Hi variablast *sigh* yes, but barely. Its really hard to name one good thing which comes of it. Perhaps it would make somebody more tolerant, perhaps it would make them less homophobic or judgemental, but in my experience, your character has a lot more to do with whether you are a good person or not than your religion does.....
So, considering Acts 9:7, I watched Randy's video and stood speechless - although I'm sitting on my office chair right now. The word doesn't necessarily imply the erect (no jokes!) condition of man.
Hi wanman0813, what is contradictory is what is happening to Pauls companions. Sometimes they are standing, sometimes they fall to the ground. Sometime they hear the voice, sometimes, they don't hear the voice.
Likewise with my comments concerning "hear", the word "stood" in Acts 9:7 may mean: A prolonged form of a primary word στάω staō (of the same meaning, and used for it in certain tenses); to stand (transitively or intransitively), used in various applications (literally or figuratively): - abide, appoint, bring, continue, covenant, establish, hold up, lay, present, set (up), stanch, stand (by, forth, still, up).
LOL wanman0813, if you think that "stood" can be make noncontradictory with "fell to the ground" then obviously I'm not going to be able to convince you :-)
I'm just simply indicating the meanings of the Greek word and offering a very plausible explanation. But if you think that "stood" means stood erect, in contradiction to much of the meaning of the original word, I'm sure Western 21th Century interpretation suits you ;-) Fact is, stood can mean literally or figuratively:abide, appoint, bring, continue, covenant, establish, hold up, lay, present, set (up), stanch, stand (by, forth, still, up).
This understood, these verses may not contradict one another. I watched Randy's video and heard what he said but did not understand him is not a contradiction. For the same word can mean simply "hear" or may mean "understand" - it's sloppy exegesis to say it is.
Same Greek word is used in each verse for "hear" [G191 in Strongs]:akouō; mean. hearing; to hear, listen: - come to...ears, give heed, grant, hear, heard, hears, heed, listen, reached, reported, understand, understands. It is commonly understood (no pun intended) that those with Paul heard the voice but did not understand the voice...
Hi darklink0112, its from an adaptation of Handel's Messiah by the colorado symphony orchestra, called "Too Hot to Handel". And yea, its awesome....in fact, profMTH had a clip of it in one of his videos and that's how I learned about it :-) I put that clip in as kind of a tip-o-the hat to him, and also because it quotes from Paul right around where Paul is talking about what kinds of bodies we'll have in the ressurection....
Gal 1:11-17 intends to make the point that Paul received his revelation directly from God rather than the twelve. Paul is not trying to hint that Jesus was a ghost (or, in naturalistic terms, had a subjective experience).
Paul experienced Jesus in his glory which led Paul to convert. In other words, Paul viewed Jesus as a regular guy one moment and as the Lord of Israel the next.
Debating a bodily resurrection was not Paul's goal in this passage.
Hi StormTrek, I agree with almost everything you say in your comment; Pauls primary purpose in all of this descriptions of his resurrection experience is not to give an account of the experience itself--obviously, the exact details of the experience were considered of very little importance, why else would we have so many contradictory accounts of it? But Pauls purposes here arn't our purposes. Our Purposes here are precisely to investigate what Paul counted as an experience (cont)
(cont, to StormTrek) our purposes are _exactly_ trying to figure out what Paul would count as an encounter with the risen Christ, so as to get some idea of what his experience was, and thus, to get some idea of what he might have been talking about when he said that Christ appeared to Peter, James, the 500, etc..... the very contradictory nature of the accounts makes any firm conclusion very problematic, but it seems to me that an encounter with _a_physical_body_ was not required.
I left out the part about 1 Cor 15 in my video response. Basically, it comes down to the fact that people cannot share hallucinations. In fact, one of the ways we gauge reality is when multiple people are able to independently witness the same event.
But I think the real clincher is the way 1st century judaism understood the word resurrection. The account in Acts 23:6 is one example that the word was understood a specific way.
Paul never argued for a new understanding of the word resurrection. And he specifically leveraged the way the Pharisees and Sadducees understood the word.
Thanks for the kind words, vision4DaY. This is exactly what I was hoping would happen with this vid: both believers and nonbelievers would head to Bible and to the play to gain a better understanding of both. If you read the Bible with an open mind, its pretty amazing what you will find, isn't it?
(cont) so i think i can empathize when you say that your intension is not to trouble anyone's faith.
videos like this are the ones that help me strengthen my faith. these are the videos that really motivate me to read the Bible, look for answers,(true answers), and if i don't find them, i am honest to myself and don't make excuses to try to give one.
real thought provoking video, i will read my Spanish bible and see what it says.(found it to be closer to the actual text than the NIV)
i'm a christian and really enjoy your videos. you are one of the few athiest here in youtube who are coherent and not just rambling and cursing out words which seem to never form a complete sentence.
and i see your genuine intent to talk on this matters. i as a Christian do so too. the problem is that sometime when i speak my thoughts to some other Christian friends they start doubting in the faith! and that has never been my intension
Hi mwest1234, no, I haven't done such a video.... other's have requested it, so I tried several times, but somehow, it feels kinda weird talking about myself, and when I listened back to some drafts of it, even I was bored :) so it never really gelled....
You said it was a horrible experience. As a life altering event, I don't see how that could be boring. Doesn't have to be long, a few minutes maybe. Just something for reference. As for talking about yourself, I wouldn't let it stop me this once. It could only be the most important video you ever make, but no pressure. :)
hmm .. well i guess to be fair to the spirit of the Biblical narrative, Paul's experience happened after Christ's ascension, so technically the only experience one can have of him is through the holy spirit until everyone is made into the new flesh.
Come to think of it, even the ressurected Christ that the disciples saw was still "old flesh" (it still had wounds). The new flesh has yet to be experienced by anyone.
no ... i'm afraid Christ was kicking it "Zombie style" during the few days that he was ressurected after the crucifixion. i won't go into all the reasons for my view on this. Parallel to this opinion is my view that Christ's resurrection in the new flesh is just what every person will have in common with each other.
Hey Randy. I always find your vids interesting (and I don't mean a condescending euphemistic "interesting") even though the philosophical ones go over my head. One note: along with classical references, you might also check with a rancher. The "prick" referred to is from an oxgoad used to drive draft animals. A stubborn animal might push back or kick against the goad making life difficult for himself. Paul was doing the same by mistreating Christians - "kicking against" God's direction.
Hi Heyalun, I know you are one of the good guys (tm) when it comes to genuine discourse and mutual respect. I think the Ox goad is a great metaphor, but its quite interesting that Euripedes has the god Dionysus use this metaphor, and Paul has the god Jesus Christ use this metaphor. Like I said, I just found that out a few weeks ago, and it pretty much shocked my socks off.....
Also even if paul says Jesus never apperared flesh and blood. In the 1st corinthians creed he uses the greek word "ophathe" the same word use for christs literal apperances.
Also I know of no psychological condition than can account for pauls conversion, or any trigger. according to galations he went to arabia got the gospel and got the "revelation" from god himself. And in his letters he seems to say that he spoke to Jesus himself more than once and thats where he got his gospel.
Hi darklinke0112, I don't think Paul's conversion experience was the result of any Psychological Condition. I think it was a genuine religious experience, of the same kind which, say the Buhdda had, or that Zoraster had. These sorts of experiences are by no means pathological, nor are they abnormal, nor are they particularly rare. Like I said, 22% of Americans think they've been in the presence of a Ghost!! This sort of thing happens all the time.
Hey randy you said Luke is a meticulus historian, then you say the gospels are contain legendary influence of bodily appereances. If luke is a accurate historian,shouldn't the gospel of luke be accurate?
I dont think Acts 26 and Acts:9 are condradictory. You were a chrsitain before, did you forget the rule of non condradition:).
First Acts:9 luke only mentions paul falling down, but never says the group didn't fall down and second he mentions all of them falling down.
Hi darklink, Luke was a meticulous historian, inasmuch as he carefully reports to us what his sources said, and what he could find out by his own researches and cross-checking. For example, he uses both Mark and Q much more carefully and faithfully than Matthew does. But this doesn't mean he was infallible!! w.r.t. contradictions: Acts 9 says the companions "stood speechless" and Acts 26 says "we all fell to the ground". Sorry, that's flatly contradictory :-(
"For example, he uses both Mark and Q much more carefully and faithfully than Matthew does"
Well mark dosent have ressurection apperances and as far as I know Q is basically sayings of Jesus with some other material.
Luke's apperances does have unique material to him, with lots more women. Those were probably his sources.
I know luke isn't infallible, But I mean he is a really good historian and it would be uncalled to say his sources were the result of legendary influence.
Also for ACTS 9:3-4. Saul falls to the ground due the light, it could be this is when the others fell and luke just didn't mention it.
The second part Acts 9:7: It says the men stood speachless after hearing the voice, but seeing no one. This could be when they probably got up after the first light in Acts 9:3.
As Acts 9:8 says Saul got up after the speech, this was probably after the others got up.
Hi darklink0112, "religious experience" is just meant to be something of a catch all term to cover visions, epiphanies, moments of insight, ectasy, etc which people experience and interpret religiously. But importantly, it results in a marked changed in form of life. I like the example which Luke Timothy Johnson gives: (cont)
(cont, to darklink0112) If you attend a sermon, where the pastor is talking about the rich young ruler and Jesus, and you enjoy the sermon, the music, etc, you have had an aesthetic experience, not a religious experience. If you hear the pastor talk about the righ young ruler and Jesus, and you go out and sell everything you have and give it to the Poor, then you've had a religious experience :-) cf. Paul. After a religious experience, you just can't be the same person as you used to be.
Randy, I wrote a comment, but it hasn't shown up for some reason. YouTube is behaving so strangely of late. In any case, I'll try again. Thank for taking the time to do a response. Most appreciated. Excellent use of the virtual chalkboard. I think you're exactly right with respect to almost everything you talk about in this video. Finally, I share your aversion to attacking people's faith. My intention is, as I believe yours is also, to explore and follow the facts where they lead.
Randy, first, I'm honored to get a video response from you. Thanks for doing it. Second, I think you've got it exactly right on almost everything you've talked about here. Third, I love your use of the virtual chalkboard. It reminds me of a comment I've gotten from time to time when a my teaching has been observed: "Effective use of the blackboard." ;-) Finally, as I think you know, I feel the same way about not attacking people's faith. My intention is to explore, not to attack.
ProfMTH!! Wow...um, my poor stutterings on the blackboard are entirely incommensurate with your teaching abilities, although I have to admit the comparison was flattering to an inordinate degree :-) ...I actually wish I could respond to all of your vids, but you raise so many interesting issues, I couldn't do it even if I were triplets.
Randy I find this video very disappointing, not for its content, but for the deception with which you pretentiously prefix the statement that you are not attempting to attack anyones faith. In this instance, you are like the individual in the school yard berating an individual, and then justifying your action by suffixing your comments with the statement; "Oh by the way Just Kidding". But it will garner you a few pieces of silver, I guess.
Hi MrVisions, I do everything, to the best of my ability, in good faith. I think your uncharitable assumptions about show far less broadmindedness than I think you are capable of, and I urge you to hold yourself to a higher standard of empathy.
I may have been a tad terse, But that was not your best, and I simply called you to task on it. You deliberately misquoted Act 22:9 just so it would fit the ruse. There is an abounding difference in "Not hearing" and "Did not understand the voice." You likewise (And knowing your understanding of the bible) take Gal.1:11 out of context as well. And I find it kind of Ironic that the ASB titles that section as warning against "perversion of the gospel". Food for Thought, I suppose.
Hi MrVisions, w.r.t. your saying "you deliberately misquoted..." etc....any conversation which has any hope of bringing meaning, understanding, or any good thing must proceed on the basis of shared respect. Until you want to have one of those kinds of conversations, I'm afraid I'll have to spend my time talking with those who do...
My apologies Randy I have obviously hurt your feelings. This was not my intention, nor was I trying to facilitate a hostile exchange of views. My platform is an overwhelming entitlement of individuals to their respective belief, or, non-belief. Your video is in no wise representative of a fair exchange of views. It was one sided, and derisive of Christian belief, under the guise of a earnest debate, justified by a disclaimer that you feel absolves you of communal responsibility.
"My platform is an overwhelming entitlement of individuals to their respective belief...."
Until an individual expresses a view that troubles you in some way, at which point you assume the worst about the individula and hector him or her for expressing his or her view. You may believe your behavior proceeds from a sense of fairness, but that belief is a mere self-delusion.
Hi ProfMTH. In keeping with the salubrious salutations supposedly required in these esteemed circles; I'm honored for your rebuttal. For the record, I don't think ill of Randy, I posted his "Atheist reads the bible" vids on outside message boards, in a positive light. What I do have problems with is, misquoting the bible, misuse of the bible for personal vain-glory. Now if I had made a ranting video of bile spewing insults, I could accept his response. But I did not.
LOL burnvictim77, yes, this highlights the inherent difficulty of reasoning from subjective experience, which is why I try to base my arguments as much as possible on publicly observable, intersubjective evidence.
Randy, what do you think is the literal explanation of the Resurrection?
Did Paul have wishful thinking and a hallucination? For other accounts, I'd imagine pure fabrication mixed with glossing of the truth. The 500 people was probably a mass hallucination; a documented occurrence in modern times.
Aren't there other accounts by "witnesses"? Or are they second and third hand accounts?
"Kick against the pricks," in the 60's was, "Kick out the jams!" j/k ;)
Hi Steven, I think that Paul had a religious experience here, one which really did turn his life around. But, as I read him anyways, these sorts of religious experiences are reported in all religious traditions, and indeed are surprisingly common. A CBS news poll showed that nearly 22% of americans believe they have been in the presence of a ghost. So these sorts of experiences are remarkably common.
(cont, to Steven) so how do we interpret these experiences? Well, the same way as we interpret any of our other experiences--through the lense of our worldview. Religious people interpret them religiously, atheist interpret them naturalistically....
(cont, to Steven) w.r.t. the other witnesses, like you said, the 500 were probably meeting together after the crucifixion, and then, perhaps they got a strong feeling of the presence of Jesus their in the room with them. Paul seems to set a remarkably low bar for what would actuallly count as a resurrection experience--no body needs to be seen.
LOL Brainmold; yes, what's more, Jesus was apparently a fan of a Drama which has a new god appear which causes his female worshipers to continually engage in lesbian orgies...
That's the end of the bible. I have never found anything more damaging, except for Noahs ark and flat earth. I would love it if you did a video analogy of the play itself showing all this "debauchery".
Hi variablast *sigh* yes, but barely. Its really hard to name one good thing which comes of it. Perhaps it would make somebody more tolerant, perhaps it would make them less homophobic or judgemental, but in my experience, your character has a lot more to do with whether you are a good person or not than your religion does.....
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
So, considering Acts 9:7, I watched Randy's video and stood speechless - although I'm sitting on my office chair right now. The word doesn't necessarily imply the erect (no jokes!) condition of man.
wanman0813 4 years ago
is... a contradiction. It simply cannot be inferred.
wanman0813 4 years ago
Hi wanman0813, what is contradictory is what is happening to Pauls companions. Sometimes they are standing, sometimes they fall to the ground. Sometime they hear the voice, sometimes, they don't hear the voice.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
POST1
Likewise with my comments concerning "hear", the word "stood" in Acts 9:7 may mean: A prolonged form of a primary word στάω staō (of the same meaning, and used for it in certain tenses); to stand (transitively or intransitively), used in various applications (literally or figuratively): - abide, appoint, bring, continue, covenant, establish, hold up, lay, present, set (up), stanch, stand (by, forth, still, up).
wanman0813 4 years ago
LOL wanman0813, if you think that "stood" can be make noncontradictory with "fell to the ground" then obviously I'm not going to be able to convince you :-)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
I'm just simply indicating the meanings of the Greek word and offering a very plausible explanation. But if you think that "stood" means stood erect, in contradiction to much of the meaning of the original word, I'm sure Western 21th Century interpretation suits you ;-) Fact is, stood can mean literally or figuratively:abide, appoint, bring, continue, covenant, establish, hold up, lay, present, set (up), stanch, stand (by, forth, still, up).
wanman0813 4 years ago
This understood, these verses may not contradict one another. I watched Randy's video and heard what he said but did not understand him is not a contradiction. For the same word can mean simply "hear" or may mean "understand" - it's sloppy exegesis to say it is.
wanman0813 4 years ago
Post 1:
Same Greek word is used in each verse for "hear" [G191 in Strongs]:akouō; mean. hearing; to hear, listen: - come to...ears, give heed, grant, hear, heard, hears, heed, listen, reached, reported, understand, understands. It is commonly understood (no pun intended) that those with Paul heard the voice but did not understand the voice...
wanman0813 4 years ago
hey randy what music is playing in the beggining. Iam sort off digging it.
darklink0112 4 years ago
Hi darklink0112, its from an adaptation of Handel's Messiah by the colorado symphony orchestra, called "Too Hot to Handel". And yea, its awesome....in fact, profMTH had a clip of it in one of his videos and that's how I learned about it :-) I put that clip in as kind of a tip-o-the hat to him, and also because it quotes from Paul right around where Paul is talking about what kinds of bodies we'll have in the ressurection....
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
Gal 1:11-17 intends to make the point that Paul received his revelation directly from God rather than the twelve. Paul is not trying to hint that Jesus was a ghost (or, in naturalistic terms, had a subjective experience).
Paul experienced Jesus in his glory which led Paul to convert. In other words, Paul viewed Jesus as a regular guy one moment and as the Lord of Israel the next.
Debating a bodily resurrection was not Paul's goal in this passage.
StormTrek 4 years ago
Hi StormTrek, I agree with almost everything you say in your comment; Pauls primary purpose in all of this descriptions of his resurrection experience is not to give an account of the experience itself--obviously, the exact details of the experience were considered of very little importance, why else would we have so many contradictory accounts of it? But Pauls purposes here arn't our purposes. Our Purposes here are precisely to investigate what Paul counted as an experience (cont)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
(cont, to StormTrek) our purposes are _exactly_ trying to figure out what Paul would count as an encounter with the risen Christ, so as to get some idea of what his experience was, and thus, to get some idea of what he might have been talking about when he said that Christ appeared to Peter, James, the 500, etc..... the very contradictory nature of the accounts makes any firm conclusion very problematic, but it seems to me that an encounter with _a_physical_body_ was not required.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
I left out the part about 1 Cor 15 in my video response. Basically, it comes down to the fact that people cannot share hallucinations. In fact, one of the ways we gauge reality is when multiple people are able to independently witness the same event.
StormTrek 4 years ago
randyhelzerman cont'd -
But I think the real clincher is the way 1st century judaism understood the word resurrection. The account in Acts 23:6 is one example that the word was understood a specific way.
Paul never argued for a new understanding of the word resurrection. And he specifically leveraged the way the Pharisees and Sadducees understood the word.
StormTrek 4 years ago
Damn it! I meant to give you 5 stars! Damn it!
rowsdowersavesus 4 years ago
:-) yeah I did that to Lirpa69 once.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
Well done, very interesting.
4McClain 4 years ago
i love your blackboard style, keep the vids coming, and thanks for being true and genuine.
vision4DaY 4 years ago
Thanks for the kind words, vision4DaY. This is exactly what I was hoping would happen with this vid: both believers and nonbelievers would head to Bible and to the play to gain a better understanding of both. If you read the Bible with an open mind, its pretty amazing what you will find, isn't it?
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
(cont) so i think i can empathize when you say that your intension is not to trouble anyone's faith.
videos like this are the ones that help me strengthen my faith. these are the videos that really motivate me to read the Bible, look for answers,(true answers), and if i don't find them, i am honest to myself and don't make excuses to try to give one.
real thought provoking video, i will read my Spanish bible and see what it says.(found it to be closer to the actual text than the NIV)
vision4DaY 4 years ago
hello randyhelzerman,
first off i want to say thank you!
i'm a christian and really enjoy your videos. you are one of the few athiest here in youtube who are coherent and not just rambling and cursing out words which seem to never form a complete sentence.
and i see your genuine intent to talk on this matters. i as a Christian do so too. the problem is that sometime when i speak my thoughts to some other Christian friends they start doubting in the faith! and that has never been my intension
vision4DaY 4 years ago
I'm pretty sure that intro music is non-Geneva Convention compliant.
D4Shawn 4 years ago
Did you ever do a video on how/why you "lost your faith" as you say? If so which one?
mwest1234 4 years ago
Hi mwest1234, no, I haven't done such a video.... other's have requested it, so I tried several times, but somehow, it feels kinda weird talking about myself, and when I listened back to some drafts of it, even I was bored :) so it never really gelled....
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
You said it was a horrible experience. As a life altering event, I don't see how that could be boring. Doesn't have to be long, a few minutes maybe. Just something for reference. As for talking about yourself, I wouldn't let it stop me this once. It could only be the most important video you ever make, but no pressure. :)
mwest1234 4 years ago
Ok guys, I'll try again....
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
I'd really like to hear that too. I'm afraid I'm approaching that point of loss, and my world is falling apart... It'd be nice to know i'm not alone.
hailsofbay 4 years ago
Ok guys, I'll try again....
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
:) :) :)
hailsofbay 4 years ago
Oh, you are definitely not alone.
mwest1234 4 years ago
I'd bet that most of the atheists on youtube are ex-christians, you're certainly not alone. (i'd like to hear about randy's loss of faith though too)
bitbutter 4 years ago
hmm .. well i guess to be fair to the spirit of the Biblical narrative, Paul's experience happened after Christ's ascension, so technically the only experience one can have of him is through the holy spirit until everyone is made into the new flesh.
Come to think of it, even the ressurected Christ that the disciples saw was still "old flesh" (it still had wounds). The new flesh has yet to be experienced by anyone.
threeofwands 4 years ago
Interesting threeofwands, you don't think that Christ resurrected with the glorified body?
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
no ... i'm afraid Christ was kicking it "Zombie style" during the few days that he was ressurected after the crucifixion. i won't go into all the reasons for my view on this. Parallel to this opinion is my view that Christ's resurrection in the new flesh is just what every person will have in common with each other.
threeofwands 4 years ago
Hey Randy. I always find your vids interesting (and I don't mean a condescending euphemistic "interesting") even though the philosophical ones go over my head. One note: along with classical references, you might also check with a rancher. The "prick" referred to is from an oxgoad used to drive draft animals. A stubborn animal might push back or kick against the goad making life difficult for himself. Paul was doing the same by mistreating Christians - "kicking against" God's direction.
heyalun 4 years ago
Hi Heyalun, I know you are one of the good guys (tm) when it comes to genuine discourse and mutual respect. I think the Ox goad is a great metaphor, but its quite interesting that Euripedes has the god Dionysus use this metaphor, and Paul has the god Jesus Christ use this metaphor. Like I said, I just found that out a few weeks ago, and it pretty much shocked my socks off.....
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
Also even if paul says Jesus never apperared flesh and blood. In the 1st corinthians creed he uses the greek word "ophathe" the same word use for christs literal apperances.
Also I know of no psychological condition than can account for pauls conversion, or any trigger. according to galations he went to arabia got the gospel and got the "revelation" from god himself. And in his letters he seems to say that he spoke to Jesus himself more than once and thats where he got his gospel.
darklink0112 4 years ago
Hi darklinke0112, I don't think Paul's conversion experience was the result of any Psychological Condition. I think it was a genuine religious experience, of the same kind which, say the Buhdda had, or that Zoraster had. These sorts of experiences are by no means pathological, nor are they abnormal, nor are they particularly rare. Like I said, 22% of Americans think they've been in the presence of a Ghost!! This sort of thing happens all the time.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
Hey randy you said Luke is a meticulus historian, then you say the gospels are contain legendary influence of bodily appereances. If luke is a accurate historian,shouldn't the gospel of luke be accurate?
I dont think Acts 26 and Acts:9 are condradictory. You were a chrsitain before, did you forget the rule of non condradition:).
First Acts:9 luke only mentions paul falling down, but never says the group didn't fall down and second he mentions all of them falling down.
darklink0112 4 years ago
Hi darklink, Luke was a meticulous historian, inasmuch as he carefully reports to us what his sources said, and what he could find out by his own researches and cross-checking. For example, he uses both Mark and Q much more carefully and faithfully than Matthew does. But this doesn't mean he was infallible!! w.r.t. contradictions: Acts 9 says the companions "stood speechless" and Acts 26 says "we all fell to the ground". Sorry, that's flatly contradictory :-(
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
"For example, he uses both Mark and Q much more carefully and faithfully than Matthew does"
Well mark dosent have ressurection apperances and as far as I know Q is basically sayings of Jesus with some other material.
Luke's apperances does have unique material to him, with lots more women. Those were probably his sources.
I know luke isn't infallible, But I mean he is a really good historian and it would be uncalled to say his sources were the result of legendary influence.
darklink0112 4 years ago
Also for ACTS 9:3-4. Saul falls to the ground due the light, it could be this is when the others fell and luke just didn't mention it.
The second part Acts 9:7: It says the men stood speachless after hearing the voice, but seeing no one. This could be when they probably got up after the first light in Acts 9:3.
As Acts 9:8 says Saul got up after the speech, this was probably after the others got up.
darklink0112 4 years ago
Also iam not getting what you mean by a religous experiance?.
darklink0112 4 years ago
Hi darklink0112, "religious experience" is just meant to be something of a catch all term to cover visions, epiphanies, moments of insight, ectasy, etc which people experience and interpret religiously. But importantly, it results in a marked changed in form of life. I like the example which Luke Timothy Johnson gives: (cont)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
(cont, to darklink0112) If you attend a sermon, where the pastor is talking about the rich young ruler and Jesus, and you enjoy the sermon, the music, etc, you have had an aesthetic experience, not a religious experience. If you hear the pastor talk about the righ young ruler and Jesus, and you go out and sell everything you have and give it to the Poor, then you've had a religious experience :-) cf. Paul. After a religious experience, you just can't be the same person as you used to be.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
Randy, I wrote a comment, but it hasn't shown up for some reason. YouTube is behaving so strangely of late. In any case, I'll try again. Thank for taking the time to do a response. Most appreciated. Excellent use of the virtual chalkboard. I think you're exactly right with respect to almost everything you talk about in this video. Finally, I share your aversion to attacking people's faith. My intention is, as I believe yours is also, to explore and follow the facts where they lead.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Randy, first, I'm honored to get a video response from you. Thanks for doing it. Second, I think you've got it exactly right on almost everything you've talked about here. Third, I love your use of the virtual chalkboard. It reminds me of a comment I've gotten from time to time when a my teaching has been observed: "Effective use of the blackboard." ;-) Finally, as I think you know, I feel the same way about not attacking people's faith. My intention is to explore, not to attack.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
ProfMTH!! Wow...um, my poor stutterings on the blackboard are entirely incommensurate with your teaching abilities, although I have to admit the comparison was flattering to an inordinate degree :-) ...I actually wish I could respond to all of your vids, but you raise so many interesting issues, I couldn't do it even if I were triplets.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
Randy I find this video very disappointing, not for its content, but for the deception with which you pretentiously prefix the statement that you are not attempting to attack anyones faith. In this instance, you are like the individual in the school yard berating an individual, and then justifying your action by suffixing your comments with the statement; "Oh by the way Just Kidding". But it will garner you a few pieces of silver, I guess.
MrVisions 4 years ago
Hi MrVisions, I do everything, to the best of my ability, in good faith. I think your uncharitable assumptions about show far less broadmindedness than I think you are capable of, and I urge you to hold yourself to a higher standard of empathy.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
I may have been a tad terse, But that was not your best, and I simply called you to task on it. You deliberately misquoted Act 22:9 just so it would fit the ruse. There is an abounding difference in "Not hearing" and "Did not understand the voice." You likewise (And knowing your understanding of the bible) take Gal.1:11 out of context as well. And I find it kind of Ironic that the ASB titles that section as warning against "perversion of the gospel". Food for Thought, I suppose.
MrVisions 4 years ago
Hi MrVisions, w.r.t. your saying "you deliberately misquoted..." etc....any conversation which has any hope of bringing meaning, understanding, or any good thing must proceed on the basis of shared respect. Until you want to have one of those kinds of conversations, I'm afraid I'll have to spend my time talking with those who do...
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
My apologies Randy I have obviously hurt your feelings. This was not my intention, nor was I trying to facilitate a hostile exchange of views. My platform is an overwhelming entitlement of individuals to their respective belief, or, non-belief. Your video is in no wise representative of a fair exchange of views. It was one sided, and derisive of Christian belief, under the guise of a earnest debate, justified by a disclaimer that you feel absolves you of communal responsibility.
MrVisions 4 years ago
"My platform is an overwhelming entitlement of individuals to their respective belief...."
Until an individual expresses a view that troubles you in some way, at which point you assume the worst about the individula and hector him or her for expressing his or her view. You may believe your behavior proceeds from a sense of fairness, but that belief is a mere self-delusion.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Hi ProfMTH. In keeping with the salubrious salutations supposedly required in these esteemed circles; I'm honored for your rebuttal. For the record, I don't think ill of Randy, I posted his "Atheist reads the bible" vids on outside message boards, in a positive light. What I do have problems with is, misquoting the bible, misuse of the bible for personal vain-glory. Now if I had made a ranting video of bile spewing insults, I could accept his response. But I did not.
MrVisions 4 years ago
Great video, though your point at the end is the most poignant in my opinion. Religious experiences are not self-interpretting. I agree 100%.
Of course, I would add that intentionality is also not self-interpretting. :)
burnvictim77 4 years ago
LOL burnvictim77, yes, this highlights the inherent difficulty of reasoning from subjective experience, which is why I try to base my arguments as much as possible on publicly observable, intersubjective evidence.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
Randy, what do you think is the literal explanation of the Resurrection?
Did Paul have wishful thinking and a hallucination? For other accounts, I'd imagine pure fabrication mixed with glossing of the truth. The 500 people was probably a mass hallucination; a documented occurrence in modern times.
Aren't there other accounts by "witnesses"? Or are they second and third hand accounts?
"Kick against the pricks," in the 60's was, "Kick out the jams!" j/k ;)
StevenErnest 4 years ago
Hi Steven, I think that Paul had a religious experience here, one which really did turn his life around. But, as I read him anyways, these sorts of religious experiences are reported in all religious traditions, and indeed are surprisingly common. A CBS news poll showed that nearly 22% of americans believe they have been in the presence of a ghost. So these sorts of experiences are remarkably common.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
(cont, to Steven) so how do we interpret these experiences? Well, the same way as we interpret any of our other experiences--through the lense of our worldview. Religious people interpret them religiously, atheist interpret them naturalistically....
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
(cont, to Steven) w.r.t. the other witnesses, like you said, the 500 were probably meeting together after the crucifixion, and then, perhaps they got a strong feeling of the presence of Jesus their in the room with them. Paul seems to set a remarkably low bar for what would actuallly count as a resurrection experience--no body needs to be seen.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
Jesus, a fan of Pagan drama? LOL
Brainmold 4 years ago
LOL Brainmold; yes, what's more, Jesus was apparently a fan of a Drama which has a new god appear which causes his female worshipers to continually engage in lesbian orgies...
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
That's the end of the bible. I have never found anything more damaging, except for Noahs ark and flat earth. I would love it if you did a video analogy of the play itself showing all this "debauchery".
Brainmold 4 years ago
Hi Brainmold, actually, I think the honor of delivering the death-blow will be yours, if you can pull off this fast thing :-)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
A Christian could read this a million times and not see this.
Brainmold 4 years ago