Atheism promotes Nihilism

reply to post by Iason321


Your definition:

Nihilism (play /ˈnaɪ.ɨlɪzəm/ or /ˈniː.ɨlɪzəm/; from the Latin nihil, nothing) is the philosophical doctrine suggesting the negation of one or more putatively meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.

pu·ta·tive [pyoo-tuh-tiv]

Show IPA adjective commonly regarded as such; reputed; supposed: the putative boss of the mob.

Existential nihilism is just one form. Wishing for the apocalypse, which MANY Christians do, would in a very real way be a 'negation of a putatively meaningful aspect of life' which would be the survival of the human race. So when you HOPE for the second coming you are HOPING for the deaths of billions of people. If it's not nihilism what would you call it?

reply to post by Iason321




I'm going to post my views from a thread I was in recently, saves me retyping them.

It was from this thread...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by blupblup
Actually I've had this discussion/debate before... and It's exactly the opposite of what you suggest.
If you know that this is probably it and there is no grand party in the sky... no big reunion... nobody watching, waiting and judging you on your actions... the you live a much more free and fulfilling life.

You have just ONE chance and one life to do all you can and be the best you can be.

You have no worry, no conflicting emotions or worry about whether you should because god might be annoyed, and I don't mean illegal or dodgy things, just life stuff.. just normal everyday things.

Not worrying about an afterlife or God is liberating, the exact opposite of religion.

As for anything else... universe, weird alien planet... that is completely different to religion and spirituality.
Nobody knows that there is not some random thing that happens after death, nobody has come back to tell us... nobody has recorded anything and just plainly... nobody knows.

Atheist/ism is about deities... gods, supreme beings... in the religious sense... that is IT.

It has nothing to do with anything other than that.

People think an Atheist can't believe in paranormal matters... or any other such stuff... that's nonsense.
All it means is that people don't subscribe, bother with or even believe the nonsense ramblings of a group of power hungry men who wanted to scare and control each other through the concept of god and eternal damnation.... and tell tales about how god/gods are watching and judging you and so on.

It relates to no other part of a person's life or ability or personality.

If anything, people are better behaved and have more reason to live.

Instead or arguing with other religious idiots and trying to kill each other because "My god is better than your god" which is the way our planet and species has been since whatever moron decided to make up all of this nonsense.



"Human beings need to behave well in this world, not any other. We stand on our own feet, and our feet are human feet" - Simon Blackburn


Are you a Humanist?

Originally posted by blupblup
Yeah but I don't believe in God... and I believe all people are equal and connected.
I believe there are things we just don't know yet, we're discovering new things all the time related to connectivity and reality and perception.

Just because I don't believe in god, doesn't make me any less caring, emotional, empathetic or curious about people, life, existence.... what does it all mean... why do we do the things we do.

All of it.

I think too many people think if someone doesn't believe in god or a god... that that's it... they don't ever think outside the box or think about paranormal things, or deep and meaningful things or challenging things.

I actually think it's the opposite.

God & religion STOPS you thinking about all of these things objectively and honestly... you already have the answers, "God did it" .

What is there to think about? "God made everything, god does things that we don't understand and nor should we try..."

"The lord works in mysterious ways"


Metaphysics and Philosophy.... people have written for years about existence, meaning of life... etc.
It allows a much more honest and objective search and understanding when you're not clouded with the limitations and nonsense of religion and religious dogma.

Obviously you think you would go mad and crazy if you thought you only had one life and their were no consequences and so on... you don't think you'd be able to "behave" or whatever.
But to me, that makes no sense.

Every moment is precious when this may be all you have... why would you spend it making enemies or hurting people...or not caring or wasting your life?

Makes no sense.

reply to post by Annee

I'm atheist -- and finally met another atheist. Atheists don't exactly say "Hi! I'm atheist".

So - - when people talk about ALL these atheists they know and are judging ALL atheists by ALL those atheists they know. I want details. I want to know how you know atheists in real life.

This is an excellent point Annee. I know four atheists personally. You're right, they don't say "Hi! I'm atheist". I have an uncle who is atheist. That's how I met another, and another. We are few and far between it seems.

The overwhelmingly positive response from all the atheists on this thread has made me start questioning -

what really is the problem?

And I think I've just realized -

it's not atheism or belief or lack of belief that's the issue with our society and people in general -

it's ignorance.

Many Christians are close minded ignorant bigots, and a good percentage of atheists are close minded bigots, and I suppose there are close minded bigots found in all walks of life.....

This is sort of what i was getting at when I said there are christian atheists and atheist christians....

Theres many who proclaim to be Christians, but there actions proclaim them to be atheists, while there are also many who proclaim atheism, but there actions say Christian.....understand where i'm gettin at?

example of this: "Christian" who gets addicted to drugs, murders someone, then goes to prison,
"atheist" who works as a teen counselor and helps suicidal teens and volunteers at a homeless shelter in there spare time

Maybe it's time Christians and atheists put there differences aside, stop arguing over why belief or disbelief is the issue at hand, and start realizing we need to educate both sides and people in general much more on tolerance for others and how to work together.

Stupidity and immaturity seems to be the issue, not beliefs....

I really want to add more to this post, but my mind is sputtering on me, I think I'm going to go do some research on Americas failing education system and ways to address ignorance and bigotry....

Thank you all

Originally posted by Iason321


Theres many who proclaim to be Christians, but there actions proclaim them to be atheists, while there are also many who proclaim atheism, but there actions say Christian.....understand where i'm gettin at?

Again - Atheism is NOT a verb. Lack of belief in a god - - - is not an action - belief - lifestyle - etc.

I definitely do NOT need to be compared to Christians - - - for my life philosophies of humanitarianism.

reply to post by Annee


I can vibe with that,

good for you.

Originally posted by Klassified
reply to post by Annee

 

I'm atheist -- and finally met another atheist. Atheists don't exactly say "Hi! I'm atheist".

So - - when people talk about ALL these atheists they know and are judging ALL atheists by ALL those atheists they know. I want details. I want to know how you know atheists in real life.

This is an excellent point Annee. I know four atheists personally. You're right, they don't say "Hi! I'm atheist". I have an uncle who is atheist. That's how I met another, and another. We are few and far between it seems.

Right! Unless you are into going to lectures/groups etc - - - where/how in everyday life do you meet an atheist?

What I've found is those "knowing" atheists - - are either in college or talking about online encounters..

There is an atheist symbol - - that can be worn - - and I'm sure a few atheist's do wear one. But I think that's still quite rare at this time in society.

Atheists are just starting to publicly "come out of the closet".

reply to post by Annee


The "bright" atheists is a fairly new movement, and you're right, it's just gaining momentum,

I think, honestly, there are much more atheists who call themselves Christian, than there are atheists who claim atheism.

Being a Christian is not about saying you believe in Christ then doing whatever the hell you want, it's about believing in Christ in every fabric of your being and mimicking Christ in everything you do,

Now how many TRUE Christians do you know?

How many Christians do you know who would forgive there son or daughter for stealing out of there wallet to support a drug habit?

How many Christians do you know who stop and give money out of there pocket to every homeless person they see on the side of the road?

How many Christians do you see preaching the Gospel in a true-to-Christ manner?

How many Christians do you see grasping for material gain and treasures on earth, rather than living for the King?

Originally posted by Iason321
Theres many who proclaim to be Christians, but there actions proclaim them to be atheists, while there are also many who proclaim atheism, but there actions say Christian.....understand where i'm gettin at?

example of this: "Christian" who gets addicted to drugs, murders someone, then goes to prison,
"atheist" who works as a teen counselor and helps suicidal teens and volunteers at a homeless shelter in there spare time

This is exactly where your problem lies. This ties into the condescending attitude I've already known you've had from other posts of your own.

Theism or Atheism are both completely neutral in regards to morality, or stance on life. Atheism does not lead to (materialism, selfishness, greed, lack of compassion, lack of honor, lack of morals), as you proclaim, and this can be proven statistically(At least, in part. Prison atheist populations tend to be proportionally equal to, or even smaller than, the percentage of Atheists amongst said community. The best way we can objectively judge morality, by crime statistics, shows atheists to be no more likely to be immoral.)

Bad people who believe the Bible to be the inspired word of god, in one way or another, are Christians.

Good people who don't hold any belief in deities, are still Atheists.

Christian refers to your beliefs, not the kind of person you are, Muslim also talks about your beliefs, and says nothing about character content, same is true with Wiccans and Buddhists. And not subscribing to any deistic beliefs, also means nothing regarding your character.

Judge people for who they are, and their actions, not for their held religious convictions.

~
Also, I don't see how you can get Objective Meaning out of Christianity, or any other religion. What god wants, his wants are subjective, not objective. Why should anyone care what a God wants, feelings(Non-objective) of respect, love, and wanting to do what he made us for, are not objective reasons. If a god had intentions for us, it'd still be subjective feelings telling us to go along with us. Theism does not get rid of nihilism, it just stops many from reconizing it. However, if some people(most don't) somehow interpret Objective meaning out of a belief, it'd be equally possible to interpret Objective meaning out of a belief not indicative of deities.

Nihilism is not Atheist exclusive, nor is it mandated by Atheism. Not only that, but there's nothing wrong with it, it opens the world to many different subjective meanings. Whatever it is that gives meaning to the individual, that's all they need. There's nothing wrong with that. Again, most theistic beliefs boil down to those applied subjective meanings as well, since a god does not automatically create objective meaning on a non-objective topic. That's like claiming that the existence of God would make anger or love objective facts, it doesn't. A belief in a god may invoke anger, or love, but they're still subjective feelings.

~
I consider myself, along with most people(Theistic or not) to be Anti-Nihilists.

~
Of course, that's all not even going into the fact that whether or not something's optimal does not have any say on whether or not it's true. That's an issue of itself. The Holocaust happened, even if memory of it stirs up bad emotions. Even if Atheism brought forth immorality and meaninglessness(which it doesn't), it'd still be true if there weren't any Gods.

That's worth an entire post on it's own, however, I feel this blatant prejudice is the most important thing to be addressed, not the fallacious reasoning it leads to.

Originally posted by Iason321
reply to post by Annee

 

The "bright" atheists is a fairly new movement, and you're right, it's just gaining momentum,

I don't think that is true at all. Its about society acceptance - - same as gays being accepted.

I get the feeling you are quite young.

I'm 65. I come from an era you could be fired for being atheist and worse. Like murdered.

reply to post by Annee


I am young, 23 to be exact, and my views and philosophy are constantly evolving, though I've held Christ as my foundation for going on 2 years now.....

Thank you to all you very kind and very patient godless heathens for enlightening me!

Originally posted by Iason321
reply to post by Annee

 

I am young, 23 to be exact, and my views and philosophy are constantly evolving, though I've held Christ as my foundation for going on 2 years now.....

Thank you to all you very kind and very patient godless heathens for enlightening me!

It was searching for god that lead to me accepting I am atheist.

If you actually research the history of Christ - - you'll find there are no facts to support it.

People radiate energy. If you congregate people together with same thought - - it does create an energy euphoria. It really makes you feel both physically and emotionally awesome. Religion "hooks" you this way.

My mom believed in integrity. That was her #1 when raising me. I don't need to label myself or believe in a force separate from myself to have integrity.

reply to post by Annee


I agree with everything you said except the second sentence.

There is a PLETHORA of evidence to suggest the historicity of Jesus is real, and there's enough evidence and testimony to the legitimacy of the New Testament to keep you reading for nonstop for months....... but that's for another thread, really,

Just think about it -

the entirity of human history since 2,000 years ago and life as we know it this day has been molded by 1 man - Jesus Christ.

had Jesus Christ not existed, NOTHING would be as it is today, and to say otherwise, i'd say you're full of it.

Originally posted by Iason321
There is a PLETHORA of evidence to suggest the historicity of Jesus is real, and there's enough evidence and testimony to the legitimacy of the New Testament to keep you reading for nonstop for months....... but that's for another thread, really,

No - there isn't.

There was a real man named Jesus. He was executed. He was a political dissident.

There is ZERO real factual history to support "mythical biblical Jesus".

There is Truth In the Bible - - - but the Bible is Not Truth.

reply to post by Annee


Yes there is,

www.bethinking.org...

For starters,

I can give you a few hundred more articles when you're ready,

You've bought into a deception that's wide spread.

Seek wisdom, seek truth, don't just stop at what makes you happy (believing the NT is baloney)

EDIT: annee, you are the age of my parents, and I respect my elders, but I preach to my parents as well, they need to hear it, anyone who doesn't believe in Christ needs to hear it, He is the only thing that will lead you to life, not destruction.....

Originally posted by Iason321

There is a PLETHORA of evidence to suggest the historicity of Jesus is real, and there's enough evidence and testimony to the legitimacy of the New Testament to keep you reading for nonstop for months....... but that's for another thread, really,

Yeah.... um.... that is absolute BS.
There are no first hand accounts and not even any second hand accounts of Jesus.
There is ZERO historical evidence, other than the Bible.

You might want to do a little reading yourself.

This may be a good start

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by blupblup


For a defense of the full inerrancy of Holy Scripture, see J.P. Moreland, "The Rationality of Belief in Inerrancy," Trinity Journal (Spring 1986): 75-86.

[2] For a summary of archaeology and the New Testament, see Edwin M. Yamauchi, "Archaeology and the New Testament;" in Introductory Articles, vol. 1 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), pp. 645-69. Two of the best summaries of extra-biblical evidence for Jesus are Gary R. Habermas Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus: Historical Records of His Death and Resurrection (Nashville: Nelson, 1985), E F Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974).

[3] It is sometimes said that Christians use circular arguments to prove the reliability of the Bible. For an analysis and refutation of this claim, see R. C. Sproul, "The Case for Inerrancy: A Methodological Analysis," in God's Inerrant Word: An International Symposium on the Trustworthiness of Scripture, ed. John Warwick Montgomery (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1974), pp. 242-61. For a helpful study of circular arguments in general, especially their relationship to begging the question, see Oliver Johnson, Skepticism arid Cognitivism: A Study in the Foundations of Knowledge (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979), pp. 226-39.

[4] A brief, helpful survey of various issues in historiography can be found in Norman L. Geisler, Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976), pp, 285-304. More detailed discussions can be found in William H. Dray, Philosophy of History (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1964); Hans Meyerhoff, ed., The Philosophy of History in Our Time (Garden City, MY: Doubleday, Anchor Books, 1959); John Warwick Montgomery, Where Is History Going? (reprint ed.; Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1972); Sidney Hook, ed., Philosophy and History: A Symposium (New York: New York University Press, 1963).

[5] In addition to Yamauchi, "Archaeology of the New Testament;" see Habermas, Ancient Evidence, pp. 152-63.

[6] See Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody, 1968); Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York:, Oxford University Press, 1964). For a briefer treatment of the text of the New Testament, see Gordon D. Fee, "The Textual Criticism of the New Testament;" in Introductory Articles, vol. 1 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), pp. 419-33.

[7] R. Joseph Hoffmann, "The Origins of Christianity: A Guide to Answering Fundamentalists," Free Inquiry 5 (Spring 1985):50.

[8] Louis Gottschalk, Understanding History: A Primer of Historical Method, 2d ed. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1969), pp. 53-54. For a good discussion of the concept of an original autograph in terms of the distinction between types and tokens, see Greg L. Bahnsen, "The Inerrancy of the Autographs" in Inerrancy ed. Norman L. Geisler (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,1980), pp.151-93.

[9] Gottschalk, Understanding History, pp, 41-171.

[10] Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1970), p. 142.

[11] Gottschalk, Understanding History, p. 89.

[12] Thus, Van A. Harvey surely errs when he says that it is required of a modern historian that he adopt a standpoint of methodological skepticism. See The Historian and the Believer (New York: Macmillan, 1966), 26. For a general theory of evidence based on a prima facie burden of proof for skepticism, see Roderick Chisholm, "A Version of Foundationalism," Studies in Epistemology, ed. Peter A. French et al., Midwest Studies in Philosophy, vol. 5 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,1980), pp. 543-64. For an excellent treatment of the legal aspects of testing the trustworthiness of witnesses and the application of this testing to the New Testament, see John Warwick Montgomery, Human Rights and Human Dignity (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,1986), pp. 139-50.

[13] Gottschalk, Understanding History, p. 150.

[14] See David Hill, "On the Evidence for the Creative Role of Christian Prophets," New Testament Studies 20 (April 1974): 262-74; New Testament prophecy (Atlanta: John Knox, 19811); see also David E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983).

[15] G. N. Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974), pp. 70-77.

[16] C. H. Dodd, New Testament Studies (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1953), pp. 1-11.

[17] In addition to Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth, see Charles H. Talbert, What Is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977).

[18] See A. W. Mosley, "Historical Reporting in the Ancient World," New Testament Studies 12 (Octobe

reply to post by blupblup


No thanks, I'll skip that ATS thread and rely on scholars and PhD's:

See A. W. Mosley, "Historical Reporting in the Ancient World," New Testament Studies 12 (October 1965): 10-26. See also the bibliography on page 7 of C. F D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament, 3d ed., rev. (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1981). It is sometimes objected that people in Jesus' day were gullible about miracles and miracle workers. It is alleged that miracle workers were plentiful in the ancient world, and that Jesus' miracles were fabricated to fit with the works of pagan or other Jewish miracle workers. For a good critique of this objection, see A. E. Harvey Jesus and the Constraints of History (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982), pp. 98-119.

[19] D. E. Nineham, "Eyewitness Testimony and the Gospel Tradition, I, II, III;" Journal of Theological Studies 9 (April 1958):13-25; 9 (October 1958): 223-52;11 (October 1960): 253-64.

[20] See T W Manson, Studies in the Gospels and Epistles, ed. Matthew Black (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962), p. 5; Pierre Benoit, Jesus and the Gospel, 2 vols. (New York: Seabury, Crossroad Books, 1973), 1:28.

[21] The most helpful survey of Hellenistic influence on the New Testament is Ronald H. Nash, Christianity and the Hellenistic World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984). For a treatment of Aretalogies, divine men, and the Gospels, see Howard C. Kee, "Aretalogy and the Gospel," Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (September 1973): 402-22; "Huios," by W V. Martitz, in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 10 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-76), 8:338-40; Michael Green, ed., The Truth of God Incarnate (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), pp. 36-42; John W. Drane, "The Religious Background," in New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods, ed.1. Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1978), pp.117-25.

[22] See Harald Riesenfeld, The Gospel Tradition and Its Beginnings (London: A. W. Mowbray and Company, 1961); Birger Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity (Uppsala: Gleerup, 1961); for brief summaries of this position, see I. Howard Marshall, I Believe in the Historical Jesus, I Believe series (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), pp 195-96; Peter H. Davids, 'The Gospels and Jewish Tradition: Twenty Years After Gerhardsson," in Gospel Perspectives I (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980), pp. 75-99. Gerhardsson has responded to criticisms from Morton Smith and Jacob Neusner and has summarized and updated his position in The Origins of the Gospel Traditions, trans. Gene J. Lund (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979). In The Charismatic Leader and His Followers (New York: Seabury, Crossroad Books, 1981), Martin Hengel has criticized Gerhardsson and has tried to show that there is no precise parallel between Jesus and Jewish rabbis. Three things can be said in response to Hengel. First, Gerhardsson argues in Origins of the Gospel Traditions that the fundamental point of comparison between Jesus and rabbis is memorization of the leader's teaching. But this feature was widespread in the ancient world and is the most likely parallel to hold between Jesus and the rabbis. Second, Hengel seems to prove only that Jesus was more than a rabbi, not less than one, and the addresses to Jesus as rabbi in the Gospels seem to go beyond a mere form of address equivalent to "sir." Third, Moule points out (Birth of the New Testament, pp. 231-34) that the language in the New Testament indicates that the message of Jesus was a deposit to be guarded and protected from error. Thus, Hengel's remark that there was an emphasis on obedience instead of accuracy of learning and knowledge seems to be an overstatement. R. T France has pointed out that even if one does not see a close parallel between Jesus and first-century rabbis, there is still enough evidence about first-century educational practice in general to indicate that memorization was a major means of education and thus Jesus' teaching would have been accurately passed on to others. See R. T France, The Evidence for Jesus (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1986), pp.106-11.

[23] For practical implications of this point, see Cleon Rogers, "The Great Commission," Bibliotheca Sacra 130 (July 1973): 258-67; John Lozano, Discipleship: Towards an Understanding of Religious Life (Chicago: Claret Center for Resources in Spirituality, 1980), pp. 1-38.

[24] See Marshall, I Believe, pp. 195-96.

[25] See R. T France, "The Authenticity of the Sayings of Jesus," in History, Criticism, and Faith, ed. Colin Brown (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1976), pp. 101-43.

[26] France, "Authenticity of the Sayings of Jesus," p. 123.

[27] C. F D. Moule, The Phenomenon of the New Testament (London: SCM, 1967), pp. 47-55.

[28] C. Lesl

reply to post by blupblup


Moule, Phenomenon of the New Testament, pp. 66-67.

[33] France, "Authenticity of the Sayings of Jesus;" p.113.

[34] Everett H. Harrison, "Gemeindetheologie: The Bane of Gospel Criticism;" in Jesus of Nazareth: Savior and Lord, ed. Carl F H. Henry (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966), pp. 157-73.

[35] R. P C. Hanson, "The Enterprise of Emancipating Christian Belief from History" in Vindications. ed. Anthony Hanson (New York: Morehouse-Barlow, 1966), p. 56.

[36] Moule, Phenomenon of the New Testament, pp. 72-75.

[37] Manson, Studies In the Gospels and Epistles, p. 7.

[38] Gottschalk, Understanding History, pp. 156-65.

[39] A. R. C. Leaney, "Historicity in the Gospels," in Vindications, ed. Anthony Hanson (New York: Morehouse-Barlow, 1966), p.120, To this may be added Mark 13:32; 15:34.

[40] Mitton, Jesus, p.120.

[41] See Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), pp. 95-114.

[42] For the influence of Hellenism on first-century Palestine, see I. Howard Marshall, "Palestinian and Hellenistic Christianity: Some Critical Comments," New Testament Studies 19 (April 1973): 271-87. On the language of Palestine in Jesus' day, see Philip Edgcurnbe Hughes, "The Languages Spoken by Jesus," in New Dimensions in New Testament Study, ed. Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,1974), pp, 127-43.

[43] See Guthrie for a defense of the Pauline authorship of all thirteen New Testament epistles attributed to Paul.

[44] Martin Hengel, Between Jesus and Paul (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), p. 31. See pp. 30-47 for an excellent summary of the chronology of New Testament Christology.

[45] See Habermas, Ancient Evidence, pp, 120-26; Hengel, Jesus and Paul, p. 78-96.

[46] The best defense for taking Paul's own word for the origin of his christological views -his encounter with the risen Christ on the Damascus road- is Seyoon Kim, The Origin of Paul's Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982).

[47] See I. Howard Marshall, The Origins of New Testament Christology, Issues in Contemporary Theology series (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1976), pp. 97-110; C. F D. Moule, The Origin of Christology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), pp. 35-46; Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1981), pp. 295-96.

[48] See Habermas, Ancient Evidence, pp.124-27; Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective, trans. Wilhelm C. Linss (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1983), pp. 97-100; R. H. Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives (New York: Macmillan, 1971), pp. 9-49; Raymond E. Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (New York: Paulist, 1973), pp. 81-96.

[49] Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus, p. 99.

[50] The following present arguments for an early dating of the Gospels and other New Testament books: E. Earle Ellis, "Dating the New Testament;" New Testament Studies 26 (July 1980): 487-502; John A. T Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977); Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976); John W. Wenham, "Gospel Origins;" Trinity Journal (old series) 7 (Fail 1978):112-34. See the reply by Douglas Moo in Trinity Journal (new series) 2 (1981): 24-36; and the rejoinder by Wenham.

[51] For an excellent brief summary of the Synoptic problem, see Robert L. Thomas and Stanley N. Gundry, A Harmony of the Gospels (Chicago: Moody, 1978), pp. 274-79. The standard defense of the priority of Matthew is William Farmer, The Synoptic Problem (New York: Macmillan, 1964). For a defense of the view that Matthew and Mark are independent of one another, see John M. Rist, On the Independence of Matthew and Mark (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978).

[52] The conclusion that Luke relied on Matthew and Mark is independent of one's acceptance of the four-source theory. It seems clear from Luke's own testimony (1:1-4) that he used sources to compose his Gospel, and Mark was surely one of them. When Matthew's chronological order diverges from that of Mark, Luke follows Mark's order; when Matthew's chronology matches, Luke feels free to differ. This is explicable on the assumption that Luke had Matthew and Mark before him, even if Matthew and Mark are independent of one another.
Besides the volumes by Robinson, a helpful discussion which favors a pre-70 date for John is Leon Morris, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1971), pp, 30-35, Still relevant is the classic argument for Johnannine authorship of the fourth Gospel by B. F Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John (1881; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1950), pp, v-xxxfi.

[53] Hugo Staudinger, The Trustworthiness of the Gospels (Edinburgh: The Handsel Press, 1981), p. 9. Many New Testament scholars have not accepted the early date for Acts because it implies an early date for the Gospe

reply to post by blupblup


J. P Moreland, "An Apologetic Critique of the Major Presuppositions of the New Quest of the Historical Jesus," unpublished Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1979, pp. 96-110; France, "Authenticity of the Sayings of Jesus."

[56] See the excellent study by Royce Gordon Gruenler, New Approaches to Jesus and the Gospels: A Phenomenological and Exegetical Study of Synoptic Christology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982), chaps. 1-5.

[57] See E. G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter (New York: Macmillan, 1946), pp. 33-36.

[58] A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (1963; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), pp. 186-93.

[59] France, The Evidence for Jesus, p.138.


Oh, and there is SO MUCH MORE!!!

The beauty of the Truth of Christ!