PaulS

I don't doubt the integrity of most of the people who believe they have experienced a NDE or an ADC, I am just skeptical that they actually experience such and it's not the mind simply performing some routine we don't better understand. As credible and genuine as the man in the 2nd video is, it doesn't satisfy me that there isn't a better explanation. Perhaps words were said prior to the passing of the child that triggered some to imagine the mother coming to collect the child and take him and others to visit the light? The man and the deceased's wider family's experience would have been tremendously emotional, particularly as a group all there mourning and waiting together, and we all know the brain can react all sorts of ways under emotional duress. As all death and near death experiences are highly emotional (either for the one dying and/or for the bystanders) I am not surprised that many people would be in a heightened state of emotional distress and perhaps subconsciously looking for peace or relief in some way to deal with the pain and the grief. I imagine even seasoned medical personnel can also be affected emotionally at times, particularly if there is stuff going on in their private lives, which may trigger any involvement they have with a patient's NDE or ADC. This may explain why NDE's always seem to have a cultural connotation of familiarity rather than some sort of experience total foreign to the individual but more aligned with completely different other cultures. Also I do wonder if most or maybe all people who report these experiences don't already have some sort of precursor ready to prompt them in this situation, such as a religious background, or spiritual beliefs, of even just a positive belief that when they die it will all be good. One of Australia's richest men, Kerry Packer, died temporarily in the 1990's at a racetrack. He suffered a heart attack and was clinically dead for six minutes before being revived. When being interviewed about his NDE experience he said "I’ve been to the other side and let me tell you, son, there’s f–king nothing there… There’s no one waiting there for you, there’s no one to judge you so you can do what you bloody well like.” Clearly Packer wasn't a particularly religious man. My skepticism comes from the failure to adequately provide evidence, consistently, of the occurrence and manner in which they occur, other than personal testimony. We can't generate or predict results like we can with all other scientific theory. We don't accept such evidence alone for any of our other scientific fields, for good reason, so I have difficulty accepting such for a 'spiritual' matter such as this. And my own personal experience includes having people die in my presence (heart attacks), people die who I have been trying to resuscitate, and often arriving on the scene of very recently departed people, yet not one such experience. The same could be said for many of my police colleagues at the time. I'm sure people could come up with all sorts of reasons why I didn't experience anything but I mainly wonder if it's simply because I wasn't particularly emotionally attached to the individuals involved and/or I was in a healthy emotional place at the time so emotion wasn't particularly triggered, subsequently no such NDE or ADC experiences for me. Conversely, when I went through a period of extreme stress and duress in my life I experienced visions which seemed very, very real. I don't think it's a coincidence that I experienced such in a heightened, emotional state. I am sure through your psychological studies you will have seen evidence or conditions where people believe they see, hear or experience something which others would say is not credible. Mass delusion is a condition that has been identified and studied. These things do occur. Some would probably call such a mental health issue but I think it's more that we don't understand what the brain is capable of and don't fully understand what impacts or triggers our emotions and thoughts. So I don't like to say that any of the above are a mental health issue in the sense that a person is unwell, but rather it is a mental health issue in the sense that we don't understand the brain well enough yet to fully explain these experiences. I expect science will eventually explain these little understood phenomenon, as it has done eventually so many times in the past for the explainable. Until then we can only continue to read, observe and study I guess. But I do believe those who say they have had these experiences are usually genuine in their beliefs.

I'm not sure we are going to have any meaningful discussion if all you want to do is counter my claims with calling them absurd and without evidence, when they are made with pretty much the same amount of sense and evidence as yours. If you want to discuss this subject meaningfully, I am willing. But if you just want to say that I am wrong because you believe you have all the right answers, then I am not interested. So in the spirit of genuine discussion, I will answer the above. Papias was Bishop of Hierapolis and so I would suggest, as we have seen in other Christian circles, that some Christian writers have called upon 'authority' to establish their claims. This goes for a wide range of Christian beliefs, many I'm sure you disagree with as well possibly agree with. My only 'evidence' is that there is a question mark for me over Papias' non-bias, clearly as he already has a side to be on. In his own words Papias is saying that he is also relying upon interpretations and second-hand reports of what the likes of Andrew/Peter/Philip/Thomas/James/John/Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples 'had' said. So it's not a black and white eye witness account like you initially proposed, I would suggest. There is no evidence that Papias actually spoke with Aristion or John the Elder, we just have Papias' claims for such. And even if he did, we don't know that Papias accurately reports them, or interprets them, correctly. We know that pseudepigrapha was an all too common phenomenon amongst early Christian writers, and not because they were mischievous but because they thought they were passing on correct teachings in the name of their teacher. But I can't prove Papias' was biased any more than you can prove he was not, although Papias acknowledges he took no pleasure in those who told many different stories, but only in those who taught the truth, which begs the question - whose truth? The truth that Papias had already decided was the truth? This doesn't sound particularly objective to me. Again, there is no scholarly work that legitimately points to the Gospel of Mark being developed in Rome. It is a claim. I have no issue with claims other than they can be discussed on their merits and evidence. There seems scant legitimate scholarly work that presents a solid case for Mark being developed in Rome. Maybe it was developed there - I'm just saying there isn't evidence to strongly support that and rather, it can only be a claim. I don't particularly rate what the Church Fathers of the 2nd century had to say from an evidentiary point of view, when it comes to establishing connections between Mark & Peter. The Church Fathers already had a clear position on where their beliefs lay, so it is not beyond reason that they either concocted or went along with these beliefs because it was what they wanted to or did believe. That isn't to question their integrity as quite possibly they genuinely meant well, but quite simply it has been established that early Christians had made stuff up about Jesus in the past, and there is a lot of evidence to suggest there was a wide range of views on Jesus and his alleged teachings in the hotpot of early Christianity. I think there is danger in following something just because the early church fathers (some 100-150 years post-Jesus) had to say about Jesus' associates and messages, particularly after it was their views that one the day on Christianity and not the voices that were drowned out. Again, that's not to say that were ill-intentioned or even incorrect in everything, but just to point out that simply because theirs was the voice that won the day, doesn't necessarily stand for me as evidence of accuracy of the historical Jesus. And when I say 'theirs was the voice' I mean that particular version or stream or understanding of Jesus and his teachings that won the day in the variety of early Christian beliefs.

Perhaps you can speak to them Burl, as to why you find their evidence compelling, if you in fact do? (I don't know if you do or don't).

What I am yet to see provided by anybody whatsoever, is any scientific evidence, verifiable and peer reviewed, that supports the notion of an afterlife or even the validity of NDE's as a taste of such an afterlife. It just doesn't ever seem to stack up scientifically, so I have a very hard time not being skeptical. Personally, I've had a fair bit to do with death and dying, and am yet to come across anybody who could even remotely substantiate anything to do with a NDE other than a single individual who expressed their own experience as a feeling that it wasn't their time yet. Which makes me suspect these claims have more to do with our minds than actual reality of visiting an awaiting afterlife. Even 'group' experiences seem light on in any evident manner. And their seems to be a lot of evidence and psychological study that better explains such group experiences as shared delusion for reasons we don't fully understand. Maybe they are accurate depictions of seeing dead people, or maybe they are something we don't yet understand well enough about our brains to explain better scientifically? Proper science, validated in peer-reviewed experiments and which provide evidence that can be considered, would go a long way to making any sort of convincing argument, yet there is scant in this regard (actually, none I would say). Maybe when you share your most mind-blowing evidential NDEs and ADCs that you have encountered Deadworm, we can go from there.

Papias (who may have already had a bias seeing as he was in a position of authority within the early church) says a lot more in that preface about relying on interpretations and what he has been told that the likes of Andrew or Peter or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples 'had' said (had said to whom and was it accurate?) and seems only to reference Aristion & John her Elder as maybe people he was in touch with at the time. To me he reads as though he's presenting his 'case' for legitimacy rather than actual evidence of legitimacy. He has his opinion about things, which is expected, but I don't see that lending him a lot of credibility for accuracy necessarily. Opinion. I'm not convinced there's much scholar evidence to support this notion - it seems to be pure speculation. And access to a lot of unreliable oral tradition, myth and story telling to. That shouldn't be brushed over for convenience. This comments seems to draw a conclusion that maybe because some bits of Mark are accurate, then all of Mark is accurate. Possibly Mark's author did get some elements about Jesus right or wrong, and many others conversely. For me it doesn't necessarily lead that because a few embarrassing things about Jesus were referred to that then necessarily everything else in the book is accurate. Possibly it could be, I'm just saying drawing such conclusions aren't a safe way of justifying your argument, IMO.

I'm with you Joseph - wasn't taken as a personal dig. I was just clarifying that I too see lots of good things about bible myths, stories and teachings - it's just that in this thread I was deliberately focusing on the much narrower topic of authorship and credible scholarship around that. Maybe I should add more emojis to my text

Got no plans to approach it. Maybe one day I'll spend some time pondering it.

I don't disagree with you in the sense that if one interprets various messages in the Gospels into something that enriches their life and doesn't harm others, then what does it matter who wrote or inspired the words. On the other hand, lots of people get told lots of 'facts' about the bible which many have since learnt aren't facts at all, and this has led to much confusion, pain and hurt. So for some, the devil can be in the detail and these can be interesting questions for those who like to understand authorship, meaning, context etc. I would agree with you that I can take a Buddhist teaching, a Christian teaching, and many secular philosophical teachings and find they all may have something to offer me without me being too concerned about who actually wrote them. But I think the value of research like Erhman's and many other biblical and historical scholars is that they can provide a context for the messages and teachings that we read. I'm sure we could all list numerous items of scholarship that have shed better light on the bible and its contents than what was understood prior to such work being done. It also begs the question why anybody would even study biblical scholarship or theology if all they care about is that the message as it exists means something personal to them. Do people get such degrees to 'learn' or do they already 'know' all the answers and just need a bit of paper to 'legitimize' their knowledge? Do you think the scholars that teach these people spend a lot of time for their personal benefit and appearance, or do you think that they genuinely are trying to seek out truth as scholars? You are right in saying that it does give us something to talk about or debate, but I disagree that it is at the expense of any useful teachings. Any number of threads are available on this forum (existing and open for creation) to those who wish to discuss those matters and I of course would encourage anybody who would like to initiate such to start their own thread and get a conversation going. It's just that in this particular thread I started, I chose to discuss authorship of the Gospels and any credible scholarly debate on the matter. So in addition to saying there may well be some worthwhile teachings in the Gospels, I would say it doesn't hurt either to debate and discuss how these teachings came into being. If that isn't of interest to some, then I guess they won't participate.

Authorship was mentioned, by me, in several responses to you. Did you not read that? I can see where we have both digressed Burl. Yes, that was ONE of your posts but your subsequent posts did build on the confusion, perhaps as did mine for you: I said "Wouldn't that simply stand for anybody that didn't know about Jesus' childhood? For example, any person alive during and after Jesus' adulthood that didn't experience his childhood, so more than just the apostles? In effect the gospel sources are just as likely to be several sources removed from the apostles and/or Jesus and fail to see how it stands to reason that just because the authors didn't convey childhood stories of Jesus that one can determine the gospel authors were Apostles. To which you responded "No. The scholarship is not bulletproof but it is very solid". So I think you can see why I then thought you were referring to scholarship about the authors, as that is what I was questioning to you. So I responded with "I think you are reading different scholars than me. Most that I am aware of acknowledge we don't know who wrote the Gospels. Maybe those with a bias try and establish a case for them being written by Apostles. Certainly John wasn't, so now we're down to 3 Gospels and Mathew and Luke who have borrowed from Mark don't seem to be apostolic". But rather than clarify you chose to post "Paul, you are losing the plot and repeating your unsupported and cynical speculations". Personally, I think it would have been more useful to say something like "Paul, I am talking about sources, not authorship - you've moved off track" or something equally helpful to the debate. In any event, you didn't, but for my part I apologise that I misunderstood that you intended differentiation between sources and authors.

No, I have read a number, Burl, but I thought Ehrman was a simple summation to make the point. Some others off the top of my head would include N T Wright, Gary Greenburg, Marcus Borg, Elaine Pagals, and John Crossan. Would you please explain how I have completely misread your statement, Burl. And better yet, in the spirit of this thread would you also care to contribute what you believe is solid scholarship demonstrating that the Gospels were written by Disciples.

Recently another poster claimed that the lack of information about the 'lost years' of Jesus' pre-Ministry life simply supported the idea that the apostles were indeed the sources for the gospels. They were recruited when Jesus was an adult and simply had nothing to say about those earlier years. This person went so far as to claim that although the scholarship on apostolic Gospel authorship was not bulletproof, it was 'very solid'. I thought this was simply too basic an approach to understanding the authorship of the Gospels - particularly as it would stand to reason that simply anybody who didn't know about Jesus' childhood and adolescence would also meet this criteria and could have just as easily written the Gospels. And indeed, any critical biblical scholarship that I am aware of confirms that we simply don't know who wrote the Gospels and actually to the contrary of the above claims, credible scholarship actually seems to debunk the Gospels having been written by any of the 12 apostles of Jesus. Unfortunately, to point out this difference was to be accused of losing the plot and repeating my unsupported and cynical speculations. So I'm interested to see if anybody else here can debate or support the notion that indeed biblical scholarship can and does distinctly demonstrate that the Gospels were written by the disciples. I ask this in all genuineness because I simply can't find any credible, unbiased scholarship to support the notion. To kick off, let me share Bart Erhman's views (in brief- you really need to read his book to get the complete version) to give you some idea what acclaimed scholars say about Gospels authorship and which makes sense to me: Jesus And The Hidden Contradictions Of The Gospels March 12, 2010 Bible scholar Bart Ehrman began his studies at the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago. Originally an evangelical Christian, Ehrman believed that the Bible was the inerrant word of God. But later, as a student at Princeton Theological Seminary, Ehrman started reading the Bible with a more historical approach and analyzing contradictions in the Gospels. Ehrman, the author of Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don't Know About Them), tells Terry Gross that he discourages readers from "smash[ing] the four Gospels into one big Gospel and think[ing] that [they] get the true understanding." "When Matthew was writing, he didn't intend for somebody ... to interpret his Gospel in light of what some other author said. He had his own message," Ehrman says. To illustrate the differences between the Gospels, Ehrman offers opposing depictions of Jesus talking about himself. In the book of John, Jesus talks about himself and proclaims who he is, saying "I am the bread of life." Whereas in Mark, Jesus teaches principally about the coming kingdom and hardly ever mentions himself directly. These differences offer clues into the perspectives of the authors, and the eras in which they wrote their respective Gospels, according to Ehrman. "In Mark's Gospel, Jesus is not interested in teaching about himself. But when you read John's Gospel, that's virtually the only thing Jesus talks about is who he is, what his identity is, where he came from," Ehrman says. "This is completely unlike anything that you find in Mark or in Matthew and Luke. And historically it creates all sorts of problems, because if the historical Jesus actually went around saying that he was God, it's very hard to believe that Matthew, Mark and Luke left out that part — you know, as if that part wasn't important to mention. But in fact, they don't mention it. And so this view of the divinity of Jesus on his own lips is found only in our latest Gospel, the Gospel of John." Ehrman teaches religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His book, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible, is now out in paperback. This interview was originally broadcast on March 4, 2009 Excerpt: 'Jesus, Interrupted' Jesus, Interrupted JESUS, INTERRUPTED: REVEALING THE HIDDEN CONTRADICTIONS IN THE BIBLE (AND WHY WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT THEM) BY BART D. EHRMAN HARDCOVER, 304 PAGES HARPERONE LIST PRICE: $25.99 Chapter Four Students taking a college-level Bible course for the first time often find it surprising that we don't know who wrote most of the books of the New Testament. How could that be? Don't these books all have the authors' names attached to them? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, the letters of Paul, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1, 2 and 3 John? How could the wrong names be attached to books of Scripture? Isn't this the Word of God? If someone wrote a book claiming to be Paul while knowing full well that he wasn't Paul — isn't that lying? Can Scripture contain lies? When I arrived at seminary I was fully armed and ready for the onslaught on my faith by liberal biblical scholars who were going to insist on such crazy ideas. Having been trained in conservative circles, I knew that these views were standard fare at places like Princeton Theological Seminary. But what did they know? Bunch of liberals. What came as a shock to me over time was just how little actual evidence there is for the traditional ascriptions of authorship that I had always taken for granted, and how much real evidence there was that many of these ascriptions are wrong. It turned out the liberals actually had something to say and had evidence to back it up; they weren't simply involved in destructive wishful thinking. There were some books, such as the Gospels, that had been written anonymously, only later to be ascribed to certain authors who probably did not write them (apostles and friends of the apostles). Other books were written by authors who flat out claimed to be someone they weren't. In this chapter I'd like to explain what that evidence is. Who Wrote The Gospels? Though it is evidently not the sort of thing pastors normally tell their congregations, for over a century there has been a broad consensus among scholars that many of the books of the New Testament were not written by the people whose names are attached to them. So if that is the case, who did write them? Preliminary Observations: The Gospels as Eyewitness Accounts As we have just seen, the Gospels are filled with discrepancies large and small. Why are there so many differences among the four Gospels? These books are called Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John because they were traditionally thought to have been written by Matthew, a disciple who was a tax collector; John, the "Beloved Disciple" mentioned in the Fourth Gospel; Mark, the secretary of the disciple Peter; and Luke, the traveling companion of Paul. These traditions can be traced back to about a century after the books were written. But if Matthew and John were both written by earthly disciples of Jesus, why are they so very different, on all sorts of levels? Why do they contain so many contradictions? Why do they have such fundamentally different views of who Jesus was? In Matthew, Jesus comes into being when he is conceived, or born, of a virgin; in John, Jesus is the incarnate Word of God who was with God in the beginning and through whom the universe was made. In Matthew, there is not a word about Jesus being God; in John, that's precisely who he is. In Matthew, Jesus teaches about the coming kingdom of God and almost never about himself (and never that he is divine); in John, Jesus teaches almost exclusively about himself, especially his divinity. In Matthew, Jesus refuses to perform miracles in order to prove his identity; in John, that is practically the only reason he does miracles. Did two of the earthly followers of Jesus really have such radically different understandings of who he was? It is possible. Two people who served in the administration of George W. Bush may well have radically different views about him (although I doubt anyone would call him divine). This raises an important methodological point that I want to stress before discussing the evidence for the authorship of the Gospels. Why did the tradition eventually arise that these books were written by apostles and companions of the apostles? In part it was in order to assure readers that they were written by eyewitnesses and companions of eyewitnesses. An eyewitness could be trusted to relate the truth of what actually happened in Jesus' life. But the reality is that eyewitnesses cannot be trusted to give historically accurate accounts. They never could be trusted and can't be trusted still. If eyewitnesses always gave historically accurate accounts, we would have no need for law courts. If we needed to find out what actually happened when a crime was committed, we could just ask someone. Real-life legal cases require multiple eyewitnesses, because eyewitnesses' testimonies differ. If two eyewitnesses in a court of law were to differ as much as Matthew and John, imagine how hard it would be to reach a judgment. A further reality is that all the Gospels were written anonymously, and none of the writers claims to be an eyewitness. Names are attached to the titles of the Gospels ("the Gospel according to Matthew"), but these titles are later additions to the Gospels, provided by editors and scribes to inform readers who the editors thought were the authorities behind the different versions. That the titles are not original to the Gospels themselves should be clear upon some simple reflection. Whoever wrote Matthew did not call it "The Gospel according to Matthew." The persons who gave it that title are telling you who, in their opinion, wrote it. Authors never title their books "according to." Moreover, Matthew's Gospel is written completely in the third person, about what "they" — Jesus and the disciples — were doing, never about what "we" — Jesus and the rest of us — were doing. Even when this Gospel narrates the event of Matthew being called to become a disciple, it talks about "him," not about "me." Read the account for yourself (Matthew 9:9). There's not a thing in it that would make you suspect the author is talking about himself. With John it is even more clear. At the end of the Gospel the author says of the "Beloved Disciple": "This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true" (John 21:24). Note how the author differentiates between his source of information, "the disciple who testifies," and himself: "we know that his testimony is true." He/we: this author is not the disciple. He claims to have gotten some of his information from the disciple. As for the other Gospels, Mark was said to be not a disciple but a companion of Peter, and Luke was a companion of Paul, who also was not a disciple. Even if they had been disciples, it would not guarantee the objectivity or truthfulness of their stories. But in fact none of the writers was an eyewitness, and none of them claims to be. Who, then, wrote these books? Excerpted from Jesus, Interrupted by Bart D. Ehrman. Copyright 2009 by Bart D. Ehrman. Excerpted by permission of HarperOne, a member of HarperCollins Publishers.

Not to butt in, but I live in the 2nd largest state in the world and have always said that in Western Australia we are only ever 2-degrees of separation from anybody else in our state (a play on the movie title 6-Degrees of Separation). It seems no matter where I meet people in this state, somehow they know a connection of mine from somewhere, even though there is a population of over 2.5 million.

Precisely.

No plot lost Burl, just clarifying that there is no credible support for your argument that there is solid scholarship demonstrating that the disciples wrote 3 of the 4 gospels.

With all respect, that seems to be a common response from those who promote intercessory prayer. But clearly it's not just my lack of understanding that fails to see miraculous intervention for so many dying children, but it would seem to be everybody else on the planet who prays. Like you said, prayer caused intervention for Rhonda and Shane, it just doesn't seem to want to work for those dying children.

No, you miss the point Burl. It's not about what I am doing wrong, it's about what those who believe prayer works aren't doing or are doing wrong because clearly they're not having an impact with their praying when it comes to stemming the flow of needless child deaths.

I think we agree concerning 'blame' but what I am trying to understand is that is this incident not causality? That is, the two year old (or the adult) who unintentionally spills the milk (or intentionally spills it) is still causing an effect to which the universe responds. So aren't we being a cause to how the universe continues to unfold? It does imply a direction - forwards. The universe in my view can only go forwards, not backwards.

Maybe so, but when people cite examples of prayer 'working' I'm always amazed at how ineffective it seems to be for the bigger issues such as world hunger or cases like I cited with children. Miraculously, answers to prayer always seem to be so on such a small scale. Clearly not small for Rhonda or Shane as you mention, but I'm sure a few of those 21 children who die every minute of the clock must be asking the question why somebody doesn't effectively pray for them!

I think you are reading different scholars than me. Most that I am aware of acknowledge we don't know who wrote the Gospels. Maybe those with a bias try and establish a case for them being written by Apostles. Certainly John wasn't, so now we're down to 3 Gospels and Mathew and Luke who have borrowed from Mark don't seem to be apostolic.

Welcome to the forum Deadworm, and I hope you enjoy the participation and archives here. Cheers Paul

It is actually a lot worse Rom with people I know having committed suicide over such and with millions suffering angst and worry in their lives for themselves and their loved ones. I remember when I did believe in Hell what a horrible thought it was that a loved one could be suffering an eternal torture because they didn't make the grade. By some sick ability though, we were able to rationalise that it was just too bad for the individual because that was God's rules and God's rules weren't to be questioned/challenged.

Fundamental Christianity does use the stories in Isaiah (14:12-14) and Ezekiel (28:13-17) to claim the opposite, but I agree such read these passages incorrectly.

My view of 'God' is very earthly and I believe I have felt 'connection' with others and nature a number of times, which I would define as God, but of a nature that has no supernatural connotations.

About 29,000 children under the age of five – 21 each minute – die every day, mainly from preventable causes. More than 70 per cent of almost 11 million child deaths every year are attributable to six causes: diarrhoea, malaria, neonatal infection, pneumonia, preterm delivery, or lack of oxygen at birth. Gee I'd like to see some prayers answered about fixing that.

Interesting take on how to engage others. Of course there's no way of knowing if Jesus did or didn't masturbate - it is a thread just for speculation. Not sure we can say 'dead' with any confidence, but certainly missing from any accounts of Jesus' teenage and adult years. Of course Joseph could very possibly have still been alive, we just don't know. Perhaps he had a problem with wine and was a useless father? Still around, but an embarrassing and inconvenient part of the Jesus tale, so never mentioned again.?