A Question of Christian Theology (1 Viewer)

[Planck]

Yeah, except at answering the most important questions that human beings have always struggled to answer.

So just make shit up instead and cling tight to that?

Okay.

 

[copkiller]

So just make shit up instead and cling tight to that?

Okay.

It is not made up. I could go through all the historical evidence for the bible but you would find a way to dismiss it anyway.

Really, all I can do is urge you to at least keep an open mind.

 

[dieburndie]

It is not made up. I could go through all the historical evidence for the bible but you would find a way to dismiss it anyway.

Really, all I can do is urge you to at least keep an open mind.

Atheists generally don't deny the existence of the bible.

 

[Iron]

Atheists generally don't deny the existence of the bible.

Yeah but the words are meaningless by themselves. The reality is that they are made flesh thru the person of Christ Jesus and if you do not open yourself to an encounter with Him, then you can never get to the deeper meanings of the Father

 

[copkiller]

Yeah but the words are meaningless by themselves. The reality is that they are made flesh thru the person of Christ Jesus and if you do not open yourself to an encounter with Him, then you can never get to the deeper meanings of the Father

Very true. Atheists reject any learning experience that isn't like learning science from a textbook. Its rather a sad condition.

 

[Iron]

very sad indeed

 

[Planck]

Very true. Atheists reject any learning experience that isn't like learning science from a textbook. Its rather a sad condition.

There are spiritual experiences that can be achieved through meditation. This doesn't prove that a spurious collection of tales and borrowings from other religions is suddenly validated by an element of the transcendental in our lives.

 

[copkiller]

There are spiritual experiences that can be achieved through meditation. This doesn't prove that a spurious collection of tales and borrowings from other religions is suddenly validated by an element of the transcendental in our lives.

It is not the same thing. Unless you at least open your heart to the possibility that there is a god, you will never experience or understand what we are talking about.

All you have to do is ask, and god will find a way to show you that he is real.

 

[*TRUE*]

There are spiritual experiences that can be achieved through meditation. This doesn't prove that a spurious collection of tales and borrowings from other religions is suddenly validated by an element of the transcendental in our lives.

Hmm.

 

[Teclis]

There are spiritual experiences that can be achieved through meditation. This doesn't prove that a spurious collection of tales and borrowings from other religions is suddenly validated by an element of the transcendental in our lives.

That just drives me mad... you talk about proof and evidence and then come up with unfounded shit like this...

Have you actually read more than a few verses from the Bible?

 

[Planck]

That just drives me mad... you talk about proof and evidence and then come up with unfounded shit like this...

Have you actually read more than a few verses from the Bible?

Yes. It's not as borrowed as Islam, but it's clear the themes and concepts, particularly of the new testament are stolen from the myths of other cultures. They appear time and time again.

Yawn.

 

[dieburndie]

That just drives me mad... you talk about proof and evidence and then come up with unfounded shit like this...

Have you actually read more than a few verses from the Bible?

After enduring a childhood of being forced to read the bible on an almost daily basis, I see absolutely nothing wrong with what he said. It is nothing more than tedious fairytales and convoluted, delusional recounts.

After reading a number of your posts, you definitely strike me as the type to accept such confused nonsense as absolute.

 

[Tully B.]

Your second paragraph didn't make sense in context. I think you misunderstand the Historical context of the laws you're talking about... as well as the context of the passages they originate from... maybe you should look those up and do some reading on the topic.

I'm sorry, what? Context?! If these are God's laws, then context should not play a part in the matter, otherwise what you are saying is that God is subject to his context. In the old testiment, God told people to stone gays. This is wrong - plain and simple. Why can we not condemn him for things he has done in the past?

Very true. Atheists reject any learning experience that isn't like learning science from a textbook. Its rather a sad condition.

The hypocrisy of this is breathtaking. Why should we open ourselves up to Christianity, rather than Islam, Hinduism, or the Canadian Fire Cult? Better yet, why not open up to Santa Claus?

I've read the bible (Good News, and currently making my way through NIV), but this is only because I am surrounded by Christian friends, and am interested in what makes them have faith. But should everyone only pay attention to Christianity purely because they're the majority? Christians were once the minority, so you can't say that. Why then should Christianity claim the right to be the centre of everyone's "learning experience"?

 

[Teclis]

After enduring a childhood of being forced to read the bible on an almost daily basis, I see absolutely nothing wrong with what he said. It is nothing more than tedious fairytales and convoluted, delusional recounts.

After reading a number of your posts, you definitely strike me as the type to accept such confused nonsense as absolute.

So the History of the ENTIRE bible is wrong?

Old Testament is written over thousands of year, includes many prophecies of the Messiah and promises made. Fastidiously hand copying tradition ensures that mistakes aren't made from copy to copy.

New Testament, the biographies of Jesus and history of the early church backed up by historical evidence outside the Bible. Gospels themselves fit into norms for an accurate historical description as opposed to a doctored one (criterion of embarrassment among others).

If Jesus did do everything it says he does in the 4 Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, then he fulfilled an insanely large amount of Old Testament Prophecies... all of the ones referring to the Messiah.

Just something to put out there.

Yes. It's not as borrowed as Islam, but it's clear the themes and concepts, particularly of the new testament are stolen from the myths of other cultures. They appear time and time again.

Yawn.

So you're saying that they sat down and went "Ooooo that's cool, let's use that... and that is cool too! Let's use that!" Yes they might have things in common, but I haven't seen proof that they copied ideas.

I'm sorry, what? Context?! If these are God's laws, then context should not play a part in the matter, otherwise what you are saying is that God is subject to his context. In the old testiment, God told people to stone gays. This is wrong - plain and simple. Why can we not condemn him for things he has done in the past?

I was talking about the context of the passage as well numbskull. Historically you're talking about Israel's time wandering in the desert. On the journey between Israel and Judea they had mucked up so many times that a clear set of rules were laid down.
Yes, He said they should be put to death, as well as those who committ adultery, those who have incestuos relations or sexual relations that would greatly hurt someone (like taking your wifes sister as a rival wife). And the passage talks about MEN. So married men, going and lying with another man. It's not just Gays, it is all adulterous relationships, which were outside God's picture of marriage. He created marriage to be between 1 man and 1 woman, anything outside that is outside what it was created for.

The hypocrisy of this is breathtaking. Why should we open ourselves up to Christianity, rather than Islam, Hinduism, or the Canadian Fire Cult? Better yet, why not open up to Santa Claus.

I've read the bible (Good News, and currently making my way through NIV), but this is only because I am surrounded by Christian friends, and am interested in what makes them have faith. But should everyone only pay attention to Christianity purely because they're the majority? Christians were once the minority, so you can't say that. Why then should Christianity claim the right to be the centre of everyone's "learning experience"?

Well my opinion on this matter is twofold.

Firstly, Christianity is the only religion where things have been done for you. There is no list of things you need to do to be saved. Christians do good BECAUSE they are saved, not to BE saved.

The second is this. And John Dickson puts it perfectly. "Unlike the Hindu Upanishads which focus on the believer's merger with the life force of Brahman, or the Buddhist Tripitaka which emphasises which emphasises the extinguishment of self and suffering, or the Islamic Quran which centres on the nature and practices of Submission to God (Allah), the New Testament resolves around a series of events said to have occured in Palestine between 5BC and 30 AD.

Yea I agree that the argument of Christians as the majority is stupid. I mean more people buy Good Charlotte CDs than buy Opeth CDs... doesn't mean Good Charlotte are better. Christianity as a cultural religion only exists in its size because Europe basically colonized the planet... so yea.

 

[SylviaB]

So the History of the ENTIRE bible is wrong?
New Testament, the biographies of Jesus and history of the early church backed up by historical evidence outside the Bible. Gospels themselves fit into norms for an accurate historical description as opposed to a doctored one (criterion of embarrassment among others).

Yeah that's easy to say and all, but how about you give us some proof.


And not "answers in genesis" or any of those other bullshit sites plz.

 

[ad infinitum]

Firstly, Christianity is the only religion where things have been done for you. There is no list of things you need to do to be saved. Christians do good BECAUSE they are saved, not to BE saved.

err you might want to look up the 10 commandments...
Your rantings remind me of that unpleasant smelling guy on the street corner with a cardboard sign swinging from his neck reading 'God is My Saviour' spouting some gibberish about being saved. The only difference is that he has the courage to do this on the street whilst online warriors such as you self stick to virtual anonymity. I don't want to be 'saved'. I don't need to be saved. However, what you can save me from is your terrible, ill informed opinions.

 

[Teclis]

Yeah that's easy to say and all, but how about you give us some proof.


And not "answers in genesis" or any of those other bullshit sites plz.

1) Around AD 55 Thallos in the Third Volume of his Histories mentions a darkness coinciding with the crucifixion of Jesus. He describes it as a natural eclipse of the sun and not a supernatural event of significance.

This source however isn't the most reliable, because it was lost. Although Sextus Julius Africanus (AD160-240) quotes it in his Histories of the World.

"In the Third book of his Histories, Thallos calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun, which seems to me to be wrong."

The source is further complicated by Africanus being a Christian... and the only know proof of his work is someone else quoting him quoting someone else.

The source (assuming Africanus understood and quoted Thallus Correctly... and there is no reason or evidence to think otherwise). This doesn't PROVE anything, just that the report of these events was well known enough for a Pagan historian to mention them.

2) Mara bar Serapion's letter labelled "Syriac Manuscript Additional 14,658". Written in Syriac by a pagan man who is believed to be a part of the Stoic philosophical movement. Letter is dated shortly after the August AD70 sacking of Jerusalem by the Romans.

"What advantage did the Athenians gain by murdering Socrates, for which they were repaid with famine and pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, because their country was completely covered in sand in one hour? What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished... But Socrates did not die altogether; he lived on in the teachings of Plato, Pythagoras did not die altogether, he lived on in the statue of hera. Nor did the wise king die altogether; he lived on in the teachings which he had given."

While he doesn't directly reference Yeshua ben Josef (Jesus son of Joseph), we know of no other Jewish figure who matches the description of King, teach and martyr for the period.

3) Tacitus in his famous Histories and Annals. (The same books by which we know most of what we know about the Roman Emperors).

"Christians derived their name from a man called Christ, who during the reign of Emperor Tiberius had been excecuted by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate. The Deadly superstition thus checked for the moment, broke out afresh not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but also in the City of Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world meet and become popular."

While hardly a fan, he offers salient details about its founder. When and where jesus lived, his title and the circumstances of his death.

4) Celsus, in True Doctrine (AD175) attacks Christianity. One of the things he makes mention to are the miracles Jesus performed

"having tried his hand at certain magical powers, Jesus returned from there Egypt), and on account of those powers gave himself the title of God."

Now while this is quite a late source. What it does give us is a picture of what the Greek intelligentsia thought of Jesus throughout this period.

5) Irrelevant to this topic are Lucian of Samosata and Suetonis... but they're still interesting.

6) Josephus (a Jewish Historian around 37 - 100 AD) in "Jewish Antiquities" wrote some things about Jesus. Now it is believed that somewhere along the line what we can only assume to be neutral or negative statements about Jesus were doctored by a Christian. So I'll give the whole text with the offending additives bracketed.

"At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man [if indeed one ought to refer to him as a man]. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who received the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among them many of Greek origin. [He was the Messiah Christ/he was perhaps the messiah Christ - One Arabic manuscript has the latter] And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. [For on the third day he appeared to them again alive, just as the divine prophets had spoken about these and countless other marvellous things about him]. And up until this very day the Tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out."

The "perhaps Messiah Christ" statement was unlikely an additive, more likely an improvement, as otherwise it would unlikely have existed in the independent Arabic manuscript.

Shortly later in his "histories", Josephus mentions Jesus again while talking about Ananus, the High Priest of Jerusalem at that time.

"But this the younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high Priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent... He assembled the Sanhedrin of judges and brought before them the brother of Jesus the so-called Messiah-Christ, whose name was James, and some others. When he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them over to be stoned to death.


7) There are a couple of references in the Talmud to Jesus. But one particularly of note.

"On the passover Jesus was hanged (on a cross). For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour, he was hanged on the eve of Passover."

Apparently most historians (I'm not one, just going on what I was told here) believe the 40-day waiting period to be questionable... probably added by authors to emphasise Jesus' guilt. But several things coincide with what we already know. Jesus fame as a worker of startling deeds/miracles (sorcerer), and the method and timing of his excecution.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To deal with the Criterion of embarrassment. If the New Testament, particularly the Gospels, were forged, why in any right mind would the Apostles make themselves look like absolute fucking morons? If you were making up a religion, or doctoring evidence (as some believe the early Church did), would you make it's founders look like idiots throughout the main text that the story is based on?

err you might want to look up the 10 commandments...
Your rantings remind me of that unpleasant smelling guy on the street corner with a cardboard sign swinging from his neck reading 'God is My Saviour' spouting some gibberish about being saved. The only difference is that he has the courage to do this on the street whilst online warriors such as you self stick to virtual anonymity. I don't want to be 'saved'. I don't need to be saved. However, what you can save me from is your terrible, ill informed opinions.

You obviously know nothing about the beliefs of a Christian. Jesus basically says that the Ten Commandments are unreachable. To look at a woman lustfully who isn't your wife is adultery. To feel unrighteous anger at someone is the same as murder. To once put something before God is a sin... once.

And one sin seperates from you God... and the only way that the sin can be wiped clean (and you can go to heaven) is realising you can't save yourself and repenting of your sins... which you can do, because Jesus takes the punishment of sin (death and seperation from God) for you. There is no repetition required, no deeds being balanced. That's a rather basic description I know.

Your arrogance reminds me of this one douchebag who sees himself basically as the saviour of everyone from religion so that they can all be Secular Humanists like him. His name is Richard Dawkins...

I'm quite happy to sit down and have coffee and a meaningful, reasoned discussion with anyone face to face, In fact I do so quite often. Of course they have to be somewhat close to me... and not be a little intolerant turd who attacks my rather researched opinions that I have spent a long time developing. So how about rather than sitting on your high horse of believed intellectual superiority you go home and learn something about what you're talking about.

 

[Teclis]

Oh my... that was huge... and not really proof-read at all... meh...

 

[Tully B.]

Huge and largely irrelevant - no offense.

All those sources proved was that there was most likely a man named Jesus, and that there was a rumour of his having magical powers... this is hardly evidence upon which one should base their faith. There were rumours that Julius Caeser was the son of God, and we have quickly dismissed them as fallacious - why not do the same for Jesus?

Your opinion are researched, huh? Have you read every other religious text in the world? I haven't, but I'm an atheist - by which I mean I am someone who does not believe in theistic beings. I can't be fucked to live my life by superstitions, but how can you justify believing in one religion when you haven't checked them all out? Just interested.

 

[Phoenix Fury]

god....rofl....