Comments on: What We Know About Jesus and the Resurrection http://www.coffeehousetheology.com The Unvarnished Truth About Religion, Christianity and Spirituality Tue, 02 Apr 2013 10:35:48 -0500 hourly 1 By: Caleb Neff http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/what-we-know-about-jesus-and-the-resurrection/comment-page-1/#comment-42885 Caleb Neff Wed, 05 Dec 2012 00:05:42 +0000 http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/?page_id=10#comment-42885 I see no implication of disrespect. In return, allow me to give as polite an answer as I can muster: I do in fact acknowledge that there are discrepancies. If you prefer, I can rewrite the statement: "These texts (from the New Testament) were discarded because they didn't match up with history or each other." That clarifies the question of the New Testament, so I must now explain the Old Testament: "The Old Testament already had an established canon." This was based on a view I held at the time, which is overly simplistic. One could ignore it, and I wouldn't notice. As for resolving these contradictions (for I care about them so much!), from the contexts, we have nothing to work from. We will have to look to extra-biblical and theological data to resolve the issue this time. It will first be noted that in the time of the story, one could only count what belonged to you in a census, so that David was sinning by numbering what belonged to God as being his own, rather than God's. It will next be noted that the Christian view of God says that God can carry out His judgement through external agents. So if the contradiction can be resolved, it is because 2 Samuel places God as the ultimate cause, and 1 Chronicles places Satan as the instrument. Maybe this is a stretch, but oh well. I see no implication of disrespect. In return, allow me to give as polite an answer as I can muster:
I do in fact acknowledge that there are discrepancies. If you prefer, I can rewrite the statement: “These texts (from the New Testament) were discarded because they didn’t match up with history or each other.”
That clarifies the question of the New Testament, so I must now explain the Old Testament: “The Old Testament already had an established canon.”
This was based on a view I held at the time, which is overly simplistic. One could ignore it, and I wouldn’t notice.

As for resolving these contradictions (for I care about them so much!), from the contexts, we have nothing to work from. We will have to look to extra-biblical and theological data to resolve the issue this time. It will first be noted that in the time of the story, one could only count what belonged to you in a census, so that David was sinning by numbering what belonged to God as being his own, rather than God’s. It will next be noted that the Christian view of God says that God can carry out His judgement through external agents. So if the contradiction can be resolved, it is because 2 Samuel places God as the ultimate cause, and 1 Chronicles places Satan as the instrument. Maybe this is a stretch, but oh well.

]]> By: Russ Schow http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/what-we-know-about-jesus-and-the-resurrection/comment-page-1/#comment-42689 Russ Schow Tue, 27 Nov 2012 06:19:51 +0000 http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/?page_id=10#comment-42689 Caleb, actually the Bible has that isn't sound history in itself. It has many discrepancies and contradictions. While I'll admit the Bible is probably one of the most historical books ever written from ancient times it is also not always accurate and has directly contradicted archeologists anthropologists and historians. I read 2 books written by Issac Asimov. "Guide to the Old Testament"and the "Guide to the New Testament". What about 2nd Samuel 24, Verse 1 and 1st Chronicles 21? All theologians agree David took one census. Samuel says God made him do it. 1st Chronicles says the devil influenced him to do it. Does this make this fiction? Please understand I mean no disrespect. Caleb, actually the Bible has that isn’t sound history in itself. It has many discrepancies and contradictions. While I’ll admit the Bible is probably one of the most historical books ever written from ancient times it is also not always accurate and has directly contradicted archeologists anthropologists and historians. I read 2 books written by Issac Asimov. “Guide to the Old Testament”and the “Guide to the New Testament”. What about 2nd Samuel 24, Verse 1 and 1st Chronicles 21? All theologians agree David took one census. Samuel says God made him do it. 1st Chronicles says the devil influenced him to do it. Does this make this fiction? Please understand I mean no disrespect.

]]> By: solomon david http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/what-we-know-about-jesus-and-the-resurrection/comment-page-1/#comment-41942 solomon david Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:22:36 +0000 http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/?page_id=10#comment-41942 tony you"ve been making very good points in this site but as long as gullible mass exist in large numbers it is a difficult task to make sense to them.Even then try,so as to provoke good,sicere,reasonable thoughts in all including my self. tony you”ve been making very good points in this site but as long as gullible mass exist in large numbers it is a difficult task to make sense to them.Even then try,so as to provoke good,sicere,reasonable thoughts in all including my self.

]]> By: solomon david http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/what-we-know-about-jesus-and-the-resurrection/comment-page-1/#comment-41895 solomon david Sat, 27 Oct 2012 18:38:59 +0000 http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/?page_id=10#comment-41895 Bible is a collection of written texts from stone age which also dont agree on each other.The rationality of modern science is that it can change as and when new observations and knoweledge comes in.It is not fundamental in nature as Bible and religion is.so it is not appropriate to call the Bible as a scientific document.Evils stii persists dispite you sayig god is all powerfull. Bible is a collection of written texts from stone age which also dont agree on each other.The rationality of modern science is that it can change as and when new observations and knoweledge comes in.It is not fundamental in nature as Bible and religion is.so it is not appropriate to call the Bible as a scientific document.Evils stii persists dispite you sayig god is all powerfull.

]]> By: solomon david http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/what-we-know-about-jesus-and-the-resurrection/comment-page-1/#comment-41893 solomon david Sat, 27 Oct 2012 18:01:07 +0000 http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/?page_id=10#comment-41893 the imposter should first read richard dawkins books. the imposter should first read richard dawkins books.

]]> By: solomon david http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/what-we-know-about-jesus-and-the-resurrection/comment-page-1/#comment-41892 solomon david Sat, 27 Oct 2012 17:55:29 +0000 http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/?page_id=10#comment-41892 how is it often you see people who are born again filled with holy spirit NEVER are found changed in thier basic charachter they were born with??? they only speak in so called tongues in prayer that too essentialy in a congregation. David how is it often you see people who are born again filled with holy spirit NEVER are found changed in thier basic charachter they were born with???
they only speak in so called tongues in prayer that too essentialy in a congregation.

David

]]> By: Cheryl http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/what-we-know-about-jesus-and-the-resurrection/comment-page-1/#comment-40152 Cheryl Thu, 23 Aug 2012 17:57:43 +0000 http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/?page_id=10#comment-40152 I suggest you read The unknown life of Jesus Christ by Nicolas Notovitch Infinite knowledge of the Budda I suggest you read The unknown life of Jesus Christ by Nicolas Notovitch Infinite knowledge of the Budda

]]> By: Caleb Neff http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/what-we-know-about-jesus-and-the-resurrection/comment-page-1/#comment-35274 Caleb Neff Mon, 09 Apr 2012 19:05:36 +0000 http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/?page_id=10#comment-35274 Alright, here is the syllogism, in its best form (apologies for any slop, I thought I'd have it beaten out in time): PART#1 1. The world as it is, is the best of the feasible worlds for God's purposes. 2. This does not mean that God does not consider it lacking. He wants it to be completely good as well (it isn't because that was not feasible). 3. Humans are not completely good. PART#2 1. God wills Himself at the top of a monarchy because He (being sovereign) deserves it. 2. Humans do not deserve it. CONCLUSION Because humans would abuse their power in monarchies, and are undeserving of the power in the first place, we would not be fulfilling God's will on Earth "As it is in Heaven". Notice that the syllogism also argues that democracies, and other governments that place humans in power are not fulfilling God's will. If we follow the argument consistently, a theocracy of some sort would arise. I can see problems with this, and atheist protests are not one of them. I might alter one of the premises as I bang the syllogism out more. Alright, here is the syllogism, in its best form (apologies for any slop, I thought I’d have it beaten out in time):
PART#1
1. The world as it is, is the best of the feasible worlds for God’s purposes.
2. This does not mean that God does not consider it lacking. He wants it to be completely good as well (it isn’t because that was not feasible).
3. Humans are not completely good.
PART#2
1. God wills Himself at the top of a monarchy because He (being sovereign) deserves it.
2. Humans do not deserve it.
CONCLUSION
Because humans would abuse their power in monarchies, and are undeserving of the power in the first place, we would not be fulfilling God’s will on Earth “As it is in Heaven”.

Notice that the syllogism also argues that democracies, and other governments that place humans in power are not fulfilling God’s will. If we follow the argument consistently, a theocracy of some sort would arise. I can see problems with this, and atheist protests are not one of them. I might alter one of the premises as I bang the syllogism out more.

]]> By: Dalibor Sver http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/what-we-know-about-jesus-and-the-resurrection/comment-page-1/#comment-35264 Dalibor Sver Mon, 09 Apr 2012 07:51:46 +0000 http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/?page_id=10#comment-35264 @Aubrey: This prayer is for kingdom of God on Earth to develop, so as many people as possible to enter it (become Christians) and be saved. @Aubrey: This prayer is for kingdom of God on Earth to develop, so as many people as possible to enter it (become Christians) and be saved.

]]> By: Dalibor Sver http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/what-we-know-about-jesus-and-the-resurrection/comment-page-1/#comment-35263 Dalibor Sver Mon, 09 Apr 2012 07:50:19 +0000 http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/?page_id=10#comment-35263 Common, Caleb, I'd like to hear it. Common, Caleb, I’d like to hear it.

]]>