tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post7648972293043069177..comments2024-03-18T11:10:18.708-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: The poached egg argument Victor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-58810376704664931652019-06-03T07:13:19.111-07:002019-06-03T07:13:19.111-07:00things fall through the cracks
The Question of ot... <br /><br /><a href="https://metacrock.blogspot.com/%E2%80%A6/things-fall-through-cracks%E2%80%A6" rel="nofollow"><b>things fall through the cracks</b></a><br /><br />The Question of other realms is a good test for the limits of science. Up to this point in human history science had no way to tell if there were other realms or not. For most of the life of modern science the idea of other realms, conjuring in the popular mind images of heaven, hell, Dante’s Inferno, and Superman’s Phantom zone were a laughing stock. With the advent of the twentieth century, relativity,Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62876078897491833892019-05-28T07:45:35.556-07:002019-05-28T07:45:35.556-07:00Blogger bmiller said...
All things were created th...Blogger bmiller said...<br />All things were created through him and for him, and in him all things hold together.<br /><br />That last phrase "in him all things hold together" is important to note for several reasons. <br /><br />First, it shows that Jews and Christians both believe that God did not just create the universe and walked away (per Deism), but holds it in existence moment to moment. Second, because Aristotle, the Gentile philosopher, came the same conclusion independently reasoning philosophically from nature (known as The Second Way according to Aquinas). So it is not just Divine relevation that states that there must be a Divine sustaining cause, but it is a philosophical necessity. Third, because this Divine activity is attributed by Paul to Christ, Christ must be God.<br /><br />Had to get my Aristotle-Thomist plug in there :-)<br /><br /><br /><b>That's a good one bmiller. Gilson has some things to say on that. For the Thomists. </b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11025218460643214242019-05-27T07:28:13.458-07:002019-05-27T07:28:13.458-07:00the limits of science in the search for God part 2...<br /><a href="https://metacrock.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-limits-of-science-in-search-for-god_27.html" rel="nofollow"><b>the limits of science in the search for God part 2</b></a><br /><br /><br />The dispute between theists and atheists is, in large part, a squabble over epistemology. Atheists tend to be empiricists, as famous atheist blogger Austin Cline puts it:<br /><br /><br />Atheists tend to be either exclusively or primarily empiricists: they insist that truth-claims be accompanied by clear and convincing evidence which can be studied and tested. Theists tend to be much more wiling to accept rationalism, believing that "truth" can be attained through revelations, mysticism, faith, etc. This is consistent with how atheists tend to place primacy on the existence of matter and argue that the universe is material in nature whereas theists tend to place primacy on the existence of mind (specifically: the mind of God) and Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-45583574999431675472019-05-26T19:05:08.447-07:002019-05-26T19:05:08.447-07:00All things were created through him and for him, a...<b>All things were created through him and for him, and in him all things hold together.</b><br /><br />That last phrase "in him all things hold together" is important to note for several reasons. <br /><br />First, it shows that Jews and Christians both believe that God did not just create the universe and walked away (per Deism), but holds it in existence moment to moment. Second, because Aristotle, the Gentile philosopher, came the same conclusion independently reasoning philosophically from nature (known as The Second Way according to Aquinas). So it is not just Divine relevation that states that there must be a Divine sustaining cause, but it is a philosophical necessity. Third, because this Divine activity is attributed by Paul to Christ, Christ must be God.<br /><br />Had to get my Aristotle-Thomist plug in there :-)bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-40794445470032337912019-05-26T18:23:03.649-07:002019-05-26T18:23:03.649-07:00But if the first generation Christians only though...<i>But if the first generation Christians only thought Jesus as a great rabbi, then what was their heresy?</i><br /><br />Exactly. Those who insist that the letters of Paul predate the Gospels by decades always seem to forget that the most radical Christology is in those very letters.<br /><br />"He [Jesus] was in the form of God."<br /><br />"He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God ... All things were created through him and for him, and in him all things hold together."<br /><br />etc.<br />Starhopperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18350334327301656588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-16201513243631299232019-05-26T14:07:51.829-07:002019-05-26T14:07:51.829-07:00It's fine to start with Enlightenment era assu...It's fine to start with Enlightenment era assumptions that miracles can't happen, but one must keep in mind those original assumptions. That is one main reason why the Higher Criticism scholars needed to date the Gospel stories later than any living eyewitnesses and create an entirely new narrative that the Gospel stories were corrupted over time. <br /><br />It's not as if there were not existing historical accounts of say, Mark recording Peter's testimony, or Luke carefully collecting eyewitness accounts or Matthew writing first to and for a Jewish audience. One has to ignore the historical accounts of the Early Church Fathers and question the motives of early Christian authors in order to generate a narrative that fits Enlightenment axioms. But it's really the motives of certain Higher Critics that need to be kept in mind because although we can speculate about the motives of the early Christian authors we factually know the reason for bias of the modern skeptics.<br /><br />So I place the burden of proof on those who dispute the accuracy of the cannonical scriptures since we have historical figures testifying to the unanimous belief in the proto-cannonical books as well as the divinity of Christ. Paul, who's letters are dated the earliest, testifies that he was persecuting the very first Christians who he considered herertics. But if the first generation Christians only thought Jesus as a great rabbi, then what was their heresy?<br /><br />Paul's letters tell us the belief he persecuted and later the belief that he converted to. As you can see from <a href="https://www.catholicstand.com/st-paul-and-the-divinity-of-jesus/" rel="nofollow">St. Paul and the Divinity of Jesus</a>.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59824456966807562972019-05-26T10:23:12.400-07:002019-05-26T10:23:12.400-07:00Part of my point comes from my (very personal and ...Part of my point comes from my (very personal and idiosyncratic) interpretation of the temptation narratives. As you probably have guessed, I have, after a lifetime of considering this, concluded that the Gospels are (within limits) factually accurate, reliable historical documents. So yes, I do regard the temptations in the wilderness to have actually, literally occurred, pretty much as described in the text.<br /><br />So how is this relevant here? Well, once you believe the temptations to be actual events, then you have to either regard them as a kind of Kabuki Theater (highly symbolic actions put on for show, but not really happening) or as genuine temptations. (Hebrews says that they were. "<b>[Jesus] has been tempted</b> as we are, yet without sin.") If so, then you have to ask yourself, "Now what could possibly tempt God?" Just asking the question sounds strange, but consider Christ's humanity. He has just been baptised, and is starting out on His mission to redeem the world. The devil shows Him three ways in which that could be done oh, so easily (but at the cost of draining that redemption of all meaning and effectiveness).<br /><br />The first way: remove all evil, pain and suffering from the world, all hunger and want, all illness and infirmity. ("Tell these stones to become loaves of bread.")<br /><br />The second way: overwhelm all reason and all inquiry with indisputable miracles, that no one could possibly deny. ("Throw yourself from the pinnacle of the Temple.")<br /><br />The final way: simply eliminate free will, and <i>compel</i> all people to believe. (The devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them; and he said to him, "All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.")<br /><br />To declare clearly, unambiguously, and incontrovertibly that He was God incarnate would be to surrender to the second temptation (thus allowing the devil to win). Thus, we often have to tease this conclusion out of the text - by design.Starhopperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18350334327301656588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-60454498683924087772019-05-26T08:27:09.421-07:002019-05-26T08:27:09.421-07:00Starhopper,
While I appreciate the effort, I have...Starhopper,<br /><br />While I appreciate the effort, I have seen those verses as interpreted by Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians. At different times in my life, I accept either side of that dispute. Both interpretations seem equally valid to me. Again, I don't have an interest in persuading you in either direction.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-40033771786866350632019-05-25T13:32:50.486-07:002019-05-25T13:32:50.486-07:00There's another way of approaching the trilemm...There's another way of approaching the trilemma issue, and that's to assume (for the sake of argument) that Jesus was indeed nothing more than a Great Moral Teacher. You're then compelled to ask, "What, exactly, did He teach, and what was so special about it?" And it is here that the skeptic has an even greater problem than those problems usually associated with this line of thinking.<br /><br />Firstly, when it comes to "Great Moral Teaching", Jesus apparently never had an original thought in his life. Everything He ever said can be found in what we call the Old Testament, especially in the Psalms and the Book of Sirach. C'mon, I challenge you. Name something, anything, that can be attributed to Christ as the first person to have ever said it (as far as moral or ethical teaching is concerned).<br /><br />So secondly, why has Jesus been remembered (indeed, worshiped) for 2000 years, when He is far from being the most inspiring, or even the most interesting "moral teacher" around?<br /><br />The fact is that the most important things Jesus ever said were about His own identity, who He is. All the "I am the..." statements in John, all the "identification" miracles (those revealing who He is) such as the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, the turning of water into wine, the calming of the sea, the walking on water, the transfiguration, His insistence on "following' (and not just listening to) Him.<br /><br />So what is important is the identity of Jesus, not what did He say.Starhopperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18350334327301656588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-22438058497081582072019-05-25T09:14:28.032-07:002019-05-25T09:14:28.032-07:00One Brow said...
Starhopper,
Calling oneself Son ...One Brow said...<br />Starhopper,<br /><br />Calling oneself Son of Man or Son of God is not akin to claiming divinity. I don't see a claim of divinity for Jesus in any of the gospels besides John, and even there not an equality with God.<br /><br />I see a fairly natural course of increasingly miraculous claims for Jesus over the 80 or so years between the life of Jesus and the writings of John. <br /><br />However, I'm not going to try to convince you that my position is better than yours.<br /><br />May 24, 2019 4:47 AM<br /><br /><b>Daniel 7 tells of a vision given to Daniel in which four "beasts," representing pagan nations, oppress the people of Israel until judged by God. Daniel 7:13-14 describes how the "Ancient of Days" (God) gives dominion over the earth to "one like a man (כבר אנש [kibar 'anash]).<br /><br />clearly reference to deity</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-16808746782408277232019-05-24T07:23:49.805-07:002019-05-24T07:23:49.805-07:00Christ emphasizes His divinity multiple times in t...Christ emphasizes His divinity multiple times in the synoptics, not just in John. I will list only a few such instances here, but there are many more:<br /><br />- He says "There is something (i.e. Himself) greater than the Temple here." To the Jews, the only thing greater than the Temple was God Himself.<br /><br />- He says "The Son of Man is master of the Sabbath." Only God is master of the Sabbath.<br /><br />- He does not contradict the Pharisees when they say, "Only God can forgive sins" (implying that Jesus cannot do so, unless He is claiming to be Himself God) and then goes on to forgive the paralytic's sins.<br /><br />- At the last supper, He says "This chalice is the New Covenant in my blood." Only God may establish a covenant with Mankind.<br /><br />- He says that at the end of days, the Son of Man will come with <b>his</b> angels. The only one who may claim "ownership" of the angels is God.<br /><br />There are literally hundreds of such professions of divinity throughout the Gospels (especially in Matthew). Sometimes they are blatantly obvious, as in John's "Before Abraham was, I am" and sometimes they are the logical conclusion to a parable or an episode in the narrative itself.Starhopperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18350334327301656588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-22184731662442356102019-05-24T04:47:28.282-07:002019-05-24T04:47:28.282-07:00Starhopper,
Calling oneself Son of Man or Son of ...Starhopper,<br /><br />Calling oneself Son of Man or Son of God is not akin to claiming divinity. I don't see a claim of divinity for Jesus in any of the gospels besides John, and even there not an equality with God.<br /><br />I see a fairly natural course of increasingly miraculous claims for Jesus over the 80 or so years between the life of Jesus and the writings of John. <br /><br />However, I'm not going to try to convince you that my position is better than yours. One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-78966603205273032132019-05-24T04:41:18.880-07:002019-05-24T04:41:18.880-07:00Legion of Logic said...
I think we're talking ...Legion of Logic said...<br /><i>I think we're talking past each other, but I'm not sure how to resolve it.</i><br /><br />I'm OK if you accept the Trilemma is valid. I see other positions as more more likely than any of the three offered, but we all ultimately have to decide for ourselves.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28510875008038223162019-05-23T06:49:35.685-07:002019-05-23T06:49:35.685-07:00"However, if we are not assuming literalism, ..."<i>However, if we are not assuming literalism, but rather a general accuracy, then one of the possibilities is that his [...] comments about the Son of God were preserved but also not necessarily precisely quoted.</i>"<br /><br />"Possibile" is a word which can cover a multitude of sins. Certainly it is <i>possible</i> (as in, no laws of physics would be violated) for me to win the Republican Party's nomination for president next year. But the <i>probability</i> of my doing so is vanishingly small.<br /><br />In the same manner, yes, it is <i>possible</i> that Christ's self declarations concerning His divinity were exaggerations or even inventions. But the likelihood of their being so is too small to be measured. Keep in mind the iron monotheism that characterized Jewish thought at the time (and, for that matter, still does). Indeed, a chief reason the Temple authorities were so keen on killing Jesus was that He insisted on identifying Himself with Yahweh. Blasphemy!<br /><br />(The other reason was, of course, their fear that Jesus would bring down the wrath of the Roman occupiers upon the Temple.)<br /><br />There is simply no way that the writers of the New Testament would invent out of whole cloth something so radically opposed to their most fundamental beliefs. In fact, one could view the entire Gospel of Matthew as a narrative of Christ hammering home this vital fact about His identity, that he is God in the flesh. That's the sense I get when I read the thing straight through in one sitting. Try it sometime. You get a very different impression than just reading little snippets of it at a time.<br /><br />(By the way, <i>contra</i> the "experts", I still believe, along with St. Jerome, that the four Gospels were written in the order we have them in our Bibles today.)Starhopperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18350334327301656588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-42368245163723252182019-05-23T06:10:21.716-07:002019-05-23T06:10:21.716-07:00I think we're talking past each other, but I&#...I think we're talking past each other, but I'm not sure how to resolve it.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-5876362663692728722019-05-23T05:02:59.221-07:002019-05-23T05:02:59.221-07:00Legion of Logic said...
Yes. But that has nothing ...Legion of Logic said...<br /><i>Yes. But that has nothing to do with the OP, which is asking what we should think of a man who did say those things. He would either be insane, a liar, or the son of God. What other options are there for someone saying those things?<br /><br />"Well he wasn't actually the son of God, but he was a great moral teacher" would not be an option for a liar or a lunatic going around claiming to be the son of God when he actually wasn't.</i><br /><br />Are we assuming Biblical literalism as a part of this discussion? If so, Jesus can't be a liar or a lunatic; the Bible says otherwise.<br /><br />However, if we are not assuming literalism, but rather a general accuracy, then one of the possibilities is that his moral teachings were preserved but not necessarily precisely quoted, and his comments about the Son of God were preserved but also not necessarily precisely quoted.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-43714051582981243982019-05-23T04:56:59.744-07:002019-05-23T04:56:59.744-07:00Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...
Atheists apparen...Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...<br /><i>Atheists apparent need their history filtered so as not to shock their readership with uncomfortable facts.</i><br /><br />Tim O'Neil is well known for presenting the consensus opinion, which includes the Christian historians as well. His website is devoted to corrected the bad history promulgated by various atheists.<br /><br /><i>Jesus cold be an apocalyptic prophet and the son of God at the same time.</i><br /><br />He could also have been a politician, rabbi, Pharisee, fisherman, etc. at the same time. The question is where the evidence leads.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-56825529770492972332019-05-23T04:53:37.009-07:002019-05-23T04:53:37.009-07:00Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...
Most Bible scho...Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...<br /><br /><i>Most Bible scholars are not atheists, your sources are atheist spruces they are not dealing with the majority of scholars</i><br /><br />Perhaps I should have specified professional historians who specialize in Biblical times.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71169222544524505612019-05-23T00:02:22.078-07:002019-05-23T00:02:22.078-07:00starhopper, John A.T. Robinson. one of the greats,... starhopper, John A.T. Robinson. one of the greats,(not everyone would agree)I'm impressed that you have read him.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-42303148518367470082019-05-22T18:58:11.640-07:002019-05-22T18:58:11.640-07:00What "biblical scholars" have to say on ...<b>What "biblical scholars" have to say on the matters of dating and authorship is the furthest thing from being definitive. </b><br /><br />Agreed. In fact a significant drawback to the historical-critical method has been the assumption of a secular viewpoint of some of its' practitioners. For instance if you start with the assumption there can be no miracles, guess what? Your explanation will attempt to explain away the miracles. <br /><br />And if you start with the assumption that you have to ignore what the actual practitioners of the faith believed and wrote, you end up with an explanation like <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uapRUeZSVaY" rel="nofollow">"The Motel of the Mysteries"</a>bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-37679337509340881102019-05-22T06:57:45.933-07:002019-05-22T06:57:45.933-07:00"There are already 40 years between the life ..."<i>There are already 40 years between the life of Jesus and the earliest Gospel narrative.</i>"<br /><br />What "biblical scholars" have to say on the matters of dating and authorship is the furthest thing from being definitive. There is very little agreement amongst them, and what they do agree on quite often boils down to begging the question. A prime example is the idea that the Gospels must have been written after A.D. 70, because they refer to the destruction of Jerusalem. Huh? Such a conclusion is based on an unjustified presumption that Jesus is not who He says He is (i.e., God, Who would presumably know what is going to happen beforehand).<br /><br />I personally believe that the references to the destruction of Jerusalem are evidence that the Gospels <b>preceded</b> the events described. Why? Because they are described in highly symbolic, apocalyptic language, with the details not always literally matching up with recorded history (nor were they meant to). If the Gospels were written post-destruction, don't you think the authors would have made an effort to make the details match up?<br /><br />Although I do not agree with all his conclusions, a most thought provoking book is <a href="https://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1976_robinson_redating-testament.html" rel="nofollow">Redating the New Testament</a> by John A.T. Robinson. (The link provided is to a free online copy.) Well worth a read, if only to encourage a healthy skepticism about "the consensus".Starhopperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18350334327301656588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-22530978302893742422019-05-22T06:20:31.251-07:002019-05-22T06:20:31.251-07:00Great moral teachers can be misquoted
Yes. But t...<i>Great moral teachers can be misquoted</i><br /><br />Yes. But that has nothing to do with the OP, which is asking what we should think of a man who did say those things. He would either be insane, a liar, or the son of God. What other options are there for someone saying those things?<br /><br />"Well he wasn't actually the son of God, but he was a great moral teacher" would not be an option for a liar or a lunatic going around claiming to be the son of God when he actually wasn't. Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75149399821804342412019-05-22T05:41:30.362-07:002019-05-22T05:41:30.362-07:00My words
What all of this means is, that there w...<br /><br /><a href="http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2010/05/gospel-behind-gospel-part-2.html" rel="nofollow"><b>My words</b></a><br /><br /><br />What all of this means is, that there were independent traditions of the same stories, the same documents, used by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John which were still alive and circulating even when these canonical gospels were written. They represent much older sources and the basic work which all of these others use, goes back to the middle of the first century. It definitely posited Jesus as a flesh and blood man, living in historical context with other humans, and dying on the cross in historical context with other humans, and raising from the dead in historical context, not in some ethereal realm or in outer space. He was not the airy fairy Gnostic redeemer of Doherty, but the living flesh and blood "Son of Man." <br /><br /><br />Moreover, since the breakdown of Ur gospel and epiphany sources (independent of each other) demands the logical necessity of still other sources, and since the other material described above amounts to the same thing, we can push the envelope even further and say that at the very latest there were independent gospel source circulating in the 40s, well within the life span of eye witnesses, which were based upon the assumption that Jesus was a flesh and blood man, that he had an historical existence. Note: all these "other Gospels" are not merely oriented around the same stories, events, or ideas, but basically they are oriented around the same sentences. There is very little actual new material in any of them, and no new stories. They all essentially assume the same sayings. There is some new material in Thomas, and others, but essentially they are all about the same things. Even the Gospel of Mary which creates a new setting, Mary discussing with the Apostles after Jesus has returned to heaven, but the words are basically patterned after the canonical. It is as though there is an original repository of the words and events and all other versions follow that repository. This repository is most logically explained as the original events! Jesus actual teachings! <br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-5820942422382012292019-05-22T05:24:02.935-07:002019-05-22T05:24:02.935-07:00from the unbiased source "history for athei...from the unbiased source "history for atheists" one Brow's link<br /><br />"for over a century, scholarship on the origins of Christianity has been dealing with a fundamental issue – the Jesus in the earliest Christian texts is presented as preaching an eschatological message about an imminent apocalypse. Despite ongoing rearguard actions, the idea that the historical Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic prophet remains the most likely interpretation of the evidence."<br /><br />Atheists apparent need their history filtered so as not to shock their readership with uncomfortable facts.<br /><br />Jesus cold be an apocalyptic prophet and the son of God at the same time.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71382950977426622612019-05-22T05:18:58.651-07:002019-05-22T05:18:58.651-07:00One Brow said...
Jim S. said...
The consensus of h...One Brow said...<br />Jim S. said...<br />The consensus of historical Jesus scholars affirm that Jesus portrayed himself as the God of Israel. <br /><br />Actually, it's not. From my understanding, that's a minority position taken primarily among Evangelical literalists. <br /><br />I don't know if it is a majority opinion, but a more common opinion would be Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet.<br /><br />https://historyforatheists.com/2018/12/jesus-apocalyptic-prophet/<br /><br /><br /><b>Most Bible scholars are not atheists, your sources are atheist spruces they are not dealing with the majority of scholars</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com