproduce the chart.

What all of this means is, that there were independent traditions of the same stories, the same documents, used by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John which were still alive and circulating even when these canonical gospels were written. They represent much older sources and the basic work which all of these others use, goes back to the middle of the first century. It definitely posited Jesus as a flesh and blood man, living in historical context with other humans, and dying on the cross in historical context with other humans, and raising from the dead in historical context, not in some ethereal realm or in outer space. He was not the airy fairy Gnostic redeemer of Doherty, but the living flesh and blood "Son of Man."

Moreover, since the breakdown of Ur gospel and epiphany sources (independent of each other) demands the logical necessity of still other sources, and since the other material described above amounts to the same thing, we can push the envelope even further and say that at the very latest there were independent gospel source circulating in the 40s, well within the life span of eye witnesses, which were based upon the assumption that Jesus was a flesh and blood man, that he had an historical existence. Note: all these "other Gospels" are not merely oriented around the same stories, events, or ideas, but basically they are oriented around the same sentences. There is very little actual new material in any of them, and no new stories. They all essentially assume the same sayings. There is some new material in Thomas, and others, but essentially they are all about the same things. Even the Gospel of Mary which creates a new setting, Mary discussing with the Apostles after Jesus has returned to heaven, but the words are basically patterned after the canonical. It is as though there is an original repository of the words and events and all other versions follow that repository. This repository is most logically explained as the original events! Jesus actual teachings!

Canonical Gospels

The Diatessaon is an attempt at a Harmony of the four canonical Gospels. It was complied by Titian in about AD172, but it contains readings whihc imply that he used versions of the canonical gospels some of which contain pre markan elements.

In an article published in the Back of Helmut Koester's Ancient Christian Gospels, William L. Petersen states:

"Sometimes we stumble across readings which are arguably earlier than the present canonical text. One is Matthew 8:4 (and Parallels) where the canonical text runs "go show yourself to the priests and offer the gift which Moses commanded as a testimony to them" No fewer than 6 Diatessaronic witnesses...give the following (with minor variants) "Go show yourself to the priests and fulfill the law." With eastern and western support and no other known sources from which these Diatessaranic witnesses might have acquired the reading we must conclude that it is the reading of Tatian...The Diatessaronic reading is certainly more congielian to Judaic Christianity than than to the group which latter came to dominate the church and which edited its texts, Gentile Christians. We must hold open the possibility that the present canonical reading might be a revision of an earlier, stricter , more explicit and more Judeo-Christian text, here preserved only in the Diatessaron.[15]

Summary and Conclusion

Koster and Crosson both agree that the PMR was circulating in written form with empty tomb and passion narrative, as early as 50AD

From this notion as a base line for the begining of the process of redaction, and using the traditional dates given the final product of canonical gospels as the base line for the end of the process, we can see that it is quite probable that the canonical gospels were formed between 50 and 95 AD. It appears most likely that the early phase, from the events themselves that form the Gospel, to the circulation of a written narrative, there was a controlled oral tradition that had its hay day in the 30's-40's but probably overlapped into the 60's or 70's. The say sources began to be produced, probably in the 40's, as the first written attempt to remember Jesus' teachings. The production of a written narrative in 50, or there abouts, probably sparked interest among the communities of the faithful in producing their own narrative accounts; after all, they too had eye witnesses.

Between 50-70's those who gravitated toward Gnosticism began emphasizing those saying sources and narrative pericopes that interested them for their seeming Gonostic elements, while the Orthodox honed their own orthodox sources that are reflected in Paul's choices of material,and latter in the canonical gospels themselves. So a great "drying up" process began where by what would become Gnostic lore got it's start, and for that reason was weeded out of the orthodox pile of sayings and doings. By that I mean sayings Like "if you are near to the fire you are near to life" (Gospel of the Savior) or "cleave the stone and I am there" (Thomas) "If Heaven is in the could the birds of the air will get there before you" (Thomas) have a seeming gnostic flavor but could be construed as orthodox. These were used by the Gnsotically inclined and left by the orthodox. That makes sense as we see the earliest battles with gnosticism beginning to heat up in the Pauline literature.

My own theory is that Mark was produced in several forms between 60-70, before finally coming to rest in the form we know it today in 70. During that time Matthew and Luke each copied from different versions of it. John bears some commonality with Mark, according to Koester, becasue both draw upon the PMR. Thus the early formation of John began in 50-s or 60s, the great schism of the group probably happened in the 70's or 80s, with the gnostic bunching leaving for Egypt and producing their own Gnostic redaction of the gospel of John, the orthodox group then producing the final form by adding the prologue which in effect, is the ultimate censor to those who left the group.

The Gospel material was circularizing throughout Church hsitory, form the infancy of the Church to the final production of Canonical Gospels. Thus the skeptical retort that "they weren't written until decades latter" is totally irrelevant. It is not the case,they were being written all along, and they were the focus of the communities from which they sprang, the communities which originally witnessed the events and the ministry of Jesus Christ.

Sources

[1-3] I am transposing this paper fromone oe I previouly wote. I tart with fn 4.

[4] John B. Daniels, The Egerton Gospel: It's place in Early Christianity, Dissertation Clairmont, CA 1990. Cited in Helmutt Koester, History and Literature of Early Christianity,second Edition, New York, Berlin: Walter D. Gruyter, 186.

This is from a dissertation cited by major scholar Helmutt Koester., so apparently Daniels did good work as a graduate student, Koester is New Testamemt Studies at Harvard.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Joachim Jeremias, "Unknown Sayings,An Unknown Gospel with Johannine Elements" in Hennecke-Schneemelcher-Wilson, NT Apocrypha vol 1. Westminster John Knox Press; Rev Sub edition (December 1, 1990,96.

[7]Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development, London. Oxford, New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark; 2nd prt. edition, 1992, 215

. [8] Koester, 218).

[9] Philipp Vielhauer, Geschichte,Geschichte der Urchristlichen Literatur einleitung in das Neue Testament, die Apokryphen und die Apostolischen Väter (1975) 646

Translation:

Philip Vielhauer, History of The original Christian Literature: Introduction to thev New Testment, the Apocrypha, and the Apostolic Fathers. (cited by Koester)

[10] In Koester, 218

[11] Ibid, 218-220

[12] Ibid. 220

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid, 240

[15] William L. Petersen Titian's Diatessaron in Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development, Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990, p. 424

special answer to 16 things,

This was put on comment section on the isssue. Its not 16 but starts umberingthem at 16. Anonymous said... 16) None of my claims about Paul are "ridiculous", though your zeal for Jesus obbiously causes you to overstate your opponents' alleged errors. i don't even know what they are You "debunked" nothing about my claims about Paul. Once again, you errarntly think that because the story exists and isn't as contradictory as possible, all readers are intellectually or morally compelled to trust it as truth, or admit their skepticism is unreasonable. Stop using dirty needles, you gutter rat. i have bo idea whatthehell this guy is refirring to You also didn't get close to demonstrating that it was my "emotions" that were the basis for my arguments. obviousoy ths guy thinks i'vevbeen attackig him I don't know who he is. I wasn't proving atheism from my attack on Paul. I was only criticizing the credibility of Luke and Paul. Their being first-rate liars wouldn't disprove god anymore than it would disprove the tooth-fairy. 17) I agree with you there is no analogy to be found in the Millerite comparison, but the comparison was made by either you or your source. Furthermore, your admission that the Jesus followers did not originally believe in a resurrection sucks for YOU, because it is highly unlikely they would view all the miracles of Jesus and his resurrecting Lazarus, and STILL be so thickheaded as to find his promise of rising from the dead too unbelievable to credit. IMO, the stupidity of the disciples is a literary fiction intended to make the contrast betweeen their stupidity and their discovery of the risen Christ more dramatic than it actually was. Gee, ancient Jews never exaggerated anything, did they? 18) Your inability to express your opinion about my argument, is not an argument. Try again. 19) So you think I made a good argument by saying death of a loved one is more likely to lead to cognitive dissonance? Gee, how much did the disciples "love" Jesus? 20) My theory that the earliest resurrection belief was entirely spiritual in nature is supported by the fact that Luke felt compelled to add fictional physical elements to Paul's absurd "vision" experience of Jesus in Acts, thus winding up giving the reader a completely incoherent story about how Paul could see the other guy standing there, but his traveling companions couldn't see the other guy that was supposed to be there. If 5 people are walking together and experience a car carsh, but only 1 witness testifies to understanding the sound of the screeching tires, while the other 4 testify they didn't understand such sound, you don't have reliable witnesses. And I don't pretend to know what exactly paul believed about Jesus resurreciton, only that his comments are inconsistent with the spiritualized version given in Acts. It may very well be that as time progressed, Paul's story of his conversion started adding fictional physical elements, the way most scholars insist John was written give e a lik to whereI aid all this 11:52 AM

Deity of Christ in Mark

There are two views of Christ's nature sloughing it out for supremacy: the adoptionist, which goes back to the early period of the Christian tradition but is not necessarily the oldest view. This idea says Jesus was a regular guy. God adopted him and made like he was the son of God. Why he he did it is unclear, it makes a lot more sense that God would incarnate himself as a man to understand us and to show solidarity with humans.. This is the icornation view, it says the divine logos was born into human life as a man who became Jesus of Nazerath.

I support the second view, "the incarnation." I believe that incornation can account for the adoptionist passages but the adoptionist have to allege that both passages are added later.I am using Mark because the adoptionist propaganda chooses to see Mark as the only valid gospel. That is under the notion that Mark was written first but  really it's veg about the resurrection.

My view of incarnational theory explains and subsumes the adoptionist view because it says that Jesus was born a peasant  and obtained notoriety through his preaching and teaching. Thus God elivated the man Jesus to the poition he had as Lord of the sabath and so on, but that does not negate the devine birth or the fact that he was tagged by God for all of those honors from birth, he was not adopted but first incornated then adopted.

The adoptionists must assume that at some point christians stopped sayig Jesus was born a regular guy and God  adopted him, and begn saying he was born the incarnate logos. Their understanding of religion assumes dishonesty,forgery, and deception. All one needs to do is imagine,why would they accept the switch from adopted son to incarnate logos?  Because religious people are stpuid and easy to fool.

Jesus is the exalted figure who is worshiped alongside the Ancient of Days. In Mark, Jesus as the Son of Man does what only God can do: he forgives sins (Mark 2:10), rules over the Sabbath (Mark 2:28), and promises that he will judge the world (Mark 8:38; Mark 13:26). Jesus Christ is the Son of David, the Son of God, and the Son of Man.

[1]

One of the most remarkable biblical affirmations that Jesus is God is in Mark chapter 2. Four men carried a paralytic man to a house where Jesus was teaching, but found they could not get near because of the crowd. However, their determination to bring their friend to Jesus caused them to remove some of the roof and lower him down. The first recorded words of Jesus are stunning: “Son, your sins are forgiven.” On hearing these words, some  religious experts thought, “Who can forgive sins but God alone?”[2]

Jesus claimed to be the Son of Man of Daniel 7, who is the Lord of the Sabbath. “And he said to them, ‘The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath’” (2:27–28).[3] Jesus’ words are put at the same level as God’s words. “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away” (13:31).

Jesus identifies Himself as the Son of Man in Daniel 7:13–14. “But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him,

    ‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?’ And Jesus said,

    ‘I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.’ And the high priest tore his garments and said, ‘What further witnesses do we need? You have heard his blasphemy’” (14:61–64).

Mark is usually assigned the state of composition  around AD 70. Those who deny christ's diety wll charge that these pro dieity pasages were put in late and just come into the chruch belief in latter years  but the adoptionist position is the original position. The only evidence is that that position is in Mark so it is the original position. They are completely ignorant of the pre Mrk redaction, Pul was pre Mark.

    The author of Mark did not create the empty tomb. "Mark" did echo the deity of Christ; both this and the empty tomb were part of the pre Mark redaction. These passages indicate that Paul knew versions of Jesus' teaching and Gospel stories two decades before Mark was written, What this means is the Gospel material was being transmitted in an era decades before the writing of Mark. This material also indicates oral tradition (as with the pericopes) we can assume this material goes back to era of the events themselves since we only know  about 20 years between Crucifixion and Paul's early epistles.

   chart showing Pauline material in mark

   http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2010/05/gospel-behind-gospels-part-1.html

    NOTES

[1] Douglas Sean O'Donnell, "10 things you should know sbout the book of Mark." April 07, 2024,

https://www.crossway.org/articles/10-things-you-should-know-about-the-book-of-mark/#:~:text=After%20Peter%20answers%20Jesus%E2%80%99s%20question%20%E2%80%9CBut%20who%20do,and%20after%20three%20days%20rise%20again%E2%80%9D%20%28Mark%208%3A30%29.

Douglas Sean O’Donnell (PhD, University of Aberdeen) is the senior vice president of Bible editorial at Crossway. Over the past twenty-five years he has helped train people around the world to read and teach the Bible clearly. He has pastored several churches, served as a professor, and authored or edited over twenty books, including commentaries, Bible studies, children’s books, and a children’s curriculum. He also wrote The Pastor’s Book with R. Kent Hughes and The Beauty and Power of Biblical Exposition

[2]Paul Coxall, "Diety of Christ in the Gospels," UTG, from the series "is Jesus God?" Ap 30,2019, https://understandingthegospel.org/explore-the-gospel/jesus-christ/the-deity-of-christ-in-the-gospels/

[3]Ibid.

Christ Divine from the Beginning

M

Adoptionism, also called dynamic monarchianism,[1] is an early Christian nontrinitarian theological doctrine, subsequently revived in various forms, which holds that Jesus was adopted as the Son of God at his baptism, his resurrection, or his ascension.

[1] some seem to assert that this provesthe Trinity just smething was made up latter. It has been asserted thatthisis the christology of Mark.I will argue that while therewere adoptionist groups early this was not the view of the infant chich. Now was it the christology of Mark. I think the iitial reaction of Jesus' deciples to sta,emtslike 'befpre AbrahamwasI am" was to makeexcusesk to assiehe wasn't really saying he's God and so on, He rose from the dead thatmight goa log way toward makingpeople thin he' divine.No doubt there was some kind of adoptionist theology floatimgaroumd we can see it in Romans 1:

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. (NIV)

While I think there was an adoptionist element--not only heterodox but within the orthdoox---it was not to the exclusion of the dieity of Christ. We have been led astray aobut what the Jews really thought of Messiah. We assume moern views re the ame as ancient. Alred Edershiem discusses the view of Messiah foundin theearlist formof the Talmud. True this is from the second century he asserts it was oral tradition in the time of Christ and written down lattter.They probaby understood like the Jews of the Talmud, Messiah is premundne (existed before the world)satatthe righthandof God and was quasi divine bit was also adopted as sono God.

In the Book of Enoch (130 BC) The Messiah is designated with such names "the son of God" (it speaks of I and My Son) and "the just" "the elect" "son of man." He is presented as seated by the side of the Ancient of Days, face like a man but as lovely as an Angles, he is the 'son of man' and he has and with him dwells all rightousness. [2].

In The Sybilline Oracles (170BC) Messiah is "the King sent from Heaven" and "King Messiah." In the Psalms of Solomon (150 BC) "The King who reigns is of the house of David" He is actaully refered to in the Greek Kristos Kurios, Christ the Lord! (Ibid).[3]

Paul shows morethan an adoptionist view in Philipians 1,

5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature[b] of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross! 9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.(NIV)

the term avoce translated "natire" by the NIV v6 is th4e Greek term Morphe. NiV trnslator feltit is bet remedred nature but many disagree.

Greek from = Morphe google "It is the Greek morphe, for which English has no exact equivalent. Unlike "form" in English, morphe does not mean "shape." It is a philosophical term that means "the outward expression of an inner essence." We can derive an illustration of this definition from figure skating." [4]

Thayer's Lexicon "the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision external appearance"[5]

I find it hard to believe that it's so superficioal that Paul just says Jesus looked ike God so he shared equality. Anothr quotefroa sorce that upports nature; "Form (3444) (morphe) refers to the nature or character of something and emphasizes both the internal and external form. In other words morphe refers to the outward display of the inner reality or the essential form of something which never alters."[6]

1 Corinthians 8:6 New International Version 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

, "Paul states that Jesus is 'the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation…in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell' (Col 1:15-20). Each of these statements affirms the deity of the Lord Jesus."[7]

https://www.str.org/w/the-deity-of-christ-in-the-gospel-of-mark

[1]Williams, D. H. (2012) [2011]. "Adoptionism". The Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9780470670606.wbecc0008. ISBN 9781405157629.

[2]Alfred Edersheim,The Life and Times of Jesus The Messiah,New York: Longmans Green and Company.1950,173

[3]Ibid.174,

[4]https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/1737/Morphe.htm

[5]Theyers

[6]https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=34103

[7]https://understandingthegospel.org/explore-the-gospel/jesus-christ/the-deity-of-christ-in-the-epistles/

Isaha's suffering servant, Israel or Messiah?

Christians believe and argue the suffering servant m Isaha 53 is a referece to Jesus and the crucifiction and resurrection. Anti missionrie rgue it is not the edsiah bt n olgory of israel the nation. But i will show it canoot be.M

I have a huge aount of material on this issue. I have 4 big pages crammed with stuff. I will be hitting some highlight. for thefull studie see the linkl on thatpages will be links toeaach of the four pages.Here is the link to my pages:

http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2011/01/isaiah-53-suffering-servant-sub-menue.html

An atheist site:

Isaiah 52 and 53 involve a lengthy passage about the "suffering servant". Christianity considers this a prophesy about Jesus, but could it instead refer to the nation of Israel? It should be noted that Christians are not alone in seeing the text as a prophesy for a messiah; this was a popular belief among Jews around the time of Jesus. However, that does not prove that Isaiah considered it to be a prophesy. So let us consider two completing scenarios.In the first scenario, Isaiah is prophesying the arrival and crucifixion of Jesus.In the second, Isaiah is bemoaning the fate of Israel. Later, his words are re-interpreted as a prophesy of a messiah, and later still Jesus' life is remodelled to fit that text.

[1]

It's really stupid to think that, that would have been way out of control. He asserts that linking the SS with Messiah is something Jews only did in Jesus day. No it was the orthodox Jewish word up to the 20t cnetiry. They only chnaged to destory the effectiveness of Is 53as prophesy of Jesus.

on my site Religious a priori I have a whole page tracing the view that SS is messiah from 200 BCE to 150 CE [2]

Page 2 brings it through middle ages to modern times

Abrabanel (1437-1508) said earlier:

"This is also the opinion of our own learned men in the majority of their Midrashim."

it's taken to be their actual opinion not merely figurative. He's speaking of the interp of Suffering Servant as Messiah.

Rabbi MOSES Alschech(1508-1600) says: "Our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion ..that the prophet is speaking of the Messiah, and we shall ourselves also adhere to the same view."

[3] Into modern times.

"Rabbi Mosheh Kohen Ibn Crispin: This rabbi described those who interpret Isaiah 53 as referring to Israel as those: "having forsaken the knowledge of our Teachers, and inclined after the `stubbornness of their own hearts,' and of their own opinion, I am pleased to interpret it, in accordance with the teaching of our Rabbis, of the King Messiah....This prophecy was delivered by Isaiah at the divine command for the purpose of making known to us something about the nature of the future Messiah, who is to come and deliver Israel, and his life from the day when he arrives at discretion until his advent as a redeemer, in order that if anyone should arise claiming to be himself the Messiah, we may reflect, and look to see whether we can observe in him any resemblance to the traits described here; if there is any such resemblance, then we may believe that he is the Messiah our righteousness; but if not, we cannot do so." (From his commentary on Isaiah, quoted in The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters, Ktav Publishing House, 1969, Volume 2, pages 99-114.)

[4] Notice he describes those who say SS is Israel as those: "having forsaken the knowledge of our Teachers" this is modermm, 20th centiry.

After Rashi had popularized the view of Isaiah 53 as referring to Israel, Rabbi Don Yitzchak Abarbanel circa 1500, who did NOT interpret Isaiah 53 as Messianic, concedes the fact that the majority did.

He stated:

"The first question is to ascertain of whom this refers; for the learned among the Nazarenes expound it of the man who was crucified in Jerusalem at the end of the Second Temple . . . Yochanan ben Uzziel interpreted it in the Targum of the future messiah; but this is also the opinion of the learned men in the MAJORITY [emphasis added] of the midrashim."[5] David Baron was a Hebrew-Christian writer of the late 19th century. His "Servant of Jehovah" is his commentary on Isaiah 53, focusing on the meaning of the Hebrew words in the text.

Extract:

In fact, until Rashi (Rabbi Solomon Yizchaki, 1040-1105) applied it to the Jewish nation, the Messianic interpretation of this chapter was almost universally adopted by Jews, and his view, which we shall examine presently, although recieved by Ibn Ezra, Kimchi, and others, was rejected as unsatisfactory by many others, one of whom (R. Mosheh Kohen Ibn Crispin, of Cordova, and afterwards Toledo, fourteenth century, who says rightly, of those who for controversial reasons applied this prophecy to Israel, that "the doors of literal interpretation of this chapter were shut in their face, and that they wearied themselves to find the entrance, having forsaken the knowledge of our teachers, and inclined after the stubborness of their own hearts and of their own opinions." According to Ibn Crispin, the interpretation adopted by Rashi "distorts the passage from its natural meaning", and that in truth "it was given of God as a description of the Messiah, whereby, when any should claim to be the Messiah, to judge by the resemblance or non-resemblance to it whether he were the Messiah or not." cease to exist. And just as the spring loses its value, becomes spoiled and moldy when it has lost its mission and does not water the stream, so would Jewry itself become petrified, barren, and dry if there were no Christendom to fructify it. Without Christendom, Jews would become a second tribe of Samaritans. The two are one. And notwithstanding the heritage of blood and fire which passionate enmity has brought between them, they are two parts of a single whole, two poles of the world which are always drawn to each other, and no deliverance, no peace, and no salvation can come until the two halves are joined together and become one part of God.

[6]

[1]on creationsim, "Isaiah's Suffering Servant." website, July 15, 2014" https://oncreationism.blogspot.com/2014/07/isaiahs-suffering-servant.html

[2]Joseph Hinman, "Rabbinical Tradition Backs SS as Messiah" The Religious a priori, website, no date goven. http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2011/01/rabbinical-tradition-backs-ss-as-messiah.html

[3]Ibid

[4]Rabbi Mosheh Kohen Ibn Crispin.From his commentary on Isaiah, quoted in The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters, Ktav Publishing House, 1969, Volume 2, pages 99-114.

[5]Rabbi Ginsburg of the Yeshivah Tomchei Temimim, Kfar Chabad, Beis Moshiach Magazine Online, ar8_83m

[6]David Baron, judeo Christian Research, websitem, "An Exposition of Isaiah 53" https://juchre.org/isaiah53/part1.htm

Jerusalem or Galilee? Contradition in Res accounts?

"Studies of the passion narrative have shown that all gospels were dependent upon one and the same basic account of the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus. But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb." --Helmutt Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 208.M

Our atheist friend the regular on the comment section "Pixie" has an argument about the Resurrection accounts that is interesting and deserves answering:

Mark is clear that Jesus went on ahead to Galilee. This is in both chapter 14 and 16. The supposed appearances in Jerusalem contradict that. You page on harmonization fails to even mention Galilee, totally ignoring both Mark and Matthew!...Okay, I should have said oldest that we have, and therefore closest to the original. We know Luke and Matthew were based on Mark, and yet they chose to remove the claim that the women did not say anything. They (their respective communities) were adding their own embellishments, and it made more sense to have the women talk, so they changed the text.

again:

We have a whole bunch of facts that need to be pieced together to make a coherent narrative. The author of Mark wrote what he wrote for a reason. I suggest he wrote that Jesus went on ahead to Galilee because that is what he believed, because when he was writing there were no stories of Jerusalem appearances. He wrote of the Empty Tomb because that is what the community held to, and wrote that the women said nothing because that explained why stories of the Empty Tomb were not circulating at the time.[1]

So he is saying in Mark the angel tells the women Jesus will go meet them in Galilee they should go there, That is a contradiction to all the Jerusalem-based sightings of the risen Christ, In fact the same statement is made in two Gospels:

mark 16

4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.6 He said to them, “Do not be amazed! You seek Jesus of Nazareth, the crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Behold, the place where they laid him. 7 But go and tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you.’”

Matt 28

5 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.”8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid. Matthew records that they did go to Galilee and that's where he gives them the great commission.

Mat 28

16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

The problem is the time frame created by Luke is so tightly constructed that it doesn't allow for them to go to Galilee. He shows the travelers on the road to Emmaus meet Jesus. It tells us "on that same day":(24:13) that is Easter, the day of the resurrection, Then they invite Jesus to break bread when they get home. They realize who he is and he disappears and they get up and go back to Jerusalem and tell the 12 then and there. The journey was only about five miles. Jesus appears among them he eats in front of them, Then he leads them out to Bethany where he ascends into the sky, It all happens in one day and evening no time to go to Galilee which would be about a three day walk.

Dr. Joseph R. Nally, answers the problem by asserting there's a gap at v 44, an invisible seem that separates everything after 44 as happening days later in Galilee. [2] The justification for the dividing line the Greek word "de"(pronounced "day"). The NIV translates it merely as"he said to them" some versions put "then he said..." "I maintain that it is a merely an assumption to assert that Jesus spoke Luke 24:44ff on Easter Day. The use of the Greek "de" (meaning "and," "then," or "now") to begin Luke 24:44 does not necessitate immediacy, but merely at "a time after." Witnesses do not always share things in chronological order - this includes the Gospel writers as well. The Gospels jump from topic to topic without any warnings at times (see Luke 4:1-4; Matt 4:1-11)."[3]

He wants us to assume that there's an invisible break we are just not told about. It puts several days between v43 where he eats fish and 44 where he shows his hands and feet. In the part of Texas from which I come we call this "rationalization," (one of our folksy colloquialisms). Because it's unlikely he would wait so long, he just ate to prove he is flesh and blood then why wait several days to show his hands and feet? That's bad enough but Luke lowers the boom on this answer in v50 where he leads them back to Bethany for the ascension.So they waited three days to walk down to Galilee to see his hands and feet then turned and walked back to Bethany to watch him ascend.I think in the way Luke tries to pin it down he actually does create a contradiction with the other Synoptics (Matthew and Mark).

This need not be a faith destroying problem, however, we know Luke was not an eye witness he does not claim to be. He tries to tie the account to the documentation of his research but in so doing leaves out room for other accounts he did not consult. Clearly Luke draws upon a Jerusalem based tradition (which is consistent with the Pauline circle since Paul made contact with James who stayed in Jerusalem).[4] The witnesses of the Jerusalem community omitted rather than renounced the Galilee community, but they conflated the time frame.

Remember my basic assumption is that the witnesses fanned out among the various communities. Thus, each community reflects the perspective of those witnesses in its midst. Thus John focused on Mary Madeline as the major witness to the resurrection, the others do not. John's account seems to be told from Mary's perspective but it does acknowledge that there were other women with her at the tomb too ("we don't know where they have laid him"--John 20:2). The most likely explanation for the focus on her perspective is that she is the one of the major witnesses that wound up in that community.

I am not saying the James' Church was at odds with the Galilee band. I am just saying that over time the accounts conflated the experience of the community to the exclusion of others in some way. Interestingly enough there was a very early tradition that had Peter and some others of the 12 went back to Galilee having heard of the resurrection but not having yet seen the Lord.There is a part of the apocryphal gospel of Peter that records a trace of this tradition,After the amazing resurrection scene where Jesus is escorted out of the tomb followed by talking cross, there is a much more realistic account of Peter and others going back to Galilee to fish and wait for the Lord,[5] This fragment fits much more closely the tone of fear, mystery, and silence of Mark rather than the positive "Godspell" tone of Matthew, Luke, and John.

[58] Now it was the final day of the Unleavened Bread; and many went out returning to their home since the feast was over. [59] But we twelve disciples of the Lord were weeping and sorrowful; and each one, sorrowful because of what had come to pass, departed to his home. [60] But I, Simon Peter, and my brother Andrew, having taken our nets, went off to the sea. And there was with us Levi of Alphaeus whom the Lord ...[6]

James Tabor argues that this constitutes an early independent tradition. He thinks that Luke suggests that the injunction to stay in Jerusalem was counter to the faction that returned to the Galilee.[7] We know there was some mild power struggle in the early church in which Peter and James vied to impress one another.[8]

Omission is not contradiction, It is well known that major aspects of the synoptic are left out of John and that John includes major aspects not in the synoptic; for example John includes the whole Galilean ministry not in the synoptics, "Prior visits of Jesus to Jerusalem before the passion week are mentioned in John but not found in the synoptics. The seventh sign-miracle, the resurrection of Lazarus (John 11) is not mentioned in the synoptics. The extended Farewell Discourse (John 13—17) is not found in the synoptic Gospels."[9] Yet no serious scholar tries to suggest that this is an out-and-out contradiction. It's merely a difference in sources. A difference in the "take."

Now the question arises, how do we know what in the account is genuine and what is not? This is not the hopeless conundrum the skeptic will try to build it into. Were it not possible to answer this point by means of textual criticism we would not have it as a problem in the first place.Two points enable solution: (1) We can spot the older readings as the discovery of the Pre Mark Passion Narrative (PMPN) has been consistent with MS evidence; the existence or pre mark redaction--sources of the gospel written before Mark of course not canonical but nevertheless influenced the canonical gospels. This view is now consensus.[10] for more on PMPN (see my article article "story of empty tomb dated mid first century."[11](2) we can ascertain those points upon which all witnesses agree. They all agree that the tomb was empty they all agree Jesus was seen alive again. None of the accounts including apocryphal accounts deny these points, for at least three centuries after the events. Each account is fueled by the unique perspective of the set of witnesses in that community. They do not contradict each other they are cumulative.

My Point is we can take agreement between canonical and extra canonical sources as consensus. We don't want to use them as theological guides but as historical artifacts. Like a pot shard these apocryphal works testify as to the beliefs going around in given era and given local. It can be reckoned as fairly obvious that the cross, the empty, tomb the resurrection of Jesus were early and universal, and undisputed. Two major sources of which I speak are the Gospel of Peter (GPet) and Gospel of Thomas, (GTom). There is the Epistle of the Apostles, very orthodox but attributed to middle of second century.Epistle Egerton 2. Most of these are tainted with Gnosticism and contradict orthodox theology. For this reason many Christian apologists just date them to later second century and dismiss them as false and ignore them. That's not honest because major scholarship, even by orthodox schools (such as Raymond Brown) place these works as early or as containing early influences. Some perhaps even earlier than the canonical gospels. Again they are not theologically reliable but as historical artifacts we can't overlook them.

Skeptics often argue that Mark ends with no resurrection even though clearly says he is risen and in an atmosphere of fear and secrecy. But Marks's ending is lost so we don't know what it said. But in echoing the Galilee command it acknowledges that tradition, That's even more interesting that Mark is said to be the memoirs of Peter who according to the Pre Mark redaction led the contingent back to Galilee. Matthew not only preserves the command but says they went. All gospels, both canonical and otherwise agree with the empty tomb and the resurrection. In light of these facts we can;t regard the omission of Luke, who was not privy to the original events, as a serious contradiction to events.

The truth is, Jesus met with His disciples in both places, but He did so at different times. One of the reasons so many people allege that two or more Bible passages are contradictory is because they fail to recognize that mere differences do not necessitate a contradiction...Jesus met with His disciples both in Jerusalem and in Galilee, but at different times. On the day of His resurrection, He met with all of the apostles (except Thomas) in Jerusalem just as both Luke and John recorded (Luke 24:33-43; John 20:19-25). Since Jesus was on the Earth for only forty days following His resurrection (cf. Acts 1:3), sometime between this meeting with His apostles in Jerusalem and His ascension more than five weeks later, Jesus met with seven of His disciples at the Sea of Tiberias in Galilee (John 21:1-14), and later with all eleven of the apostles on a mountain in Galilee that Jesus earlier had appointed for them (Matthew 28:16). Sometime following these meetings in Galilee, Jesus and His disciples traveled back to Judea, where He ascended into heaven from the Mount of Olives near Bethany (Luke 24:50-53; Acts 1:9-12)...None of the accounts of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances contradicts another. Rather, each writer supplemented what a different writer left out. Jesus may have appeared to the disciples a number of times during the forty days on Earth after His resurrection (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:1-7), while the New Testament writers mentioned only the more prominent instances in order to substantiate the fact of His resurrection.[12]

Why the dichotomy between meeting places? Who knows. Perhaps that reflects a factional split in the early church. Or maybe Jesus wanted to reminisce about his childhood before ascending to heaven. I know that sounds sarcastic but onerously what I mean is we can't know. We don't know all the things Jesus attended to during that period. He may have taken the disciples back were it all started for their own psychological needs. If it is a contradiction is it really a major one?

Sources

[1] Anonymous (aka "Pixie") Comment Section,in Joseph Hinman, "Breaking News: Liberals are not fundies; Answering Atheist assertions about folklore in Gospels," Cadre Comments blog (Jan, 7, 2018) http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2018/01/breaking-news-liberals-are-not-fundies.html (accessed Jan 11, 2018)

[2] Dr. Joseph R. Nally, Jr. "God and Stay Discrepancy," Reformed Answers (third Millennial Ministries) (no date given) http://reformedanswers.org/answer.asp/file/44375 (accessed 1/11/18) Nally is D.D., M.Div. is the Theological Editor at Third Millennium Ministries (IIIM).

[3] Ibid.

[4] James was from Galilee but we know he stayed in Jerusalem because he became head of the Jerusalem church according to Josephus' "brother passage."

[5] "The Gospel of Peter," Trans Raymond Brown, Early Christian Writings. Peter Kirby Editor. (website coywrite 2001) http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelpeter-brown.html (accessed 1/11/18)

[6] Ibid

[7] James Tabor, "The Surprising Ending of The Lost Gospel of Peter," Taborblog, published by Christian Origins website (December. 2015). https://jamestabor.com/the-surprising-ending-of-the-lost-gospel-of-peter/ (accessed 1/11/18) James D. Tabor (born 1946 in Texas) is a Professor in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, where he has taught since 1989 and served as Chair from 2004–14. He previously held positions at Ambassador College (1968–70 while a student at Pepperdine University), the University of Notre Dame (1979–85), and the College of William and Mary (1985–89). Tabor is a fine scholar but his Jesus Dynasty book denies the resurrection,

[8] Ibid

[9] W Hall Harris III, "Two Major Differences in John and The Synoptic," from Commentary on the Gospel of John, Bible .Org Web site. https://bible.org/book/export/html/1151 (access 1/25/18) Harris is Prof New Testament Dallas Theological Seminary.

[10] Peter Kirbey, "The Passion Narrative," Early Christian Writings, website http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/passion.html (access 1/25/18) "Nevertheless, the idea of a pre-Markan passion narrative continues to seem probable to a majority of scholars. One recent study is presented by Gerd Theissen in The Gospels in Context, on which I am dependent for the following observations." Image result for Giotto the empty tomb

[11] Joseph Hinman, "Story of Empty Tomb Dated To Mid First Century." Cadre Comments Blog, (April 2, 2017) http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2017/04/story-of-empty-tomb-dated-to-mid-first.html (access 1/25/18) also published in Holding's anthology Deeding the Resurrection

[12] Eric Lyons, "To Galilee or Jerusalem?,"Apologetics Press (2004) http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=730 (accessed Dec 8,2019)

The Gospel Behind the Gospels

Skeptics of the New Testament usually assume a long gap exists between the events in the gospels and the recording of the events in writing, They further tend to assume that the first source of writing about these events was the gospel of Mark. Thus they assume events were exaggerated and miracles were made up and so on during this gap period. In this essay I am going to dispel this myth by demonstrating that there were written records of the gospel events that existed before the writing of Mark's gospel. I will further demonstrate that there were multiple sources transmitting the information. Mark's was not the first gospel written but merely the first of the canonical gospels to be written. None of the early works survive in MS form but we find traces of them in copies of latter works.Nor was Mark' the first teaching of the Resurrection.


A, The circulation of Gospel material can be shown in four areas:

(1) Oral tradition

(2) saying source Material

(3) Non canonical Gospels

(4) traces of pre Markan redaction (PMR)

(canonical material that pre-date Mark, assumed the to be the first Gospel, also called Pre Mark Passion narrative PMPN).

B. Oral Tradition (in Two Major Sources)

Scholars have always recognized that the telling of the gospel stories began with the transmission of oral tradition. Of course the problem with oral tradition is that it's not written, Once written it becomes written tradition. Yet the form of the oral transmission can cling to the writing, It is possible to identify sources of oral tradition even when written down. We see oral tradition reflected in the New Testament in two major sources:

Pauline references to sayings

The great scholar Edgar Goodspeed held that oral tradition was not haphazard rumor but tightly controlled process,and that all new converts were required to learn certain oral traditions and spit them back from memory:

Our earliest Christian literature, the letters of Paul, gives us glimpses of the form in which the story of Jesus and his teaching first circulated. That form was evidently an oral tradition, not fluid but fixed, and evidently learned by all Christians when they entered the church. This is why Paul can say, "I myself received from the Lord the account that I passed on to you," I Cor. 11:23. The words "received, passed on" [1] reflect the practice of tradition—the handing-down from one to another of a fixed form of words. How congenial this would be to the Jewish mind a moment's reflection on the Tradition of the Elders will show. The Jews at this very time possessed in Hebrew, unwritten, the scribal interpretation of the Law and in Aramaic a Targum or translation of most or all of their Scriptures. It was a point of pride with them not to commit these to writing but to preserve them.[1]

In my essay "Community as author" I deal with the validity of oral tradition. At this point I give examples of the traces of oral tradition in Paul's writings: 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 has long been understood as a formula saying like a creedal statement.

"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

1Cr 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

1Cr 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

1Cr 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

1Cr 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

1Cr 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

Koster theorizes that Paul probably had a saying source like that of Q available to him. Paul's use of Jesus' teachings indicates that he probably worked from his own saying source which contained at least aspects of Q. That indicates wide connection with the Jerusalem church and the proto "Orthodox" faith.

Parable of Sower 1 Corinthians 3:6 Matt.

Stumbling Stone Romans 9: 33 Jer 8:14/Synoptics

Ruling against divorce 1 cor 7:10 Mark 10:11

Support for Apostles 1 Cor 9:14 Q /Luke 10:7


On my site I have 16 verses, found in gospels but found in Paul first. That can only mean Mark was usmg material which had been aroound since the begining. To see these passages in nice cool looking easy to read chart go to my site the religious a priori,(scroll down to the blue box)[2]

These passages indicate that Paul knew versions off Jesus' teaching and Gospel stories two decades before Mark was written, What this means is the Gospel material was being transmitted in an era decades before the writing of Mark. This material also indicates oral tradition (as with the pericopes) we can assume this material goes back to era of the events themselves since we only abouit about 18 years between Crucifixion and Paul's early epistles.

[1] Edgar J. Goodspeed, An Introduction to the New Testament, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1937

[2]Joseph Hinman, "Gospel behind the gospels," The Religious a priori, website., 2010. http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2010/05/gospel-behind-gospels-part-1.html

Sorry for eliminating post

I elemiated the post because all the side bar stuff was going to the bottom. I don't know why. I hope that fixes it. I can't fix it. I need to hear from everyone wno post here If we just goon as iswould be ok Or shall I sart a new blog?

What is the Soul?

It seems almost a universal belief among atheists on the net (with some notable exceptions) that science has explained all of consciousness, reduced "mind" to an illusory nature, a side effect of brain chemistry. Atheists argue this fantasy from the stand point of the soul or the spirit, reducing dualistic aspects of religious thought to only the material realm, thus confirming their naturalism and eliminating what they see as privative religious thinking. The problem is, this is sheer fantasy. The atheist delusion that the whole of science accepts this conclusion as fact and as a matter of course is totally contradicted by the major physicists (Pennrose) and the Nobel Laureates who support many of the new forms of dualism or quantum versions of consciousness.

Atheists argue this issue on two grounds: (1) that there is no data of any kind whatsoever supporting any sort of soul or spirit; (2) that alterations to brain chemistry seem to alter consciousness in many ways. Thus they conclude that brain chemistry is what "mind" reduce to, and there is nothing more than that and there need be nothing more than that. To answer the first point first, what atheists have in mind on the issue of soul is something like Casper the friendly ghost. They seem to think that religious thinking has not advanced sufficiently to get past the vaper notion of a by gone era. But not all religious view points understand things in is way.

"Soul," in my parlance, is a veg term which is given no consistent use in the Bible. What emerges from the Biblical text most often is the idea that "soul" is a symbolic term referring to the over all life of the individual, especially with reference to the religious sphere, the telos of the individual's life goal, the after life. This is not to say that "soul" is what lives on, except in the symbolic sense. In other words, we do not have souls, we are souls. Thus the Bible speaks of a certain number of "souls" going down into Egypt, or we speak of "lost souls" and "saving souls."

It is Spirit that I think of as the thing that lives after death. Spirit is the "life force" in a metaphorical sense. Now this doesn't mean it's a mysterious energy, for I understand "spirit" in the way that Albert Schweitzer did, as mind: Spirit = mind. Mind is an immaterial aspect of brain which produces consciousness, self awareness, and that is what lives on after death. Of course the atheist will argue that the mind is a side effect of brain chemistry, below (page 3) I present a boat load of data to show that this is simply not the case. Mind transcends brain. Of course we should be prepared to assume that mind is produced by brain function, that is "caused" by having a brain; but just being caused by the brain doesn't mean that the mind is reduced to the brain. As for living without a brain, we are talking about a state of after life. Of course we shouldn't expect minds to go running around planet earth without brains while people are still alive, but in the state of after life, where one transcends the material, why not? Some Christians might raise the issue of "resurrection body," but when Jesus was still in the flesh, after the resurrection, he told Mary he had not yet ascended to the father, and implied that his body would be transformed. Paul says he was raised a life giving spirit; he doesn't say he was a life giving spirit immediately upon raising.So perhaps in the state of after life the "resurrection body" is pure spirit? That is to say, the resurrection body is pure mind; being taken up into God's presence the mind coheres through some divine measure we know not of? That seems like the simplest solution to consider to me.

As for the issue of brain chemistry and changing brain function changes consciousness, there is a problem here between correlation and causality. There is a very strong correlation between brain damage and changes of consciousness, but there is no way to prove that this is because the mind is reduce able to the brain. If the mind is dependent upon the brain as a soft ware package is dependent upon hardware, then of course damaging the hard ware would make the soft ware inaccessible, but it would not mean that soft are is reduceable to hardware.

This idea always leaves atheists cold and usually they just ignore it on message boards. But it really does answer all the problems connected with belief in life after death and soul. It is not an entity that lives separately from the body. Its' the symbol of the over all life in relation to God. Mind is spirit, this means there is no Casper like aspect of humans that lives on after death. Mind may or may not live on after death, but as mind and we can ponder "resurrection body" another time. This makes after life something of a physical thing. If we are ideas in the mind of God this is not hard to understand. All God need to do so save our maind matrix is just think about it adhering

.

The Point of Religion

My original statement: "religion is justified on its own terms."

Pix: If your argument is right, then the belief that Thor controls thunder "is justified on its own terms". Do you really think that is the case?

Me: Only if you have a comic book understanding of religion. You think religion is a big bully boy in the clouds and you better do what he says then know nothing about religion. My statement boils down to there is ultimate transformative experience that resolves the issue in the human problematic and gives meaning to existence. One such example of this transformative experience is the feeling of utter dependence. That feeling justifies the need to resolve the problematic.

Atheists tend to see religion as competing strong men. They are always justopossimg individual deities against each other, Like in man's post human ampliofied the most powerful people and projected them imto skay riding status and that's all religion can ever be for atheists. Meanwhile thinking religious people moved on.

What follows is a statement I wrote so long ago the name Metacrock still seemed new. The statement was part of my page on Biblical revelation so it analyzes the religious a priori in terms of the Bible and specifically questions of the  historicity of the Bible. I think it does expand the meaning of my statement about the point of religion.

All religions seek to do three things.

All religions seek to do three things:

a) to identify the human problematic,
b) to identify an ultimate transformative experience (UTE) which resolves the
problematic, and
c) to mediate between the two.

But not all religions are equal. All are relative to the truth but not all are equal. Some mediate the UTE better than others, or in a more accessible way than others. Given the foregoing, my criteria are that:

1) a religious tradition reflects a human problematic which is meaningful in terms of what we find in the world.

2) the UTE be found to really resolve the problematic

. 3) it mediates the UTE in such a way as to be effective and accessible.

4) its putative and crucial historical claims be historically probable given the ontological and epistemological assumptions that are required within the inner logic of that belief system.

5) it be consistent with itself and with the external world in a way that touches these factors.

These mean that I am not interested in piddling Biblical contradictions such as how many women went to the tomb, ect. but in terms of the major claims of the faith as they touch the human problematic and its resolution.

How Does the Bible fulfill these criteria? First, what is the Bible? Is it a rule book? Is it a manual of discipline? Is it a science textbook? A history book? No it is none of these. The Bible, the Canon, the NT in particular, is a means of bestowing Grace. What does that mean? It means first, it is not an epistemology! It is not a method of knowing how we know, nor is it a history book. It is a means of coming into contact with the UTE mentioned above. This means that the primary thing it has to do to demonstrate its veracity is not be accurate historically, although it is that in the main; but rather, its task is to connect one to the depository of truth in the teachings of Jesus such that one is made open to the ultimate transformative experience. Thus the main thing the Bible has to do to fulfill these criteria is to communicate this transformation. This can only be judged phenomenologically. It is not a matter of proving that the events are true, although there are ensconces where that becomes important.

Thus the main problem is not the existence of these piddling so-called contradictions (and my experience is 90% of them stem from not knowing how to read a text), but rather the extent to which the world and life stack up to the picture presented as a fallen world, engaged in the human problematic and transformed by the light of Christ. Now that means that the extent to which the problematic is adequately reflected, that being sin, separation from God, meaninglessness, the wages of sin, the dregs of life, and so forth, vs. the saving power of God's grace to transform life and change the direction in which one lives to face God and to hope and future. This is something that cannot be decided by the historical aspects or by any objective account. It is merely the individual's problem to understand and to experience. That is the nature of what religion does and the extent to which Christianity does it more accessibly and more efficaciously is the extent to which it should be seen as valid.

The efficacy is not an objective issue either, but the fact that only a couple of religions in the world share the concept of Grace should be a clue. No other religion (save Pure Land Buddhism) have this notion. For all the others there is a problem of one's own efforts. The Grace mediates and administrates through Scriptures is experienced in the life of the believer, and can be found also in prayer, in the sacraments and so forth.

Where the historical questions should enter into it are where the mediation of the UTE hedges upon these historical aspects. Obviously the existence of Jesus of Nazareth would be one, his death on the cross another. The Resurrection of course, doctrinally is also crucial, but since that cannot be established in an empirical sense, seeing as no historical question can be, we must use historical probability. That is not blunted by the minor discrepancies in the number of women at the tomb or who got there first. That sort of thinking is to think in terms of a video documentary. We expect the NT to have the sort of accuracy we find in a court room because we are moderns and we watch too much television. The number of women and when they got to the tomb etc. does not have a bearing on whether the tomb actually existed, was guarded and was found empty. Nor does it really change the fact that people claimed to have seen Jesus after his death alive and well and ascending into heaven. We can view the different strands of NT witness as separate sources, since they were not written as one book, but by different authors at different times and brought together later.

The historicity of the NT is a logical assumption given the nature of the works. We can expect that the Gospels will be polemical. We do not need to assume, however, that they will be fabricated from whole cloth. They are the product of the communities that redacted them. That is viewed as a fatal weakness in fundamentalist circles, tantamount to saying that they are lies. But that is silly. In reality there is no particular reason why the community cannot be a witness. The differences in the accounts are produced by either the ordering of periscopes to underscore various theological points or the use of witnesses who fanned out through the various communities and whose individual view points make up the variety of the text. This is not to be confused with contradiction simply because it reflects differences in individual's view points and distracts us from the more important points of agreement; the tomb was empty, the Lord was seen risen, there were people who put their hands in his nail prints, etc.

The overall question about Biblical contradiction goes back to the basic nature of the text. What sort of text is it? Is it a Sunday school book? A science textbook? A history book? And how does inspiration work? The question about the nature of inspiration is the most crucial. This is because the basic notion of the fundamentalists is that of verbal plenary inspiration. If we assume that this is the only sort of inspiration then we have a problem. One mistake and verbal plenary inspiration is out the window. The assumption that every verse is inspired and every word is true comes not from the Church fathers or from the Christian tradition. It actually starts with Humanists in the Renaissance and finds its final development in the 19th century with people like J. N. Drably and Warfield. (see, Avery Dulles Models of Revelation).

One of my major reasons for rejecting this model of revelation is because it is not true to the nature of transformation. Verbal plenary inspiration assumes that God uses authors like we use pencils or like businessmen use secretaries, to take dictation (that is). But why should we assume that this is the only form of inspiration? Only because we have been conditioned by American Christianity to assume that this must be the case. This comes from the Reformation's tendency to see the Bible as epistemology rather than as a means of bestowing grace (see William Abraham, Canon and Criterion). Why should be approach the text with this kind of baggage? We should approach it, not assuming that Moses et al. were fundamentalist preachers, but that they experienced God in their lives through the transformative power of the Spirit and that their writings and readings are a reflection of this experience. That is more in keeping with the nature of religion as we find it around the world. That being the case, we should have no problem with finding that mythology of Babylonian and Suzerain cultures are used in Genesis, with the view toward standing them on their heads, or that some passages are idealized history that reflect a nationalistic agenda. But the experiences of God come through in the text in spite of these problems because the text itself, when viewed in dialectical relation between reader and text (Barth/Dulles) does bestow grace and does enable transformation.

After all the Biblical texts were not written as "The Bible" but were compiled from a huge voluminous body of works which were accepted as scripture or as "holy books" for quite some time before they were collected and put in a single list and even longer before they were printed as one book: the Bible. Therefore, that this book may contradict itself on some points is of no consequence. Rather than reflecting dictation, or literal writing as though the author was merely a pencil in the hands of God, what they really reflect is the record of people's experiences of God in their lives and the way in which those experiences suggested their choice of material/redaction. In short, inspiration of scripture is a product of the transformation afore mentioned. It is the verbalization of inner-experience which mediates grace, and in turn it mediates grace itself.

The Bible is not the Perfect Revelation of God to humanity. Jesus is that perfect revelation. The Gospels are merely the record of Jesus' teachings, deposited with the communities and encoded for safe keeping in the list chosen through Apostolic backing to assure Christian identity. For that matter the Bible as a whole is a reflection of the experience of transformation and as such, since it was the product of human agents we can expect it to have human flaws. The extent to which those flaws are negligible can be judge the ability of that deposit of truth to adequately promote transformation. Christ authorizes the Apostles, the Apostles authorize the community, the community authorizes the tradition, and the tradition authorizes the canon.

historicity of the empty tomb

But in the last several years, a remarkable change seems to have taken place, and the scepticism that so characterized earlier treatments of this problem appears to be fast receding. Though some theologians still insist with Bultmann that the resurrection is not a historical event, this incident is certainly presented in the gospels as a historical event, one of the manifestations of which was that the tomb of Jesus was reputedly found empty on the first day of the week by several of his women followers; this fact, at least, is therefore in principle historically verifiable. But how credible is the evidence for the historicity of Jesus's empty tomb?[1]

The canonical authors give limited but acurate accounts of the kind of tomb that would have been used, [2] There is no first century account other than the Gospels early church writers do point to the empty tomb.If there was an empty tomb why would the early apologists the apostoli fathers not mention it? Because they didn't think about things the way we do.They had no concept of a modern courtroom much less courtroom evidence.

According to both Eusebius and Jerome,Hadrian (c. A.D. 135) built a temple to both Jupiter and Venus on the site of the tomb, that is how christians marked the site of the tomb. When the Jeswis-Christians fled Jerusalem after the revolt of 134 they aprized gentile christians of this knowledge. That also indicates that the tomb was vindicated at that time since Romans desecrated the site. [3]

From the second half of the second century we have the Gospel of Peter (aka GPet).GPet gives us a look at the empty tomb reflecting the notion that the empty  tomb was well established by that time.

For the stone was large, and we were afraid lest anyone see us. And if we are unable, let us throw against the door what we bring in memory of him; let us weep and beat ourselves until we come to our homes."

[55] And having gone off, they found the sepulcher opened. And having come forward, they bent down there and saw there a certain young man seated in the middle of the sepulcher, comely and clothed with a splendid robe, who said to them:

[56] "Why have you come? Whom do you seek? Not that one who was crucified? He is risen and gone away. But if you do not believe, bend down and see the place where he lay, because he is not here. For he is risen and gone away to there whence he was sent."[4]

There are critics, such as Mark Cameron support idea of GPet as reflecting an ancient and independent tradition.[5]"John Dominic Crossan argues that the Gospel of Peter, as it is found in the modern day, was composed in the 2nd century but incorporates a passion narrative source that predates all other known passion accounts."[6]

There are writers after the second century who allude to the empty tomb, "Of these the most explicit and of the greatest importance is Eusebius, who writes of the Tomb as an eyewitness, or as one having received his information from eyewitnesses."[7]

I have made a much more involved page with lots of documentation going into great detail on the subject,Its on my original website Doxa, 9t's ca;ed "have tomb,will argue."[8]

I invite the reader to read that essay.



NOTES

[1]William Lane Craig, "The Historicity of the empty tomb of Jesus,"extract, Cambridge Unversity Press,1985, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/new-testament-studies/article/abs/historicity-of-the-empty-tomb-of-jesus1/39C53623AC0517088951E31CF346B540

[2]Gary D. Myers,"the Empty Tomb: archeaology and early Chuch writers Point to Jesus Tomb" NOBTS, (MARCH 28, 2016) https://www.nobts.edu/news/articles/2016/the-empty-tomb-archaeology-early-church-writers-point-to-jesus-tomb.html Myers is the director of public relations at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary

[3] Ibid.

[4]:Gospel of Peter," Linius,org,1998;2020
https://www.livius.org/sources/content/gospel-of-peter/

[5]Walter Richard Cassels, Supernatural Religion - An Inquiry Into the Reality of Divine Revelation, Read Books, 2010. Vol. 1, p. 419–422

[6]Crossan, John Dominic. The Cross that Spoke, pp. 16–30. Wipf and Stock, 1988.

[7]Op cit,Myers fn2.

https://www.nobts.edu/news/articles/2016/the-empty-tomb-archaeology-early-church-writers-point-to-jesus-tomb.html

[8]Joseph Hinman, "Have Tomb,Will Argue," Doxa, apologetocs website, 2010.

https://doxa.ws/Jesus_pages/Resurrection/Tomb_yes.html

https://doxa.ws/Jesus_pages/Resurrection/Tomb_yes.html

My answer to those who say Christianity in America is in decline. Civilixation is indecline, books are in decline learning is in decline. Thinking is in decline. Democracy is in decline, dencency is in decline, everything that has made modern life worth living is in declie, so why npt christianity? That is npthing more than the great falling away preduced at theend times.

Arguments for the Existence of God

I. Cosmological Argument

II. Fine Tuning Argument
dialogue o FT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69C29ZNTZgY

III.Religious Experience

.....A.Thomas Reid argument


.....B.The Empirical Study of Religious Experience

IV.The Transcendental Signifier Argument

V.Hartshorne's Modal Argument


VI. Argumemt from Laws of Nature

These arguments re not offered as absolute proof that God exists but as the basis for a rational warrant for belief. https://literariness.org/2016/03/22/jacques-derrida-transcendental-signified/

The Empirical Trace of God?

The atheists with whom I converse on the net seem to think that I really believe the studies I conclude that God exists they make a big thing of pointing out that they don/t. Of course they don't claim they do but those atheists just don't listen whenI explain my argument.

"I am skeptical" says:

I'm not belittling anything. I'm telling you that personal experience does not constitute empirical evidence. I'm telling you that all those studies make no such claim, and you are reading that into them. They don't show the causation that you infer from them. You can have all the experiences you like. Be happy with it. I have experiences, too. But don't try to tell a scientist that it's empirical evidence, because it isn't. And all the positive effects your studies point out are not the product God unless you can show actual evidence that they are. Those studies don't say that. You haven't shown it.[1]

The problem is we have two different concepts of reality working here, Notice his major concern is that there be scientific proof of God, Anythig short of that is not proof. This is not science but ideology. Science does not prescribe itself as the only form of knowledge, that is the ideology of scientism.I work by a new standard of proof, called "rational warrant." Rather than prove absolutely that God exists I seek to warrant belief. Atheists criticize fait by cayingitis believing things without a reason, That implies that having a good reason should be enough. This argument supplies a good reason to believe.

Why should we assume that such experiences are experiences of the divine? The first reason is because the content of the experience is largely that of the divine. Even when the experience is interpreted by the receiver not be about God the receiver has been known to act in way consistently with belief in God, and the experience described is the same experience as those described by those who say ‘this was God.’ Ergo it’s just a matter of interpretation. The vast majority of those who have these experiences do believe they are about God.[2]

In a survey of thousands of people who reported having experienced personal encounters with God, Johns Hopkins researchers report that more than two-thirds of self-identified atheists shed that label after their encounter. Moreover, the researchers say, a majority of respondents attributed lasting positive changes in their psychological health—e.g., life satisfaction, purpose, and meaning—even decades after their initial experience.[3]

Secondly, there is a voluminous and ancient tradition of writing about experiences by people from all over the world, and the brunt of this tradition is that it’s an experience of the divine. Literary and philosophical works such as Mysticism by Evelyn Underhill,[4]

Experiences that people describe as encounters with God or a representative of God have been reported for thousands of years, and they likely form the basis of many of the world's religions," says lead researcher Roland Griffiths, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. "And although modern Western medicine doesn't typically consider 'spiritual' or 'religious' experiences as one of the tools in the arsenal against sickness, our findings suggest that these encounters often lead to improvements in mental health."[5]

The works of W.T. Stace  [6] and many other such writings which catalogue these experiences, and many more works of the experiences of individual mystics by the mystics themselves reflect t. Thirdly, grounded in empirical evidence, the universal nature of such experiences implies the experience of a source external to the human mind encountered by all who have such experiences. When I say “external” I mean it originates externally but is experienced internally. This includes human brain structure and brain chemistry as a conduit not that it circumvents natural processes. The works of W.T. Stace are very influential. He shows that, as Ralph Hood Jr. put it, “within and eventually outside of the great faith traditions mysticism has flourished.”[7] Stace offers five characteristics that demonstrate the commonalities to mystical experience; these are characteristics that are found universally in all cultures and in all forms of mystical experience:

The contemporary interest in the empirical research of mysticism can be traced to Stace’s (Stace, 1960) demarcation of the phenomenological characteristics of mystical experiences (Hood, 1975). In Stace’s conceptualization, mystical experiences had five characteristics (Hood, 1985, p.176):

1. The mystical experience is noetic. The person having the experience perceives it as a valid source of knowledge and not just a subjective experience.
2. The mystical experience is ineffable, it cannot simply be described in words.

3. The mystical experience is holy. While this is the religious aspect of the experience it is not necessarily expressed in any particular theological terms.
4. The mystical experience is profound yet enjoyable and characterized by positive affect.
5. The mystical experience is paradoxical. It defies logic. Further analysis of reported mystical experiences suggests that the one essential feature of mysticism is an experience of unity (Hood, 1985).

The experience of unity involves a process of ego loss and is generally expressed in one of three ways (Hood, 1 976a). The ego is absorbed into that which transcends it, or an inward process by which the ego gains pure awareness of self, or a combination of the two.[8]

The experiences themselves are real and they have a total transformative effect upon thelifeofthe experoecer Thisisnot a trick or psychological problem it's real. The question is: what inexperienced? We have major reasons to think it's God:

(1)We would not even have religion without it. What are the odds this "imaginary" thing would affect the validity of the most hated aspect of life for atheists?

(2) The effects of the experience match the major promises made by God about redemption.

(3) the experiences themselves are the same the world over despite different names of deities,which indicates they are all dealing with the same reality.

"But don't try to tell a scientist that it's empirical evidence, because it isn't." The studies themselves are empirical in the scientific sense, the researchers say so."Three empirical instruments have been developed to date. They are the Mysticism Scale by Hood (1975), a specific question by Greeley (1974) and the State of Consciousness Inventory by Alexander (1982;  [9] the data is empirical we are extrapolating from that.This is done in science as with smoking causes cancer before they had a causal mechanism.

The experience of mystical consciousness itself is empirical: Definitions from Oxford Languages · em·pir·i·cal /imˈpirək(ə)l/ adjective based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

"they provided considerable empirical evidence to support their argument"[10] Webster:"originating in or based on observation or experience. empirical data. 2. : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory.``[11] In scientific terms: "Empirical research is based on observed and measured phenomena and derives knowledge from actual experience rather than from theory or belief.Jan 5, 2024"[12] That wpi;d still indclude the actual experience of God as emirical.

Science offers it's specialized version of empirical that fits scientific learning. But why should that be the standard by which all belief is measured? Even so the data is scientifically empirical, we are extrapolating to ask what does that data teach us?

Notes

[1] "Is there evidence for an infinite loving God?" Metacrock's BlogFEBRUARY 03, 2024 https://metacrock.blogspot.com/2024/02/is-there-evidence-for-infinite-loving.html

[2] Joseph Hinman, Trace of God:Rational warrant for Belief.Colorado Springs:Grand Viaduct, 2014.

[3]Vanessa McMains.
"Profound Experiences Linked to Mental Health Benifits," HUB,Johns Hopkins Unversity. Apr 26, 2019, https://hub.jhu.edu/2019/04/26/experiencing-god-psychedelics-mental-health/

[4] Evelyn Underhill, Mysticism: A study on the Nature and Development of Man’s Spiritual consciousness. New York: Dutton, 1911.

[5]OP Cit, Vanessa McMains

[6] W.T. Stace, Teachings of the Mystics: Selections from the Greatest Mystics and Mystical Writers of the World. New American Library 1960. A good General overview of Stace’s understanding of mysticism is Mystical Experience Registry: Mysticism Defined by W.T. Stace. found onine at URL: http://www.bodysoulandspirit.net/mystical_experiences/learn/experts_define/stace.shtml

[7] Ralph Hood Jr. “The Common Core Thesis in the Study of Mysticism.” In Where God and Science Meet: How Brain and Evolutionary Studies Alter Our Understanding of Religion. Patrick Mcnamara ed. West Port CT: Prager Publications, 2006, 119-235. Google books on line version: URL http://books.google.com.cu/books?id=0bzj3RtT3zIC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=true visited 8/20/2012

[8]Robert J. Voyle, “The Impact of Mystical Experiences Upon Christian Maturity.” originally published in pdf format: http://www.voyle.com/impact.pdf. google html version here: http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:avred7zleAEJ Voyle is quoting Hood in 1985, Hood in return is speaking Stace.
:www.voyle.com/impact.pdf+Hood+scale+and+religious+experience&hl=en&gl =us&ct=clnk&cd=2&ie=UTF-8\\

[9]Vanessa McMains, op cit

  [10] About 32,400,000 results (0.32 seconds) ​based on experiments or experience rather than ideas or theories. empirical evidence/knowledge/research.empirical adjective - Oxford Learner's Dictionaries

Oxford Learner's Dictionaries https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com › english

[11]Empirical, Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › empirical

[12]"Empirical Research in the Social Sciences and Education," Penn state University libraries
https://guides.libraries.psu.edu ›Jan 5, 2024

Is there evidence for an infinite loving God?

On Randal Rauser's Blog Daniel Wilcox speaking to atheist  Dana Harpar: "I agree with you and others that there is no evidence for the infinite and loving God of many Christians or for any of the revealed religions at all."I think I've given plenty of good reason to believe in God and to make a leap of faith. Now I will argue if God does exist God is the loving God of revealed religion,ie of Christianity.

I could appeal to devine revelation then argue for the validity of the Bible. That would be a profuntory answer, one expected of any apologist and guronteed to turn off skeptics. Instead I have two arguments:

I.The nature of religious experience.

II.The Phenomenology of Christian love

I.experience.

The nature of religious experrience as a whole demostrates the loving nature of God. I will use Mystical experience (ME) as my argument but it applies beyond that.There are two core aspects to mystical experience: (1) a profound sense of the undifferentiated unity of all things, and (2) A profound sense of God's all pervasive Love. This second aspect is at the core of the experience and is so much a part of it that lift is missing that is a  good reason to doubt that it is a true mystical experience.

Mystical experience is backed empirically to such an extent that it almost constitutes proof of God's existence.200+ studies over 50 years all showing the validity of the experience with no counter study, not one. The experience is overwhelmingly positive and transformative, makes your life better across the board.What I mean by this is illustrated by a sample of one of the studies, a summary of findings from two.This was published on my religious experience argument back in the summer.

Wuthnow study:

*Say their lives are more meaningful,
*think about meaning and purpose
*Know what purpose of life is
Meditate more
*Score higher on self-rated personal talents and capabilities
*Less likely to value material possessions, high pay, job security, fame, and having lots of friends
*Greater value on work for social change, solving social problems, helping needy
*Reflective, inner-directed, self-aware, self-confident life style

Noble:

*Experience more productive of psychological health than illness
*Less authoritarian and dogmatic
*More assertive, imaginative, self-sufficient
*intelligent, relaxed
*High ego strength,
*relationships, symbolization, values,
*integration, allocentrism,
*psychological maturity,
*self-acceptance, self-worth,
*autonomy, authenticity, need for solitude,
*increased love and compassion

Short-Term Effects (usually people who did not previously know of these experiences)
[1]

II. Phenomenology

Love is more than just a feeling of butterflies in the stomach. It is an experience as well as an ideal. It's concept but it os a;so ex[eroenced,phenomenological apprehension.

I don't feel very loving right now, but I don't have to feel any way to talk about love, because love is not merely a feeling. A lot of people think that love is just the special way of feeling about a person, or the warm fuzzy that comes from being with a certain person. Love is much more than just a special way of feeling. It is also a value, a commitment, a sense of orientation toward others, a philosophy, a way of being in the world (an existential engagement).

There are degrees of love and kinds of love. The Greeks called sexual and romantic love Eros From which we get our word "erotic." The kind of love friends feel they called Phileo or "brotherly love" (as in "Philadelphia"). The highest form of love they called Agape. That is usually the kind of love the Bible speaks of when it speaks of God's love for us. 1 John tells us "He who loves knows God for God is love."

Agape Means: the will to value the other, or the will to the good of the other; the desire for the other to have the best. It entails the idea of according the other all rights and human dignity. It is not personal, it's a commitment to all people. Agape is sometimes translated Charity (as in kJ trains 1 Corinthians 13 "if I speak with the tongue of men and of angles and have not charity") but this is more condescending and patronizing than the actual meaning of the term. Charity can be paternalistic in the negative sense, controlling, colonizing, derogatory. Agape is a totally positive thing; one must actually seek the good of the other whatever that may be, even against one's own interest.

Now I will start saying "crazy stuff," these are things that I have theorized about and I guess they make up the radical edge of my own philosophy because they have been scoffed at plenty of times on these boards. But I don't care I'm saying it anyway.

Basis of everything: connection with Being

When I say love is the basis of everything, I mean it really is. I believe that when the Bible says "God is love" it means it literally. In other words, we should put an "itself" there. God is "love itself,": the thing that love is actually the essence of what God is. Now you may ask how can God be both being itself and love itself? Because these two are inextricably bound up together.

Love is giving, the idea of seeking the good of the other, according the other full human dignity equal to one's own, these are ideas that entail give over, supplying the other with something. It's a positivity in the sense that it supplies an actual thing to someone. Being also shares these qualifications. Being is giving in the sense that it bettors itself upon the beings and they have their existence. It is positive in the sense that it is something and not taking something away, it's not a void as nothingness is, but moves in the direction of filling a void; nothingness becomes being, the existence of things.

So love and being are really the same impulse and they both unite in the spirit of God. God is the basis of all being, of all reality. God's character is love; that is God seeks the good of the other and bestows upon us the ultimate human dignity of being a child of God.

Motivating force behind creation

Love is the basic motivating force behind creation. God's motive urge to create was not out of a need due to looniness, but out of a desire to create as an artist, and desire is fueled by love. Art is love, artists love art, as revolutionaries love. Revolutionaries are in love and their revolutions are often expressions of love, what He Guava called "a strange kind of love, not to see more shiny factories but for people." So God creates as a need to bestow love, which entails the bestowing of being.

Now let's not have a bunch of lectures about "perfection" based upon not knowing what perfection is. Let's not have a buck of Aristotle thrown in as though it were the Bible. There is no baseline for comparison from which one can really make the judgment that need is imperfection; especially the sort of need one feels to be creative or to bestow love; that is a different sort of need than the need for food or shelter.

Basis of morality

Love is the basis of morality. Love is the background of the moral universe, as Joseph Fletcher said. Austin said it too. That means all moral decisions are made with ultimate reference to God's love which is the driving force behind morality. Many people think Christian morality is about stopping impurity. These people regard sex as the greatest offense and think that basically sin = sex. But nothing is further from the truth. Sin is not sex, sin is an unloosing nature, or a selfish desire to act in an unloosing manner.

  Love requires selfless giving over OT the other for the good of the other. That means all moral actions must ultimately be evaluated with reference to their motivational properties. That's why Jesus spoke as he did in the sermon on the mount: if you hate you are a murderer. Because the motivation itself is the true essence of the sin, the rejecting of love and acceptance of self as the orbit creates the motive that eventually leads to the act. He is not saying that the act sin OT sinful of course, but that the sin begins with the motive not just with the act. In that sense morality is somewhat teleological, although I normally eschew teleological ethics. I am not saying that the morality of a given act is based upon outcome, but that the end toward which moral motions are given is the goal of doing love.

    Love is too central to the nature of the faith to be floating out as a mindless idea divorced from divine consciousness.



[1] Joseph Hinman,"Argument from Religious Experience (for existence of God),"Metacrock's Blog."(AUGUST 31, 2022) https://metacrock.blogspot.com/2022/08/argument-from-religious-experience-for.html

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0982408765

God, Science, and Ideology by Joseph Hinman is a very important book. Hinman was a PhD candidate in the UT system, his field was history of ideas and he studied the history and philosophy of science. He brings this knowledge to the critique of athye8ist ideology on the internet. Hinman summarizes 20years of arguments with atheist apologist and takes down some of the major atheists figures such as Richard Dawkins,