In a recent exhortation I got this right: I said that Mark, specifically, borrowed elements of a "heroic" narrative style for his gospel, but then (purposely) "betrayed" the readers by having the hero die a criminal's death, and then denying the readers any triumphal climax by ending on an ambiguous note with confused women at an empty tomb.

(I suggested that verses 9-20 of Mark 16 should be treated as an "afterward," and that the reader should pause after verse 8 for a bit before reading on.)

It's previously been raised. The Horde didn't lose faith. Myers is competent developmental biologist who has carved out a niche at his current home...

What's the niche? Teaching?

Ah, how I miss academia--and the war between the researchers and the teachers! One crusty old curmudgeon (who was a favorite teacher of mine) asked my thesis advisor, "Do you realize that students are paying for your research?" My advisor replied, "Do you realize that students are paying for your no research?"

Good times.

How could that be when Israel didn't come along until a long time after and from Adam came all sorts of other nations?

You need to read the book to get the background, but the basic idea is that Genesis was finalized after the exile--perhaps by Ezra, say. The post-exilic writings such as Chronicles recast Israelite history in order to address the burning question of the day: what does it mean to be a Jew in light of the diaspora? How are they God's people, if they've lost their land and temple? What of God's promises of an eternal kingdom, since their kingdom was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, and the throne has never been reestablished since? How can they worship God while living in Babylon without any access to the temple, nor any temple to access? Etc., etc.

The critical development in Jewish theology after the exile was the concept that God scatters but also regathers; punishes but also relents. Genesis 1-3, in its final form, tells the same story that plays out over and over in the OT, and it's precisely the story of Israel: God picks out His people, puts them in a good land of His choosing, gives them commandments and access to His presence, and then they disobey and are punished but also redeemed. Adam's biography is a reenactment of Israel's history. Apart from serving as an allegory of Israel, Adam is also specifically identified as Israel's ancestor via the genealogies in Genesis, so his special creation by God and his covenant relationship to God is another thing that makes Israel special. Genesis is ambiguous about the existence of other people at the same time, such as Cain's wife, or the people Cain was afraid of, etc., but that wasn't the primary concern of the Jews; although they seem to have believed that he was the ancestor of everyone in the world, Adam's relationship with other nations was of no interest to them. Adam was the special son of God, Seth was the special son of Adam, Shem was the special son of Noah, and so on, making the Jews the "firstborn" among the nations--so they specifically were the heirs of Adam's specialness in a way that no other nation was. Thus Adam both literally and figuratively marks the Jews as special to God despite Adam's exile from the garden and Israel's exile from the promised land.

Palis are holding their breath, waiting to find out if these laws are still on the books.

Most adults in our Christian churches are not Christian in a biblical sense. A majority of the people who attend Christian churches are not Christian and have been attending the same church for nearly a decade.

I'd like to know more about this. We would say that none of 'em are Christian, of course, but that's obviously not what the author meant by that statement. What defines a "biblical" Christian in their eyes, and why are most adults not ones?

Depending on the answer, I might end up agreeing that half of Christadelphians are not "Christian in the biblical sense," which would be a powerful takeaway.

See, I wondered whether he was complaining that too many parishioners are modalists and tritheists. He's not getting any sympathy from me on that front.

Great piece. It dovetails with some other recent posts on BTDF. The nutshell summary is that "fellowship" is about having a relationship with each other, carried out as a partnership.

By itself, that wouldn't seem very impressive; we talk about that all the time. We routinely exhort about how we're "family." The key bit is to truly appreciate the implications of a "relationship." We have a distorted view of them, because we're born with all these family relationships, and often treat them as fetters to be strained against. They just are; they don't take work; and the best we can hope for is for them not to inconvenience us too greatly.

If we think in terms of a friendship, or a marital relationship, we get a different picture entirely. If we don't nurture those relationships, then our friends turn into strangers and our spouses turn into enemies. They require regular care and feeding. And there is a burdensome aspect, since that means putting up with their quirks or accommodating their bizarre sensitivities--but unlike our family, our friends and spouses are not stuck with us. If we neglect them, they are free to go elsewhere for what they're needing. (If we regard our spouse as "stuck with us," and treat her accordingly, we'll either discover her gone some day, or discover that our lives have become hell on earth.)

Ecclesial relationships are like friendships or marriages. If we do the Sunday-morning-handshake routine, they're not brothers and sisters; they're strangers. If we ignore them, except when we feel motivated to rebuke them, they will feel free to ignore us, or hate us, or go elsewhere--they certainly won't be influenced in any useful way, unless they happen to be masochists. And so on.

So when it says they "devoted themselves to fellowship," it's saying that in the context of preaching the word, exhorting, reading, praying, and all that, they consciously and effortfully nurtured their relationships with each other and with God.

I wish someone would convince my son Dawkins is a......errrr.....dawk! He thinks he's the best thing since sliced bread right now lol.

His writing on evolution and related subjects is top notch. It's just that he seems to suffer from the delusion that brilliance in one area makes one competent, or at least not utterly incompetent, in others. The same reason doctors are notorious for losing their shirts investing--they think being smart makes them competent investors.

Edit: If everyone had a personal relationship with their ministering angel/God then their would be no more need to preserve free will and hide from us. Although this is characterised as Adam hiding from God. You would have personal proof like me. You have to voluntarily surrender your free will in this life or you were never sincere. How can you be sincere if you only surrender your free will when you have no other choice, at physical death?

This is the way it will be in the future and that is EXACTLY why it says their will be no more death, no more suffering, because their will be no more free will. You cannot have both.

duh.

You just replied to yourself and said, "Duh."

Yes it's what we would now call history with literature. But to Herodotus and Josephus, it was just history.

^^ This.

We can call history a modern concept if we like. But there's no getting out of the fact that the ancients had their own version of history, and just like ours it was seen as a record of literal facts about literal persons and events. I honestly don't see a huge difference between the two.

I don't know to what extent it's really so, but it appears that Greeks regarded their myths as history. My limited experience with modern-day polytheists suggests that they would have had varying degrees of awareness that as their history passed back into mythic time, it ceased to be strictly literal. Even the ones who considered it mythic, however, would treat it as history.

I don't know to what extent it's really so, but it appears that Greeks regarded their myths as history.

It may be more accurate to say that they saw their myths as pre-history. They certainly believed the persons in these myths did exist and the events recorded did occur but this doesn't prove their conception of history was significantly different to our own.

Fair enough. "Pre-history" is a nice way to put it. The fantastical elements were relegated to an unverifiable past. They weren't disbelieved per se, but they were compartmentalized differently than recent history, which relatively lacked fantastical elements and could be verified.

I'd say, though, that I have a certain amount of doubt whether "our own" conception of history is so different from theirs. We believe (in this country) that Washington "could not tell a lie," as shown by the mythical incident of the cherry tree; we believe that Lincoln "freed the slaves," which only happened after his death; we believe that Puritans came to this country seeking religious freedom, when in fact they came seeking a place where they could impose their (purer) vision for the Church of England; we believe that the colonists (apart from a handful of loyalists) unitedly sought independence, when historians agree that only 10-15% were in favor of secession in 1776; we believe that Roosevelt ended the depression by joining WWII, when in fact our prosperity in no way increased until some time after the war (we just failed to notice, because our rationing books were part of the "war effort," and our young men were dying in Europe, rather than idling on street corners). Our "knowledge" of US history is a complete hodgepodge of myth, propaganda, and selective ignorance. Less outlandish than Greek myths, perhaps, but different only in degree, not in kind.

Far more people believe the folk version of US history than the historians' version, and they persist in believing it even after they've been told the truth. My sixth-grade teacher told us as eleven-year-olds that the Emancipation Proclamation applied only to confederate territories, where of course it had no force; that slaves in Union territories like West Virginia were not freed; and that the intent of the Proclamation was to prevent England aiding the South, with which it appeared likely to do, having strong sympathies in every area except the issue of slavery. Of those forty kids, how many still believe that "Lincoln freed the slaves"? Most of them.

The line between myth, folk tale, and propaganda seems blurry to me. All are types of falsehood that are sort of believed, but somehow compartmentalized in a way that avoids empirical verification. It is of course true that we have changed our attitude to "history" somewhat, and we now insist that our "myths" be packaged in a much more believable form. And Americans, perforce, have no interesting "pre-history," because in prehistorical times we lived in England and Holland, and that was only about 300 years ago.

It may be more accurate to say that they saw their myths as pre-history. They certainly believed the persons in these myths did exist and the events recorded did occur but this doesn't prove their conception of history was significantly different to our own.

I suspect something similar applies to Gen 1-11. It's likely that the ancient Hebrews saw the events and people as real, but the stylised nature of the accounts suggests we're dealing with "mythologised" history, where actual events involving historical people were related using the tropes and motifs of the ANE with which they were familiar, but which are alien to us...

That's also a good way to put it. Americans are again a poor example, because we have no pre-history to speak of. Our conception of the Wild West is probably the closest thing we have to a mythical past--we do pretty generally believe our own cowboy stories. I know that Davy Crockett was a real historical figure, and I'm pretty sure he did not in fact "kilt a bar when he was only three," but I accept the unverified claim that he was indeed "king of the wild frontier." The shootout at the OK corral really happened, but I'm sure is mythologized in ways I couldn't even tell you. Wyatt Earp, Billy the Kid, etc., are the sort of tropes that Americans believe.

(Which is unfortunate, in some ways. We believe that the West was uncivilized, when in fact Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell, for the years from 1870 to 1885, had only 45 homicides--a rate of approximately 1 murder per 100,000 residents per year, and much lower than the homicide rate of any major US city today except Lincoln, Nebraska, and El Paso, Texas, both of which had 0.8 homicides per 100,000 in 2010. The belief that "gun-slinging" was accompanied by high murder rates, shootouts at high noon, and all the rest, has a significant impact on public policy today. Politicians surprisingly often say, "This isn't the Wild West anymore!" with no conception that the Wild West wasn't wild in the first place--they're appealing to American myths, perpetuated by movies.)

In any case, I don't think any of the three of us disagree materially here. History and myth are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps Romulus and Remus even existed, for that matter. So none of this discussion should be taken as dismissing anything in scripture as pure fiction. Instead, the much more modest heresy is being considered, that elements of exaggeration, or tropes that were the ancient equivalent of "gun-slinging cowboys," might have been employed in relating some of these stories, and that interpreting them as strictly journalistic accounts would have similar results to watching a John Wayne movie as if it were a documentary.

No Len, but once again you're being rude to someone who claims to have the Holy Spirit.

What? Mercia clarified that in the latter half of his post he was speaking from the viewpoint of one's guardian angel, rather than from his own; that bit I clearly misunderstood. The rest of my summary was accurate. What rudeness do you see there, exactly? You seem to be reading something into what I wrote. Also, I have no idea what you mean by "once again," although it suggests that you're in some way judging my recent post in light of some past conversation I don't remember--or in other words, not reading my post at face value.

I think he means that he knows the truth about angels and the Holy Spirit, and could explain it to people so that they would be saved; in particular, one friend refused to listen to him for 20 years, while his other friends called him a nutter for claiming to have this special knowledge.

Meanwhile, he is offering for the people at BTDF to learn from him the truth concerning angels and the Holy Spirit, and so be saved. However, he doubts that anyone will listen, on account of being blinded to his message by their conviction that the teaching of their (Christadelphian) church is correct. For this reason, he believes that there's more hope of salvation for those who don't belong to any church.

Seems simple enough.

It's not the first time you've been rude to someone claiming to have the Holy Spirit Len.

I wasn't rude, so calling this "not the first time" is begging the question. No rudeness there. Ask Mercia whether he feels insulted or rudely treated. A perfectly non-rude exchange.

Perhaps I should have forgotten about it. I just thought I detected sarcasm in what you wrote.

My guess is that you're interpreting my post through the lens of your personal feelings toward me, which aren't especially fuzzy nor inclined toward giving the benefit of the doubt. I forgive you, of course, but I suggest you look into that. It's good to treat people based on what they're doing right now--not on what they did, or you think they did, in the past. We call that sort of thing "holding grudges," and it's unhealthy: even if you're right, and I did misbehave in the past, holding a grudge is like drinking poison and hoping your enemy will die from it.

I was not offended by anything you said, just to clarify, I do not mind you being rude to me, (even though I did not see it that way), just not rude to the Holy Spirit.

You did, there was a bit dry sarcasm in their, the assumption my friends think I am mad (which is why he misread it), although it was not that clear I was talking from his ministering angels perspective.

It just wasn't clear to me that you were speaking from a new perspective not your own, so I thought you were speaking of your own friends. That's all.

He also attempted to put me in his 'wacky new ager type' pigeon hole box by appealing to rediculous extremes (a common CD tactic), i.e my "guardian angel"...

No, I wasn't trying to do that. Plenty of Christadelphians use the term "guardian angel," and they're the furthest thing from "wacky new agers." I don't necessarily agree with them, but I have no special quarrel with them--and the phrase "guardian angel" doesn't really have any associations for me, positive or negative, so I used it without realizing it would have a negative connotation for you.

I never use such language, I stay well away from any book that talk of guardian angels probably as much as he does...

Understood; I'll remember that. I don't avoid that terminology--in fact I don't have any preferred terminology, because I don't dabble much in angelology. So I'm likely to use terms quite freely and carelessly most of the time, and to speak in somewhat broad and general terms.

yet all this is part of the course when talking to most CDs about this Bible reality, as I say, it is just half way to athiesm and unbelief imo.

That last statement I don't quite understand, because you regularly say things that indicate that you mostly agree with Christadelphians, and that you think they're more or less right on most things. It's statements like this that sound to me as if you're saying that Christadelphians are "halfway to atheism and unbelief," which sounds very different from something you'd mostly agree with. So it's not really clear to me what you think of Christadelphians. That's probably why I understood your remarks about "organized religion" as suggesting that Christadelphians are blinded to truth by their adherence to their church's creed.

All I am asking you to do it reach the obvious conclusion of your own undefined theology of what the Holy Spirit is. Once you do that the mystery is removed and in private, alone, Christadelphians will be praying for guidance from their ministering spirit in droves...

I can't say I agree with all you say about angels or the Holy Spirit, but I can't say I have much quarrel with you either. The Bible is rather vague about both topics, and there are Christadelphians who believe they have watching angels, and also an indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Since the Bible is rather vague on these points, and says things that are somewhat supportive of those views, I simply can't and wouldn't argue with them.

If people claim to have gifts such as healing or tongues, I will happily put them to the test, because I would tend to doubt their claims. I believe that if Jesus walked among us today, his healings would be real: we would see people with documented cases of cancer, proven to be cancer free. I don't think Jesus' healings would be like the faith healers', which are long on hearsay and short on proof. So if anyone claimed to have such gifts, I would only believe him after he proved it.

Here is a simple question, if Christadelphians pray to God for help in understanding the Bible, as they did at the start of each lesson I had with you, then how do you think such prayers are answered? ...

Personally I recognize that we're quite vague on that point, and mostly I'm content to let it be so. When the Bible paints with broad brush-strokes, I'm very reluctant to come along with a fine-point pen and try to draw the outlines--I'd expect to get it wrong, and ruin a work of art in the process. I don't believe that prevents me from being a full Christian, because I believe that if God really wanted me to have a certain belief on the subject, He would have spelled it out plainly.

I found you rude because I found you what you wrote rude even if Mercia didn't...

OK. Misunderstandings happen.

Incidentally I find it rather high handed that you are giving me this kind of advice and talking about forgiveness, when *you* are the one with a grudge problem. You have blocked me on facebook for no good reason other than that you are offended by my husband and have blocked him. If I really had a grudge against you, I'd just block you.

You are right, Huldah: I should have told you what I was doing and why, and I wronged you when I failed to do that. I apologize.

I explained to your husband why I was going to block him, something like a week in advance, and gave him plenty of time to communicate with me if he wanted to work things out. He appeared amused by this. In any case, I finally put it into effect. Then, quite thoughtlessly, I included you, for no better reason than you both are in the same household and I'd as soon he not read my posts over your shoulder either. It was in no way meant against you, and I mistreated you by not at least telling you that, in advance, as I did your husband. Please forgive me.

Thanks, your videos explain a lot.

Aren't you one who is at a loss to explain suffering?

Of course that's true. Nobody said any different.

I guess secular law sets us up to fail as well, seeing that most people break at least one piece of legislation at least once in their lives. It's not impossible to keep, but you'd hardly know that from our prison populations and the amount of money raked in by speeding fines.

Not the best example, since traffic law is tweaked to maximize fines. People actually are set up to fail: the law intentionally sets onerous limits not needed for safety, knowing people of good sense will break them. In some cases the law creates unsafe situations, in fact, where only a dangerous fool would comply.

Not sure I can help you, Mercia. I reason with kids and stupid people all the time. I assure you it's a one-way process, in which I try to find the best way to crowbar information into their heads.

Do you actually think God is requesting a mutual exchange of ideas, in which He has a few good points and you have a few good points? Is that what you think?

"Social contract" morality--ugh. If the social contract authorizes gay sex and requires that Jews be handed over to the heimatsicherheitsdienst, would that make it moral?

Also, is it necessary to personally sign onto this "contract" in order to be bound by it? Or is it like a shrink-wrap license you "agree to" by being born and not expatriating?

Agreed, Fort. Nor other "victimless crimes," either.

It's a different situation, but still apropos, to note that Solomon's first judicial act was to give justice to a prostitute. It doesn't say he seized and executed her; it says he awarded her custody of her child. Would a modern court do the same? These days "undesirables" are often denied justice, have their children seized, etc. And we personally are likely to deny others just treatment because of our prejudice against the victim. TV cop shows illustrate this with the trope of cops expressing indifference when "low lifes" murder each other.