Author Topic: The Gospels -- Jesus Remembered  (Read 23351 times)

ROB_MOSKOWITZ

  • Guest
Re: The Gospels -- Jesus Remembered
« Reply #165 on: August 02, 2007, 11:19:27 AM »
Its the post modern interpretation shell game, hermeneutic of smoke and mirrors that allows church officials to make statements such as "I don't believe in the Bible, I believe in God" and still consider themselves fellow lutherans and members of the body of Christ.
Can you give a reference of a church official actually making that statement. If not, you are bearing false witness.
Oh yes I do but choose not to do so here.  If folks want to discuss it they can contact me.  So excuse me for not taking your bait.
Funny how you did not declare false witness when it was born against me recently by an anonymous poster? 

Quote
I have and will say that we are not saved by the Bible, but we are saved by God or God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

And yet again this was not what was asked?   No one declared we where saved by the bible did they?   And how do we know about our being saved by God's grace in Jesus Christ?  Sola Scriptura?

Rob Moskowitz

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43174
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: The Gospels -- Jesus Remembered
« Reply #166 on: August 02, 2007, 11:57:06 AM »
To Borg, and apparently to you as you seemed to be quoting him in order to support your point, the actual resurrection seems to be a "take-it-or-leave-it" occurrence.
First of all, the empty tomb stories are different than resurrection appearance stories. An empty tomb does not prove the resurrection.

Secondly, I have also stated that I don't agree with everything Borg says. I have said that I believe that the resurrection really happened. The tomb was empty.

Quote
Here comes the point that I started with in this thread and which I'm still not sure if you have caught because you have not yet reflected it: that is, the resurrection cannot be approached as a "take-it-or-leave-it-event" and have your theology still remain Christian.  Downgrading the central importance of this historical occurrence from something critical to Christian theology to a "take-it-or-leave-it" teaching betrays a doctrine whose very structure is no longer Christian.
You don't seem to catch the difference between believing that the resurrection really happened and that it is necessary for Christian faith; and that the resurrection appearance stories probably did not happen just as they are recorded in scriptures. Similarly, but to a less extent, not all of the details, such as the number of women or number of angels, can't be confirmed from the empty tomb stories; but that isn't a denial of the historical event.

I've also said that I disagree with Crossan who argues that normally the bodies of crucifixion victions were left on their crosses to be eaten by birds and dogs, that must have happened to Jesus. (Borg does not argue for that in the book that I've been quoting.) There has been the remains of one victim of crucifixion that was found in a tomb. So we know that exceptions to the rule took place. It stands to reason to me that Jesus, with the following that he had, did have someone or a group ask for his body to give him a proper burial, which then leads to the empty tomb stories, and then the resurrection appearance stories; and as they say about movies, "Based on actual events."

Quote
Earlier, you said that you do agree with Paul that if Christ were not raised, our faith is in vain.  If this is true, do you agree that Borg is here both mistaken and misleading in that he does not appear to place any central importance upon the fact of the physical resurrection for the Christian faith (which is different from Paul, and as you said before, apparently yourself)?
Borg has said elsewhere, and I've quoted it, that he believes that Christ was raised from the dead. I believe that he is more inclined to view the stories of the resurrection appearance to Paul in Acts as "normative" -- a bright light, a voice -- rather than the accounts in the gospels.


Quote
Actually, your first and third full sentences are just repeating what I said.  I said that it was one doctrinal trajectory "that developed out of the early church and the way she read her texts."  The key point is that it's an errant trajectory because it cannot do justice to Mark's message.  That is, again, unless you are saying that Mark does teach Adoptionism and that such a teaching is God-breathed and so divine.  Are you saying that?
I'm saying that the inspired gospel of Mark can be read and interpreted as teaching adoptionism, just as the book of James can be read and interpreted as teaching works righteousness. I'm saying that the theological differences we find in scriptures are no different than the theological differences we find among believers in this forum.

Quote
Here, we are closer to agreement.  Add to your last statement the role of the proclamation of Christ and you have yourself a winner.

However, you do need to be stronger in pointing out how such "Gospels" (like the prosperity "Gospel" that is preached all over Africa [and here]) are really no Gospel at all.  I've seen people give all of their money to these "preachers" and descend even further into the depths of poverty than they ever were before, living in horrific slums like Kibera outside of Nairobi.  And when they come asking the preacher why God hasn't blessed the financial "seed" they sowed, the preacher invariable accuses them of lacking faith, even as he purchases a car for himself.  This needs to be identified for what it is -- another Gospel, one preached by a person who is only interested in their bellies and used to steal money from people.
Much of this theology comes from Oral Roberts and his "seed faith" theology. Plant the seed and God will provide the growth. I read a number of his books in my younger, pre-seminary days. Would you call him a non-Christian because he preaches a different gospel? What about all the Pentecostals who stress the necessity of a two stage conversion -- the second stage involving speaking in tongues. Do we declare all of them to be non-Christian because they have a different gospel than us? As I noted somewhere else, the key criteria, at least in 1 John, for spiritual orthodoxy is confessing that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh (1 John 4:2) -- it's not grace or faith but the fleshiness of Jesus. I also asked if that should be taken as a universal criteria -- because Oral Roberts and the Pentecostals confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh they must have the Spirit of God; or is it specific to the docetism problem that 1 John addresses, and thus doesn't apply to issues like speaking in tongues or the seed faith prosperity gospel.

Quote
It's not just a matter of "winning" or "losing" a theological battle, unless you mean to say that the errant positions did not reflect the deep logic (or "depth grammar") of the Christian proclamation.  Creedal Christianity doesdo  justice to the Christian proclamation and the Scriptures; other doctrines do not.  That's why they "lost".
I'm surprised that you didn't state that they "lost" because the God inspired the orthodox positions. That's what I have said. The Church believes that God was behind the "battles" and led the leaders to adopt orthodoxy by the inspiration of the Spirit.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Eric_Swensson

  • Guest
Re: The Gospels -- Jesus Remembered
« Reply #167 on: August 02, 2007, 12:03:23 PM »
First of all, the empty tomb stories are different than resurrection appearance stories. An empty tomb does not prove the resurrection.

What is the difference? Is there some sort of "empty tomb genre" of which some is Chrisitan and some is not? What is th epoint of this differentiation since all accounts of Jesus' empty tomb is part of the gospel writers' account of the resurrection? 
« Last Edit: August 02, 2007, 12:10:10 PM by Eric_Swensson »

Eric_Swensson

  • Guest
Re: The Gospels -- Jesus Remembered
« Reply #168 on: August 02, 2007, 12:07:49 PM »

You don't seem to catch the difference between believing that the resurrection really happened and that it is necessary for Christian faith; and that the resurrection appearance stories probably did not happen just as they are recorded in scriptures.

What is the difference?

How are you able to tell when you are reading "a story" and what is "the truth" on which one would base faith? Or is faith based in something else?

Mike Bennett

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1031
    • View Profile
Re: The Gospels -- Jesus Remembered
« Reply #169 on: August 02, 2007, 12:12:06 PM »

You don't seem to catch the difference between believing that the resurrection really happened and that it is necessary for Christian faith; and that the resurrection appearance stories probably did not happen just as they are recorded in scriptures.

What is the difference?

How are you able to tell when you are reading "a story" and what is "the truth" on which one would base faith? Or is faith based in something else?

And specifically, where on earth would I come up with a crazy concept like "the resurrection" without the "resurrection appearance stories"   as they're recorded in Scripture?

Mike Bennett
“What peace can there be, so long as the many whoredoms and sorceries of your mother Jezebel continue?”  2 Kings 9:22

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43174
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: The Gospels -- Jesus Remembered
« Reply #170 on: August 02, 2007, 01:11:43 PM »
These are already powerful biases, and if you jettison these OR EVEN WANT TO JETTISON THEM you are misunderstanding what it means to be a Christian interpreter of Scripture.
Biblical exegetes do not have to be Christian. Jews and Muslims interpret scriptures. The Bible is taught as literature in colleges. Interpreting scriptures and proclaiming the gospel are not the same thing. If, in a homiletics class you simply read the book of James, do you think the instructor would say that you had preached the gospel, or preached only law?

Quote
We read the Bible because we are Christian.  We are biased because our lives have been grasped and transformed by Christ, and we want to learn more about who it is that did that and grow in our love and trust of him.  We also read the Bible so that the joy which we found in the Christian proclamation can overflow to others in a message that properly reflects what Jesus did and is doing. These are biases that should be embraced and reveled in, not eschewed or downplayed.
There is a difference between devotional reading of scriptures and exegetical reading. For devotional reading I will use the CEV or The Message. For exegetical work, I use the Greek. For devotional reading I seek to open myself to hear what God is saying to me. For exegetical work, I work at uncovering what the author was saying to his first readers.

Quote
But in no case can you ever actually be unbiased.

True, but one can be less biased. I recognize my biases. I have said of particular passages, "I don't agree with this." Why, because it doesn't fit my gospel-centered bias.

Quote
you don't even recognize what you see as a particular category but simply "the way things are".

I disagree. It is through reading people who see things differently than I, such as Crossan, or Borg, or perhaps Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, (which Irl G. recommended,) that helps us see things from a perspective different from our own bias. It may not change our bias, but it will help clarify our biases.

Quote
The "unbiased" approach is simply a cover for the will-to-power.  Rather than being honest and forthright about biases, such an approach attempts to deceive the hearers that your particular set of biases have some privileged position to which they do not have access.  As such, it is a rhetorical power-play and nothing more.
Again, it is an attempt to be less biased, not unbiased. It is consciously reading commentaries by people who I know have different biases than I. It is pretending, as much as possible, each time I read a passage, that I'm reading it for the very first time, which usually results in seeing things that I hadn't seen before.


Quote
I see that you did not answer my question.  If you are contending that James is really teaching that salvation is not by faith alone but by works as well, please come right out and say it.  Assuming that you accept James as inspired by God, that would mean that you believe that this is divine, God-inspired teaching as well.  Do you or don't you?
I believe that James is a God-inspired teaching -- it's just not Lutheran in its emphasis.

Quote
If you're saying that James does teach that the central tenent of the Gospel is wrong -- that is, if you think that he is denying that we are justified by grace through faith -- you are misreading James.  

I argue that when you impose justification by grace through faith into James, you are misreading him. You are imposing a doctrine (a good and most important doctrine,) onto a writing where it is not found.

Three times James uses "justified"

2:21 Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?
2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
2:25 Likewise, was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another road?

How can you read those passages and say that James is not promoting justification by works?

Quote
Quite simply, James is speaking of something that Luther and Christians have always taught -- that faith is a living, active, powerful thing that issues forth in good works.  It is inconceivable that such a faith would not help the neighbor.  Of what benefit or advantage (ophelos) would that faith be?  Rather it would be dead.
James uses language much different than Paul's "faith active in love." See above for James language of "justification by works".

Quote
If you are saying that Scripture is in fact God-breathed and it "contradicts" itself, then you are saying that God contradicts Himself.  Is this your contention?  

Yup -- something common in Hebrew thought based on verbs. Saying that God loves, can lead to contradictory actions of spanking a child or hugging a child -- often parents do this with the same child over the same incident. Punishment and reward -- contradictory actions, but all based on the common motivation of loving the child.

It might be better to talk about paradoxes than contradictions. Another one is "God accepts us just the way we are" and "God changes us." Both are true. They could be seen as contradictory.

Quote
Rather, speak of complimentary doctrines, or if you want to sound more technical, speak of irremdiably vague governing doctrines (such as properly distinguishing Law and Gospel) that find their specificity in their actualy application.  There is nothing contradictory about such governing doctrines that take into account the situation and needs of the person being addressed.  Rather, governing doctrines like being a theologian of the cross or properly distinguishing Law and Gospel feed off of this encounter and help us to address the right Word of God to a particular person for that time.  It doesn't mean that the doctrines are contradictory or really even in tension; rather, it means that doctrine is a complex whole (that is why I sometimes use the word "narrative" to refer to this complex whole) out of which application flows.
To repeat a criticism I stated somewhere earlier, it's one thing to talk about scriptures, e.g., properly distinguishing Law and Gospel, it's anothing thing to actually exegete passages of scriptures. You argue the doctrine of justification by grace through faith -- something I have argued as being the core of my theology. However, I present scripture passages that clearly state a belief by James of justification by works. That's the language he uses. As I asked in an earlier note, which takes precedence our doctrine or biblical passages?

Quote
I am the author my sermons, and insofar as they agree with the inspired Word of God, my sermons are the proclamation of that Word as well.  So in this sense, yes, I agree that they are inspired.  But they are not written by an apostle or by a follower of one, neither have they been set apart by virtue of their universal usage in the Christian congregations of the Church and so are not paradigmatic instances of the proclamation like the Bible is and neither do they carry that authority.  

Granted our sermons do not have the authoritative stamp of approval of the Church, yet, if they are the inspired Word of God that we proclaim, they contain the same power as scriptures to produce and sustain faith. If not, why bother preaching.

Quote
So yes, in a sense you can speak of the spoken Word being inspired, but this does not thereby make it equal or on a par with the biblical witness.
I argue that as "Word of God" it contains the same power as scriptures. It does not have the same universal authority as scriptures, but as the Word that Isaiah promised would not come back void, the gospel in our sermons has that power.

Quote
If you understand this, it is easy to see how a sermon is, in fact, the spoken Word of God as long as it proclaims the same message that the written Word proclaims.

Ah, but we've been arguing whether or not the written Word always proclaim the orthodox doctrine of the church. In preaching, we Lutherans are bound to have a law/gospel bias. We are bound to stress God's actions on behalf of sinful humanity -- both convicting us of sin and forgiving those sins. Not all passages of scriptures proclaim that doctrine -- thus the rise of many different denominations.

Quote
You also easily understand how what is normed (the sermon / spoken Word) does not itself become the norm (the written Word).  My sermons do not norm the Bible.  Neither does my practice of baptism or the Lord's Supper serve as a norm to judge the Bible's teaching on the issue.  Rather, Scripture is the source and the norm of the spoken Word even as the spoken Word is that which is principally used to bring salvation to folks.
I would argue, and use as evidence the ELCA Confession of Faith, that there are norms that rank higher than scriptures in our preaching and teaching: the doctrine of the Trinity, the confession of Jesus Christ as savior and Lord and the power of the gospel for salvation to all who believe.

Quote
One doesn't have to adopt non-Christian categories of interpretation -- like Adoptionism, for example -- to properly understand the variety in the Scriptures.  Yes, like I said earlier, we have four Gospels because we need all four to give us a full and sufficient rendering of the life of Jesus.  But this is easily done without importing in non-Christian perspectives and assumptions as if these would somehow help us read our own Christian texts.
I'm not saying that we adopt non-Christian categories, but that we try as much as possible when exegeticing scriptures, to approach them with no categories -- to read them again for the very first time.

Quote
Why do you adopt the bias of desiring to be a "biblical critic"?  I agree that such would try to approach the Scriptures "as unbiasly as possible".  Of course, like I said above, this is a fallacy and really a cover for the will-to-power; it is simply a rhetorical power-play.  

I am a biblical critic because I want to try and clearly understand what the Bible proclaimed to its original audience, how they were likely to respond to the message, how the message may be understood and applied in contemporary situations, how people today respond (in their various ways) to the message. It's also a fallacy that one can't reduce the amount of bias one uses in approaching scriptures.

Quote
By maintaining such a myth, "biblical critics" do regularly deceive the people to keep their chairs in universities and other places even as the results of their work -- by your own admission -- do not serve the Church, the very people for whom the Scriptures were given in the first place.  Rather, their efforts serve themselves (many times out of a good, though misguided, heart!) frequently allowing them to maintain their academic "respectability" and so their chosen livelihood, or serve an idle speculation about what might have happened rather than engaging people with the message of redemption in Christ.
I am not sitting in a chair of a university. I am a pastor who preaches to people every week. I am an exegete who provides "notes" to literally thousands of pastors on the gospel text each week -- with the idea of what is preachable about the texts.

Quote
Why would you want to adopt the bias of a biblical critic?
Because that is the best way to reduce the imposition of my own ideas onto the text, and let the text speak for itself. More often than not, such a study leaves me with more questions than answers. The latest question based on Luke 12:19 (part of Sunday's gospel). The rich fool says to himself: "You have plenty of grain laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry." The question it poses for me is about storying up funds in a pension account that will last for many years, so that in retirement, I (or others) can take life easy, will have sufficient funds for food and drink and entertainment. Is storing up funds in retirement accounts being foolish? Does this text speak against it? I don't yet have an answer or a sermon on that issue, but those are questions that I plan to deal with -- that I believe the text asks us. (Again, I'm not arguing about the Bible, but strugging with a text in the Bible.)

Quote
As to finding where the text actually challenges you, that's easy.  It doesn't require a PhD or an MDiv or a BA or even a GED.  A child can find that out.  I read the 4th commandment to my kids from time to time, and they get the point.  My 6 year old son and I had a long conversation about baptism, our eventual deaths due to sin, but the hope of the resurrection as being the great hope.  He understood that he, too, will die, and he understood that is true because "the wages of sin is death".  But he also understood the greater hope that we have in what Jesus has done for us -- that even death will be overcome on the Last Day.
The Gospel of John has been described as so shallow that a child can wade in it and so deep that it can drown an elephant. It's another one of the Christian paradoxes: Christianity is so simply that children can understand it; and so complex that the greatest minds on earth cannot fully grasp the infinite God.

Quote
As to finding a Jesus' congenial to yourself, hmmm.  My online observation of your apparent desire for ambiguity and your corresponding projection of such ambiguity upon God and His Word seems to correspond to your injunction.  Physician, heal thyself.
I just present what I see in the texts (usually in their original language) and there is almost always choices to be made in translation and interpretation and application, e.g., Should Mark 1:1 include "son of God?" Why or why not? If it is included, should it be translated "the son of God" or "a son of God" -- the Greek does not have the definite article "the," but translators can give arguments why it should be included. The Greek is ambiguous. I just call things the way they are -- some people are not comfortable with hearing how many "human" decisions go into translating scriptures which can be quite ambiguous in their possible meanings.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43174
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: The Gospels -- Jesus Remembered
« Reply #171 on: August 02, 2007, 01:13:40 PM »
And yet again this was not what was asked?   No one declared we where saved by the bible did they?   And how do we know about our being saved by God's grace in Jesus Christ?  Sola Scriptura?
And sola fide and sola gratia -- I don't think that the three can be separated. Proclaiming scriptures without the guides of faith and grace can lead to all kinds of heresies.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43174
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: The Gospels -- Jesus Remembered
« Reply #172 on: August 02, 2007, 01:17:24 PM »
What is the difference? Is there some sort of "empty tomb genre" of which some is Chrisitan and some is not? What is th epoint of this differentiation since all accounts of Jesus' empty tomb is part of the gospel writers' account of the resurrection? 
1. Part of the differentiation is because there are a lot of points of agreement in the gospels concerning the empty tomb stories. There are few agreements about the appearance stories.

2. Mark has an empty tomb story (and the angel's proclamation of the resurrection,) but there are no resurrection appearance stories.

3. There are extra-biblical empty tomb stories in the Gospel of Peter and Acts of Pilate. While they are about Jesus, are they Christian or not?
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

ROB_MOSKOWITZ

  • Guest
Re: The Gospels -- Jesus Remembered
« Reply #173 on: August 02, 2007, 01:28:08 PM »
And yet again this was not what was asked?   No one declared we where saved by the bible did they?   And how do we know about our being saved by God's grace in Jesus Christ?  Sola Scriptura?
And sola fide and sola gratia -- I don't think that the three can be separated.
Did I say I would separate them?   Scripture itslef proclaimes faith and grace.   That is unless you dont believe what scripture states.

Quote
Proclaiming scriptures without the guides of faith and grace can lead to all kinds of heresies.
Show me in confessions what you mean by "Guides"?    Yes indeed heresies did come to mind.

Rob Moskowitz
« Last Edit: August 02, 2007, 01:33:13 PM by ROB_MOSKOWITZ »

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43174
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: The Gospels -- Jesus Remembered
« Reply #174 on: August 02, 2007, 01:28:28 PM »
What is the difference?

How are you able to tell when you are reading "a story" and what is "the truth" on which one would base faith? Or is faith based in something else?
It is a fairly common experiment in college, during a class period, someone rushes in grabs something, and runs out. Then the students are asked to say what happened. Seldom are the stories consistent. All are based on the same event, (the true or actual event that could be video-taped.) We could say that all the stories are the story-teller's experience of the true event, and the way they tell their stories and the details they remember will differ. Someone might be able to take the stories and from common elements, construct what likely happened during the few seconds that the person was in the classroom; but when comparing the stories to a video tape of the event, errors in the stories will be noted -- errors that the story-tellers are likely to insist were real in their experience of the event.

The truth is Christ was crucified and raised from the dead. Without that truth our faith is in vain. None of the resurrection appearance stories in the different gospels attempt to describe the same event. They are all different events, so we don't even have competing stories by which to guess at what "really happened," just one person's experience of what happened. The common element in these stories as that Jesus was seen to be alive again and that he drastically changed the disciples' lives. That is reported in the story about the disciples behind locked doors in Jerusalem, the two disciples from Emmaus, and even Paul on the Damascus Road.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43174
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: The Gospels -- Jesus Remembered
« Reply #175 on: August 02, 2007, 01:30:44 PM »
And specifically, where on earth would I come up with a crazy concept like "the resurrection" without the "resurrection appearance stories"   as they're recorded in Scripture?
The stories are based on true events. Details are likely to have been changed over the decades, or selectively remembered.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

ROB_MOSKOWITZ

  • Guest
Re: The Gospels -- Jesus Remembered
« Reply #176 on: August 02, 2007, 01:38:52 PM »
None of the resurrection appearance stories in the different gospels attempt to describe the same event. They are all different events, so we don't even have competing stories by which to guess at what "really happened," just one person's experience of what happened. The common element in these stories as that Jesus was seen to be alive again and that he drastically changed the disciples' lives. That is reported in the story about the disciples behind locked doors in Jerusalem, the two disciples from Emmaus, and even Paul on the Damascus Road.

Are you saying you dont believe the Gospel writiers where inspired by God to give thier accounts?    Is Jesus' resurection simply a "common element"  in "just one person's experience of what happened".    So Scriptures do not declare what "really happened," .   WOW!! 

You got one thing right "Without that truth our faith is in vain".

Rob Moskowitz

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43174
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: The Gospels -- Jesus Remembered
« Reply #177 on: August 02, 2007, 01:43:07 PM »
Are you saying you dont believe the Gospel writiers where inspired by God to give thier accounts?    Is Jesus' resurection simply a "common element"  in "just one person's experience of what happened".    So Scriptures do not declare what "really happened," .   WOW!! 
I return to my often asked question, did Mark 16:8 really happen as reported? Did the women say nothing to anyone?
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

ROB_MOSKOWITZ

  • Guest
Re: The Gospels -- Jesus Remembered
« Reply #178 on: August 02, 2007, 01:47:49 PM »
None of the resurrection appearance stories in the different gospels attempt to describe the same event. They are all different events, so we don't even have competing stories by which to guess at what "really happened," just one person's experience of what happened. The common element in these stories as that Jesus was seen to be alive again and that he drastically changed the disciples' lives. That is reported in the story about the disciples behind locked doors in Jerusalem, the two disciples from Emmaus, and even Paul on the Damascus Road.

Are you saying you dont believe the Gospel writiers where inspired by God to give thier accounts?    Is Jesus' resurection simply a "common element"  in "just one person's experience of what happened".    So Scriptures do not declare what "really happened," .   WOW!! 

You got one thing right "Without that truth our faith is in vain".

Rob Moskowitz

Brian Please answer the question.  Is this what you believe and teach?

Rob Moskowitz

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43174
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: The Gospels -- Jesus Remembered
« Reply #179 on: August 02, 2007, 02:02:53 PM »
Brian Please answer the question.  Is this what you believe and teach?
I believe and teach what we confess in our Creeds and in our ELCA's Confession of Faith.

You didn't answer my question. Did Mark 16:8 really happen as the gospel reports it?
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]