Audacity of the Disciples

[Carrikature]

Tell you what. Setup a list of criterion for what qualifies as 'convincing enough'. Let's go through them. Otherwise this is just subjective back and forth that gets nowhere.

Re-reading this, I think it comes across a lot harsher than I intended. I really do think it'd be useful to have some agreement on what we're evaluating. I think that's a pretty common disconnect in apologetics discussions. At some level, what convinces one person won't necessarily convince another, but at least if it's spelled out we know where everyone is coming from. I think that's useful even if we never agree.

[JonathanL]

Calling someone the 'sons of God' isn't nearly on par with God literally speaking from heaven saying, "This is my son." I'd like verses for Jesus referring to God as the father of his disciples. There's a bit in there about believers being his family, but it's far outweighed by how often Jesus says "I" or "my Father" in his teachings.

Matthew 5:16, 45, 48 , Matthew 6:1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 14, 15, 18, 26, 32, Matthew 7:11, Matthew 10:20, 29, Matthew 13:43, Matthew 18:14, Matthew 23:9

That's 19 verses in Matthew alone.

Mark 11:25-26

Luke 6:36, Luke 11:2, Luke 12:30, 32.

So that's 25 verses where Jesus' calls God the father of his disciples (or "the righteous"). This was all done by searching the gospels for the term "your father" on BibleGateway.com and selecting those that were relevant, which means that it is possible I missed verses that are relevant.

Tell you what. Setup a list of criterion for what qualifies as 'convincing enough'. Let's go through them. Otherwise this is just subjective back and forth that gets nowhere.

I don't think the issue is whether or not there's anything that's 'convincing enough', I think the issue is whether or not the disciples were in such a frame of mind that they could accept something as radical as God taking on human flesh and coming down to earth to live as a human. My contention is that they weren't which means that they would have misinterpreted anything Jesus said about his divine nature to mean something different, something not as offensive to their Jewish sensibilities. And the New Testament themselves lend support to this understanding by indicating that the disciples didn't understand many of Jesus words until after the resurrection and the outpouring/coming of the Spirit (John 16:12-15 for example).

I have no idea what you're talking about when you reference the monotheistic nature of their faith. This is a faith we're supposed to believe had prophesied a virgin birth, right? A faith where God himself came down to talk to multiple forefathers? It's not outside the realm of possibility. Clearly they didn't interpret Jesus' words as describing himself as divine. The question we've been discussing is if they should have. Some of the reasons Christians have provided in this thread refers to what the disciples did or didn't know at the time. That's where chronology comes in, and it's very relevant. 'Probably' is going to be subjective, but having a good idea of context helps us tremendously in narrowing down what that probability actually was.

My point about the disciples being monotheistic is that it would have prevented them from interpreting Jesus words in such a way that they thought He was claiming godhood for Himself, because it would have sounded blasphemous to them. A claim of that sort simply had no precedent, and a virgin birth and God coming down to talk to their forefathers is nothing even remotely close to such a claim.

[JonathanL]

That's my point. The apologists here are saying the opposite of that: that it DID automatically trigger the disciples' comprehension of that fact.

What apologists exactly are saying that?

You lost me. If that prophecy isn't meant to emphasize God's literally "being with us" in human form, then it loses its power. It's just a name meaning God's omnipresence.

You misunderstand. I'm not saying that it isn't meant to emphasize "God's literally 'being with us' in human form", I absolutely think it is. What I'm saying is that it is possible to interpret it in a way that avoids that conclusion. For example, you could interpret it to mean that God will be "with us" in the sense that He will look down on us favourably, instead of with wrath, or something to that effect.

[JonathanL]

Re-reading this, I think it comes across a lot harsher than I intended. I really do think it'd be useful to have some agreement on what we're evaluating. I think that's a pretty common disconnect in apologetics discussions. At some level, what convinces one person won't necessarily convince another, but at least if it's spelled out we know where everyone is coming from. I think that's useful even if we never agree.

It's all good, I'm thick-skinned enough that I won't take offense over something like this.

[whag]

What apologists exactly are saying that?

I think Cow Poke, Adrift, and some others have at least insinuated that the resurrection was a turning point in the disciples' comprehension that Jesus was God. Perhaps not immediately, but fairly quickly, especially when the Holy Spirit occupied them. That seems to me another difficulty, though: a supernatural infusion of knowledge was needed to facilitate comprehension of this fact. That being the case, I'm confused as to how Jesus meant "I and the Father are one" to be taken other than simply provocatively. Am I to understand that you believe that Jesus' claims of being God served no real theological/pedagogical purpose but were merely esoteric pronouncements he never expected anyone to understand in real-time?

You misunderstand. I'm not saying that it isn't meant to emphasize "God's literally 'being with us' in human form", I absolutely think it is. What I'm saying is that it is possible to interpret it in a way that avoids that conclusion. For example, you could interpret it to mean that God will be "with us" in the sense that He will look down on us favourably, instead of with wrath, or something to that effect.

I see. Yes, I understand that could be interpreted as God merely being the Jews' champion. That being said, it would seem to me easy to prevent misunderstanding by simply saying something to the effect of "God will assume the form of a human being." I don't quite understand the argument that weird concepts like that could not be easily conveyed. The Jews were accustomed to weird concepts in their theology. They knew God visited Babel to interrupt construction of the tower, for example. The angels who visited Abraham and Lot ate food, from what I remember. Didn't Jacob physically wrestle an enfleshed spirit? It would be difficult to physically interact that way without the electromagnetic force.

[whag]

Sorry, I meant "electrostatic field" not "electromagnetic force."

[whag]

I'm going to pretend you're actually wanting to discuss this, and not just be an anti-Christian bigot, ok?

Mean. 70 percent of my friends and family are Christian, and not even the ones I’m candid with about my skepticism (my wife’s fundamentalist family) have never said that. That being said, perhaps there’s something about the internet that makes us sound harsher. I don’t believe if I met you I’d ever think you a bigot. But here, sometimes the things you say about blacks sound slightly bigoted. We both kind of downplay the amount of persecution these groups (conservative Christians and blacks) think they’re experiencing. In person, we’d be WAY more polite to each other. =)

As for the rest of what you said, I addressed those points sufficiently in subsequent posts to Chrawnus and others. You need to gain some more ground after that “How many miracles gaffe?” A pastor should know his bible better.

[Cow Poke]

As for the rest of what you said, I addressed those points sufficiently in subsequent posts to Chrawnus and others. You need to gain some more ground after that “How many miracles gaffe?” A pastor should know his bible better.

[whag]

Yes, and his own family thought he'd gone mad.

Madness is mental illness, so there's no comparison. It's not plausible to conclude mental illness in someone if someone had also repeatedly violated known reality (brought dead people back to life, cast demons into pigs, etc). Or are those events not impressive because his family had seen prophets aplenty performing such feats prior to Jesus? That'd be interesting.

You lost me on this.

If that message was inconceivable as you say, there's no reason for God to pour wrath on those who don't believe it. It's so conceivable, that even the miracles bore and barely sway.

And this.

I said Jesus is described as being a fearful figure (because of his power) and I lost you? He spoke with authority, remember?

also, please address this as it speaks to my skepticism.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post272014

[Cow Poke]

Madness is mental illness, so there's no comparison. It's not plausible to conclude mental illness in someone if someone had also repeatedly violated known reality (brought dead people back to life, cast demons into pigs, etc). Or are those events not impressive because his family had seen prophets aplenty performing such feats prior to Jesus? That'd be interesting.



If that message was inconceivable as you say, there's no reason for God to pour wrath on those who don't believe it. It's so conceivable, that even the miracles bore and barely sway.



I said Jesus is described as being a fearful figure (because of his power) and I lost you?

He spoke with authority, yes, but He was always mindful to use expressions like "fear not" and "let not your heart be troubled" when talking to His followers -- do you want Jesus to be scary?

He spoke with authority, remember?

This seems like unnecessary condescension.

also, please address this as it speaks to my skepticism.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post272014

You seem to be somewhat mean-spirited tonight, and I don't know why. You seem to feel a need to be offensive for no good reason. If there's something you'd like to discuss in a civil manner, we're good. If you're just trying to dig up old battles and start them all over, I'm not interested.

[whag]

He spoke with authority, yes, but He was always mindful to use expressions like "fear not" and "let not your heart be troubled" when talking to His followers -- do you want Jesus to be scary?

Not scary but authoritative enough not to engage in an argument with fellow disciples about who'd be best. Even if he was a prophet, that'd be rare. There weren't miracle-performing prophets aplenty. Miracle performers were a part of their lore only.

This seems like unnecessary condescension.

I apologize that you took it that way.

You seem to be somewhat mean-spirited tonight, and I don't know why. You seem to feel a need to be offensive for no good reason. If there's something you'd like to discuss in a civil manner, we're good. If you're just trying to dig up old battles and start them all over, I'm not interested.

Not any more mean spirited than throwing the term "anti-Christian bigot" around. Where did THAT come from?

[Cow Poke]

Not scary but authoritative enough not to engage in an argument with fellow disciples about who'd be best. Even if he was a prophet, that'd be rare.

I'm really not getting your point. Jesus was authoritative, sure, but He was also in the process of developing the disciples, and - as I have stated numerous times - he saw them for what they would become, not just who they were.

There weren't miracle-performing prophets aplenty. Miracle performers were a part of their lore only.

Moses was there premier "go to" guy for miracles - and Jesus is the "prophet" about whom Moses prophesied "another like me" will come. Moses wasn't just "part of their lore" - he was a crucial part of their religious history and tradition.

I apologize that you took it that way.

you don't apologize for saying it, but that I "took it that way", eh?

Not any more mean spirited than throwing the term "anti-Christian bigot" around. Where did THAT come from?

I apologize, not that you took it that way, but that I didn't make myself more clear. I SHOULD have said....

"I'm going to pretend you're actually wanting to discuss this, and not just be an anti-Christian bigot like some OTHERS are being, ok? "

My fault for not making that more clear, even though I thought the smiley face would help you realize I wasn't being mean.

[whag]

Moses was there premier "go to" guy for miracles - and Jesus is the "prophet" about whom Moses prophesied "another like me" will come. Moses wasn't just "part of their lore" - he was a crucial part of their religious history and tradition.

They hadn't seen him perform miracles. Moses also never said anything close to "The Father and I are one."

I apologize, not that you took it that way, but that I didn't make myself more clear. I SHOULD have said....

"I'm going to pretend you're actually wanting to discuss this, and not just be an anti-Christian bigot like some OTHERS are being, ok? "

My fault for not making that more clear, even though I thought the smiley face would help you realize I wasn't being mean.

Fair enough. I'm glad you don't think that. I'm just a skeptic. I don't think disciples would repeat the same dumb fight about who'd be best after hearing Jesus. You can rescind your question about How many miracles had they seen, but the thrust of your question was precisely my point. They'd seen enough to know that it was a grievous act to argue in front of a very significant and powerful prophet, especially about who'd be counted best.

[Cow Poke]

They hadn't seen him perform miracles.

But they believed he did - after Jesus fed the 5,000, and was talking about being the bread of life, the crowd offered that Moses gave them manna, which Jesus clarified came from God, not Moses. They were still seeking a sign that He was "the Prophet".

Moses also never said anything close to "The Father and I are one."

Exactly. THAT is the difference. Jesus did miracles like the PROPHET Moses did, but Moses never claimed to be God. THAT was the thing that was difficult for them to accept - that Jesus was claiming to be greater than Moses, to the point of blasphemy.

Fair enough. I'm glad you don't think that. I'm just a skeptic. I don't think disciples would repeat the same dumb fight about who'd be best after hearing Jesus.

You're entitled to that opinion, but it is, after all, just an opinion.

You can rescind your question about How many miracles had they seen,

I thought I had made that clear - I was totally focused on John's account, because that's what I was studying, and John only covers 7 "signs", or miracles. It was tunnel vision my part, but your snide comment that "A pastor should know his bible better" was... well, snide.

but the thrust of your question was precisely my point. They'd seen enough to know that it was a grievous act to argue in front of a very significant and powerful prophet, especially about who'd be counted best.

Except that His demeanor around them was obviously very tolerant and patient. He demonstrated an intolerance of the Taliban of His day, and an incredible tolerance for -- and kindness to -- prostitutes, IRS agents () and "downers and outters".

I think you're projecting an image on Him that's simply not warranted by the narrative.

[whag]

But they believed he did - after Jesus fed the 5,000, and was talking about being the bread of life, the crowd offered that Moses gave them manna, which Jesus clarified came from God, not Moses. They were still seeking a sign that He was "the Prophet".

OK.

Exactly. THAT is the difference. Jesus did miracles like the PROPHET Moses did, but Moses never claimed to be God. THAT was the thing that was difficult for them to accept - that Jesus was claiming to be greater than Moses, to the point of blasphemy.

Right, but my point is that their inability to conceive that doesn't jibe with their behavior. If this is a blasphemous concept, then why follow a blasphemer? Also, critically, I must consider the three year's worth of gentle theological discourse that must have happened between the recorded events. I acknowledge Jesus didn't scare them but spoke with authority. This is not that hard a concept to grasp.

If it's that hard to grasp, I'm not sure why anyone is expected to believe it.

You're entitled to that opinion, but it is, after all, just an opinion.

I agree this is about our opinions. I concede these are my opinions.

I thought I had made that clear - I was totally focused on John's account, because that's what I was studying, and John only covers 7 "signs", or miracles. It was tunnel vision my part, but your snide comment that "A pastor should know his bible better" was... well, snide.

Sorry for that.

Except that His demeanor around them was obviously very tolerant and patient. He demonstrated an intolerance of the Taliban of His day, and an incredible tolerance for -- and kindness to -- prostitutes, IRS agents () and "downers and outters".

I think you're projecting an image on Him that's simply not warranted by the narrative.

Fair enough. A more gentle Jesus could have said more than he and the Father were one. I don't see the justification for apologists saying words couldn't convey this any better than a resurrection (which in itself doesn't scream incarnated deity).

There seems to be a confusion over whether Jesus meant for people like the Pharisees to comprehend what incarnation meant in real-time (as it was being said). Was the comprehension of the incarnation only meant to dawn on Jesus' audience AFTER the resurrection?