Pants on Fire

[Dan From Smithville]

I mean no offence I'm just trying to learn here. Some people on here seem to think that it's a fictional story so I'm trying to figure it out

Thanks for the friendly frube.

 

[Jimmy]

Are you going to listen to "some people" or are you going to listen to God? You have to figure that out first....You can put your faith in what unbelievers say or you can take the position of a believer.



Out of the 12 Apostles only Peter John and Matthew were writers of NT books. Mark and Luke were disciples. Paul was not one of the 12 but had a special assignment to take the gospel to the nations.

Well I'd like to make an informed decision that's all. I just wanted details around Lazarus. Like did anybody see him dead? how many saw him dead? Etc

 

[Deeje]

Well I'd like to make an informed decision that's all. I just wanted details around Lazarus. Like did anybody see him dead? how many saw him dead? Etc

If you read the account, by the time Jesus arrived many had gathered around the tomb to mourn for Lazarus. Read John 11.

 

[February-Saturday]

Are you going to listen to "some people" or are you going to listen to God? You have to figure that out first....You can put your faith in what unbelievers say or you can take the position of a believer.



Out of the 12 Apostles only Peter John and Matthew were writers of NT books. Mark and Luke were disciples. Paul was not one of the 12 but had a special assignment to take the gospel to the nations.

The only possible contemporary of Jesus, historically, is Paul. Most historians do not support the idea that the later New Testament books were written by the apostles, or that Jesus even had apostles to begin with. The running idea is that Mark copied from Paul, and the other canonized gospels in the New Testament copied from Mark.

We've seen with the John Frum cargo cults that a mythical figure can be invented after just around a decade before being placed into a historical context, and early Christian literature was so filled with contradictions that the Catholic Church had to make "heresiologists" to get their mythology straight.

There were a lot of gospels and scriptures that didn't make it in because of that, and if you take those into account it becomes quite clear that most stories about Jesus were a part of folklore and not history. The Catholic Church would agree, calling these texts heretical, but never giving good reasons for their own canonized texts being more reliable.

None of those, by the way, were contemporary with Jesus. The gospels themselves were decades after Paul wrote, and Paul could very well have been decades after whatever real Jesus there might have been if Paul wasn't speaking allegorically or about visions.

The historical argument revolves around Paul's epistles, not the apostles. The apostles likely didn't exist. Most historians agree that Jesus was a real person, but they can only really agree about the reliability of the Pauline epistles and even that's disputed.

As for listening to God, I think that's a great idea. Go summon some angels and then we might be able to have an interesting conversation about God. Until then, all you have is hearsay written down in ancient texts selected for political purposes by a rising empire, not God.

 

[Deeje]

Please use a modern English translation...
Bible Gateway passage: John 11 - New English Translation

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well I'd like to make an informed decision that's all. I just wanted details around Lazarus. Like did anybody see him dead? how many saw him dead? Etc

Among Christians, a big divide exists regarding a literal or an allegorical interpretation of the Bible. Even within those camps there are differences in interpretation.

Literalist tend to have the most difficulty with such things as science. Many well-known stories of the Bible do not have the support of the physical evidence. The creation story and the flood of Noah in Genesis, for instance.

 

[Jimmy]

The only possible contemporary of Jesus, historically, is Paul. Most historians do not support the idea that the later New Testament books were written by the apostles, or that Jesus even had apostles to begin with. The running idea is that Mark copied from Paul, and the other canonized gospels in the New Testament copied from Mark.

We've seen with the John Frum cargo cults that a mythical figure can be invented after just around a decade before being placed into a historical context, and early Christian literature was so filled with contradictions that the Catholic Church had to make "heresiologists" to get their mythology straight.

There were a lot of gospels and scriptures that didn't make it in because of that, and if you take those into account it becomes quite clear that most stories about Jesus were a part of folklore and not history. The Catholic Church would agree, calling these texts heretical, but never giving good reasons for their own canonized texts being more reliable.

None of those, by the way, were contemporary with Jesus. The gospels themselves were decades after Paul wrote, and Paul could very well have been decades after whatever real Jesus there might have been if Paul wasn't speaking allegorically or about visions.

The historical argument revolves around Paul's epistles, not the apostles. The apostles likely didn't exist. Most historians agree that Jesus was a real person, but they can only really agree about the reliability of the Pauline epistles and even that's disputed.

As for listening to God, I think that's a great idea. Go summon some angels and then we might be able to have an interesting conversation about God. Until then, all you have is hearsay written down in ancient texts selected for political purposes by a rising empire, not God.

you seem to know a lot. What do people think about John's account of Lazarus?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Why don't people believe that Jesus performed miracles? Are all the witnesses lying?

I tend to think the witnesses were just as made-up as Jesus.

 

[Valjean]

Says who?

Historians, archaeologists and biblical scholars.

 

[Valjean]

I thought Matthew Mark Luke and John in the Bible were disciple apostles no?

They left no first-person accounts, and the real authors of many of the books of the Bible are not known. Many are ascribed to noteworthy persons to lend them authority.

 

[Valjean]

Well I'd like to make an informed decision that's all. I just wanted details around Lazarus. Like did anybody see him dead? how many saw him dead? Etc

Pure folklore. No eyewitness accounts.
If such a thing were reported today, would you believe it?

 

[Jimmy]

The only possible contemporary of Jesus, historically, is Paul. Most historians do not support the idea that the later New Testament books were written by the apostles, or that Jesus even had apostles to begin with. The running idea is that Mark copied from Paul, and the other canonized gospels in the New Testament copied from Mark.

We've seen with the John Frum cargo cults that a mythical figure can be invented after just around a decade before being placed into a historical context, and early Christian literature was so filled with contradictions that the Catholic Church had to make "heresiologists" to get their mythology straight.

There were a lot of gospels and scriptures that didn't make it in because of that, and if you take those into account it becomes quite clear that most stories about Jesus were a part of folklore and not history. The Catholic Church would agree, calling these texts heretical, but never giving good reasons for their own canonized texts being more reliable.

None of those, by the way, were contemporary with Jesus. The gospels themselves were decades after Paul wrote, and Paul could very well have been decades after whatever real Jesus there might have been if Paul wasn't speaking allegorically or about visions.

The historical argument revolves around Paul's epistles, not the apostles. The apostles likely didn't exist. Most historians agree that Jesus was a real person, but they can only really agree about the reliability of the Pauline epistles and even that's disputed.

As for listening to God, I think that's a great idea. Go summon some angels and then we might be able to have an interesting conversation about God. Until then, all you have is hearsay written down in ancient texts selected for political purposes by a rising empire, not God.

so if Paul was speaking truth it was around the time of Jesus but if he was speaking allegorically it was decades after Jesus? Did I read that right? What you wrote?

 

[Deeje]

The only possible contemporary of Jesus, historically, is Paul. Most historians do not support the idea that the later New Testament books were written by the apostles, or that Jesus even had apostles to begin with. The running idea is that Mark copied from Paul, and the other canonized gospels in the New Testament copied from Mark.

I'd like to see the references for that. Paul only met Jesus post resurrection. But even though he was an apostle, he was never one of the 12. He was not educated by the other apostles but directly by Jesus through God's spirit making him as qualified for his assignment as they were.....and he was accepted by the other apostles as their spiritual brother. Since they had been anointed with holy spirit, they could not be fooled by a fake apostle.

We've seen with the John Frum cargo cults that a mythical figure can be invented after just around a decade before being placed into a historical context, and early Christian literature was so filled with contradictions that the Catholic Church had to make "heresiologists" to get their mythology straight.

What gives you the impression that the RCC was even a Christian institution? I have no interest in the Catholic church or her teachings. Jesus and the apostles warned about an apostasy taking over Christianity like "weeds" and it happened just as it was foretold.....history confirms it.

There were a lot of gospels and scriptures that didn't make it in because of that, and if you take those into account it becomes quite clear that most stories about Jesus were a part of folklore and not history. The Catholic Church would agree, calling these texts heretical, but never giving good reasons for their own canonized texts being more reliable.

So whose word is it? God's word or the Catholic church's? He can use whomever he wishes to carry out his will...even his enemies if he chooses, but the Bible is not a product of any church. God chose its contents.

None of those, by the way, were contemporary with Jesus. The gospels themselves were decades after Paul wrote, and Paul could very well have been decades after whatever real Jesus there might have been if Paul wasn't speaking allegorically or about visions.

The gospels were the eye witness testimonies of the apostles and their leader Jesus Christ. Again, when they were written or by whose hand is irrelevant.....it is God's spirit that inspired their recording and their distribution, even though it took many centuries for these to be released to the public. God judges the timing of all these events. You can believe whatever you wish....it doesn't alter anything.....not the content...not the message...not the outcome. But that will be a wait and see...won't it?

The historical argument revolves around Paul's epistles, not the apostles. The apostles likely didn't exist. Most historians agree that Jesus was a real person, but they can only really agree about the reliability of the Pauline epistles and even that's disputed.

Not disputed at all by those who know what the Bible's message is....no writings by any one apostle can alter any of that. Is God really so weak that he can't control what is in his own book? You think its still here today by some strange co-incidence, given all the attempts made to destroy it and keep it out of the hands of the common people? It has already accomplished what it was sent for.

As for listening to God, I think that's a great idea. Go summon some angels and then we might be able to have an interesting conversation about God. Until then, all you have is hearsay written down in ancient texts selected for political purposes by a rising empire, not God.

And I believe that hearsay is all you have as well.....so we're even......when it comes to matters of faith, I'll take God's word over any man's.

 

[February-Saturday]

you seem to know a lot. What do people think about John's account of Lazarus?

Personally, I think it's mythical. Especially when there's no mention of his resurrection in the Synoptic Gospels, and it's a story that comes only from the latest (or one of the latest) gospel. The gospel of John is actually somewhat notorious as the least reliable gospel in the New Testament, as far as I'm aware. It was, however, popular among mystics who drew their esotericism from it by interpreting much of it allegorically.

So the resurrection of Lazarus likely never happened. The origin of the story is probably lost to time. It might have been folklore or taken from mystical traditions, but I personally doubt it's rooted in any historical event.

This said, I know a lot less about Lazarus than I possibly could, so I could be sorely myth-taken (get it? ?) in my analysis here.

 

[Jimmy]

@Power Stone stone...have you ever had a Bible study? It is difficult to build faith if you don't know what to put your faith in.....

True but at least I have God for back up right now Haha

 

[Valjean]

Why would someone make it up? Jesus' relationship with Lazarus and his two sisters was well established, so this is not just some random figure, but a close personal friend of Jesus who fell ill and Jesus deliberately did not go to him at once. He waited for Lazarus to die so that he could demonstrate the resurrection. (John 11:11-14)

Why would people make up any fantastic stories? Fun, drama, ideological agendas.

There are reports of miraculous events and wonder-workers from all over the world, all through history. You can find hundreds of reports even today, weekly, in papers, magazines and political accounts. Most are quickly forgotten, but the dramatic and exciting ones, the useful ones, or the ones fitting one's personal beliefs or world-view can go viral, and become part of a culture's general knowledge.

There are hundreds of eyewitness accounts of extraterrestrials, bigfoot, ghosts, faeries, moth-men, leprechauns, flying horses, &c.
Not all stories are reliable.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/may/18/prahlad-jani-india-sunshine

 

[Jimmy]

I'd like to see the references for that. Paul only met Jesus post resurrection. But even though he was an apostle, he was never one of the 12. He was not educated by the other apostles but directly by Jesus through God's spirit making him as qualified for his assignment as they were.....and he was accepted by the other apostles as their spiritual brother. Since they had been anointed with holy spirit, they could not be fooled by a fake apostle.



What gives you the impression that the RCC was even a Christian institution? I have no interest in the Catholic church or her teachings. Jesus and the apostles warned about an apostasy taking over Christianity like "weeds" and it happened just as it was foretold.....history confirms it.



So whose word is it? God's word or the Catholic church's? He can use whomever he wishes to carry out his will...even his enemies if he chooses, but the Bible is not a product of any church. God chose its contents.



The gospels were the eye witness testimonies of the apostles and their leader Jesus Christ. Again, when they were written or by whose hand is irrelevant.....it is God's spirit that inspired their recording and their distribution, even though it took many centuries for these to be released to the public. God judges the timing of all these events. You can believe whatever you wish....it doesn't alter anything.....not the content...not the message...not the outcome. But that will be a wait and see...won't it?



Not disputed at all by those who know what the Bible's message is....no writings by any one apostle can alter any of that. Is God really so weak that he can't control what is in his own book? You think its still here today by some strange co-incidence, given all the attempts made to destroy it and keep it out of the hands of the common people? It has already accomplished what it was sent for.



And I believe that hearsay is all you have as well.....so we're even......when it comes to matters of faith, I'll take God's word over any man's.

Well I would like to know who's hand wrote that. I think as a human being I do have that right to know. I don't mean you any offense but if that is known I would like to know and I would like to know if it is not known. that's all

 

[sun rise]

Well in that case it looks like I'm not going to believe anything really happened in the Bible.

flood of Noah in Genesis,

There's some interesting science looking at the reported events in the Bible to see if there's any real evidence. A few years ago we had an interesting study of "The Reed Sea" crossing Yam Suph - Wikipedia and How wind may have parted the sea for Moses

Whether or not this is correct, it is an alternative explanation that does not need a miracle and uses a realistic translation of "Yam Suph". If it is accurate, it shows something important about how a fact can turn into a legend with miracles.

 

[sun rise]

Another to me interesting discussion is about Jericho and the BIble's account. Here too we see how translation could have caused errors but without destroying the plausibility of the Jericho account having a basis in history.

The Walls of Jericho: How Accurate Was The Biblical Account?

When the Bible speaks of the walls of Jericho falling down, the original Hebrew wording carries the idea of the walls falling “below themselves.” This is consistent with the design of the glacis since the outer wall would probably be a mudbrick wall sitting atop the stone retaining wall. Thus, if the outer wall was toppled, it would fall below to the base of the retaining wall.


During early archaeological excavations by the British archaeologist Dame Kathleen Kenyon, a stone retaining wall was found at the base of the tell associated with Jericho, but a mudbrick wall wasn’t found. However, a deposit of collapsed mudbrick was found at the base of the retaining wall at certain locations around the tell. This is surprisingly consistent with the account in the Book of Joshua. This collapsed wall would have also created a ramp for the Israelite warriors to march up the embankment to take the city. In this way, the archaeological record makes the Biblical account surprisingly believable. It supports the idea that the walls tumbled “below themselves” as well as the statement that the Israelites went “up” to take the city.

 

[Valjean]

If you read the account, by the time Jesus arrived many had gathered around the tomb to mourn for Lazarus. Read John 11.

Why is this account reliable?