What if Jesus never exsisted?? [Archive] - Literature Network Forums

SummerSolstice

11-07-2006, 11:25 AM

First off, just responding to your title... well, what if? It's difficult, if not impossible, to "prove" that most people not currently walking the earth ever existed at all. I suppose the immediate repercussion to believing such a thing would be that you have one less religion to bother yourself about. It's not a bold or shocking idea... it's one many people arrive at every day.

Would it change my beliefs? Well, yes. If there was actually a way (and I can't possibly imagine what it would be) that you could give undeniable, irrefutable proof that he didn't exist, I'd get mighty worried and rush off to make sure I was still all right with God.

See, if Jesus didn't exist, you'd still have the "Jewish" God--it's the same one as the Christian God--but it would no longer be true that everyone could get into heaven. Christianity wasn't a Jewish reform movement, it was the continuation of the Jewish faith's progression. There's the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, yes, but the New Covenant with Jesus is just the long-expected progression from the Old one with animal sacrifices. Look it up, there are some great books on the subject. ^_^

cuppajoe_9

11-07-2006, 04:07 PM

I don't see why it should matter. The fact that the story of Adam and Even did not literally happen doesn't seem to have disolved Judaism, I can't imagine that the revelation that nobody ever actually turned water into wine would signifigantly damage Christianity (hypothetically speaking, of course).

You know the only reason people don't believe in Christianity is because they've had it badly explained to them or they know nothing about it.

Err, that's completely false and a little bit offesnive, I'm sorry to say. I (for example) was raised Catholic, had christianity explained to me perfectly well by some respected priests and, while I am no expert, I know considerably more than nothing about the religion.

eladway

11-07-2006, 05:02 PM

I'm muslim, you can find the complete jesus life in the holy Quran, If the bible isn't a prove to you. one of our belives as muslims that jesus was massenger from god to jewish after they missed with thier religion.
In another way I don't belive that these kind of asking ( what if) make any step forward.
Jesus did exsist. I'm sure

miss tenderness

11-07-2006, 05:27 PM

Taking the point from an Islamic point of view:
Our holy book,Quran ,mentions the whole story of Jesus, his mother,the blessed virgin Mary,his birth ,his life and the miracles(to give life to deads…etc) given to him by his God to prove his being sent to people from an Almighty God. For me, since the validity of the Quran is not a matter of which one can doubt, I believe that Jesus,pbuh , existed , sent with a blessed message to reform people status at that time. His meesage was a continuation to Judism ,and then comes the Islam as the last message sent down from God to people, Islam is a continuation for Christianity and correction to the confusion that the Bible consists of (since it mixes up God's words to some of the Priests' words ) .Briefly ,Jesus,pbuh ,existed , to discuss if he's lived or existed or not is just worthless and a waste of time!

subterranean

11-07-2006, 08:32 PM

What if Quran can't be used as proof either? If the Bible can be doubted, then same goes with Quran and other religious texts (IMHO).

blacksheep

11-07-2006, 10:24 PM

I might as well help you. I am a Christian.

And as for your knowning that it might be enough. It is! More than enough.

You said that there is not much proof of Jesus' existence. Well do you have any proves againsts it?

I am an atheiatic nihilistic hedonist. I might as well as help you.

your knowing that it might be enough, and it is, but to achieve that knowlege requires evidence.

people say that there is not much proof of FSM's (flying spaghetti monster) existance. well do you have any proves against it?

and besides, there's plenty of historical texts about jesus - enough for us to be semi certain that jesus the man existed. jesus the son of god or jesus the god on earth is different. there's no evidence for that. miracles are mentioned in supposedly mentioned in some text (non of which i have read except for the new testament) but it could be gossip. many supernatural pagan (not in a derogatory sense) superstitious stuff are mentioned in texts. witches... now, who believes in witches? (i used to.)

You know the only reason people don't believe in Christianity is because they've had it badly explained to them or they know nothing about it.

you sound like a nice knowledgeble christian who might be able to nicely explain religion to this poor lost backsheep.
i shall be a faithful convert if you can manage to convert me. (i thought i know quite a bit about christianity. i've gone to church... read lots of christian philosophy... mostly c.s. lewis. also read paradise lost and random stuff by Dante. of course, that didnt really help my understanding of the religion so i decided to read ALL of the new testment, not just the part that we had to read for school. for an atheist, that's a big accomplishment. I took the initiative to learn about the history of the random branches of christianity and how the ideas behind christianity morphed through the centuries. i even joined half a dozen christian forums to get christians to explain to me their religion and so far, I STILL DONT UNDERSTAND! i know but don't understand. in the end, i chose to take reason instead of that thing that i dont understand.)

The Bible has predicted the major world empires(that have bearing upon God's selected people), it predicted the rise of the catholic church, it's fall in the french revolution and it's rise again with the the second beast(America) in Revelation 13.

the stuff predicted in revelation 13 are so vague and so many metaphors are used. the events predicted are inevitable. they are bound to happen sometime and it just so happens that they've happened. its like me saying "sometime in the future, there will be a war and a lota people will die." well, i guess i could use metaphors with beasts and other random literary devises but im not good at that.

rufioag

11-07-2006, 11:22 PM

A young man went to school everyday and everyday he went to math class. He paid attention to everyword his teacher said, never fell asleep nor daydreamed. He read his text book, he studied the problems, he read books that explained the theory and concepts behind the problems that clearly showed (or so he was told) that the math makes sense. But to him, he never could understand why everyone believed this becuase no matter how much he read, how much he heard, he could never grasp the concept. "I dont believe in Math" he finally said and believed it with all his heart and it was because he never took the perspective of saying, "Hey maybe if I work at it a bit and a gain alitle bit more understanding here and there, Ill finally understand Math" that he struggled to understand.

When you sit down with no bias on an issue, alot of times things become alot more clear and sometimes we just have to let go and really understand the reality of the situation. Take this example, a few years ago I had an allergic reaction to something I ate, and while the doctors never understood what it was that made me react, I was always afraid and always beleived that it could happen again. Not once would I leave my house without my Epi-pen(shot that allows one to survive an allergic reaction) and if ever I did, I immediatly felt like my throat was swelling shut. Now in reality, my own biased opinion was influencing me to think I was having these reactions even though facts, other people, and even myself knew that it was a random accident that occured. It took me truly taking the mindset that hey maybe there is another possibilty out there to realize that what I had believed for the past few years was contrary to every truth that was in front of me.

blacksheep

11-08-2006, 12:04 AM

I'm not quite sure i understand you. I am very fond of math. i struggle very hard to understand EVERYTHING i learn in class which makes teachers mad because they usually dont understand and we both get frustrated. however, understanding is not the same as believing. mathematics is an abstract formal system. ABSTRACT, not physical. you can't believe that a+b=b+a. its an axiom.

I think i can understand a certain religion without believing it.

well... that reminds me... I DONT UNDERSTAND PHASE SHIFTS IN TRIG!!! we totally learned this last year - its still review. and somehow, they just dont click. i understand but not really. gaaaaahhhh!!! it took me 2 hours to do 3 problems. (i think part of the reason is that our teacher didnt understand it either. during class, she said, "i dont really understand this either. dont worry, it wont be on the test." of course, all of my classmates probably skipped over that problem because they aint gonna get tested on it. with me, i HAVE to understand perfectly. it annoys the crap out of me when I dont)

cuppajoe_9

11-08-2006, 01:39 AM

I am an atheiatic nihilistic hedonist.

*buys blacksheep a beer*

Rufioag: nice parable, but there is a big difference between math and religion. Everything in math can be traced back to very simple proofs that can be done by anybody. It asks you to take nothing on faith. Religion, on the other hand, has you take everything on faith. You can work out that 3+4=7 on your fingers, but you can't work out transubstantiation. Your story is not analogous.

Tip: if you are attempting to explain your religion to people, it is best not to imply that they are stupid while you are at it.

Eagleheart

11-08-2006, 02:06 AM

This , as a suppostion, seems completely powerless...You see if you expect some radical shift in christians' view...you should agree that the christian themselves should admit one such possibility/well this is utopian/...Don't tell me you anticipate anything different from the "unholy powers" conspiring against the "holy truth'with "scientific evidence" as a reaction.../and you can't challenge it-I speak as a domestic victim/

But I still project some isolated improvement/ personal psychologists' profits for example/...

miss tenderness

11-08-2006, 03:46 AM

What if Quran can't be used as proof either? If the Bible can be doubted, then same goes with Quran and other religious texts (IMHO).

well, honestly, Sub, hasn't been additions to the Bible since it was first sent down. God's words are changed. The Quran has never been changed snice it was 1st sent dowon. Just find a text related to 14027 years ,and compare it to the Arabic text, you're not gonna find even one word moved or changed.

I wasn't forcing my belief on you when I said "if the Quran says it,then I do not doubt it", I was talking about me, it's enough for me to see a fact in the Quran to believe its validity. Science has never come up with sth that contradict the facts of the holy Quran, on the conterary, new discoveries harmonize with information already mentioned in the Quran.

Dr Eep

11-08-2006, 05:22 AM

Christians generally believe in the Savior with faith fuelling that belief. Even, Islamics have great faith that Allah is the true God. The scriptures warn against signseeking as a lack of faith. That being said, I think the original question is still a valid one for a Christian to ask, that being, is there any physical evidence of the existance of Jesus Christ?

Does anyone know if there are any records to be found dating back to the Roman Empire that document the courtroom debacle whereupon Pontius Pilot effectively consigned Christ to His crucifiction? Other than the Bible that is? Like ancient sculptures depicting that scene or artwork or Roman documents that predate the New Testament? It sure would be interesting to find out. A record of that courtroom event would be fascinating and would surely prove the existance of Christ.

Christian

11-08-2006, 05:53 AM

Cuppajoe : Considering the bible condemns the Catholic church as "Mystery, Babylon the Great, Mother of Harlots" it's no surprise that you're not convinced. All the great reformers understood the Catholic church to be the Antichrist, even Isaac Newton(which incidentally wrote more on The Bible than ever he did on science) understood the Catholic church to be the "Son of perdition"(not the individual, but the instituition)

Blacksheep : It's not vague at all, some of them are astoundingly detailed.

I'll try and give a short example, but really biblical prophecy seems to function on a principle of repeat and enlarge, in that it begins and then expands on the same giving more details.

In Daniel 2 we have a statue that represents the world empires, from Babylon to Rome. At the base of the statue having gone thorugh all the empires we have 10 toes.

In Dan 7 we are shown the empires again, with the symbol representing the last empire(The Roman Empire), having 10 horns(just like the 10 toes)

#Important Point# Every symbol used in The Bible has to be interpreted by The Bible :- Horns are here explained to be powers

There we are shown one little horn which grows out from amongst the ten and tears down three in the process

The Interpretation :-

The Roman Empire was invaded by the Goths which at length established themselves into ten Germanic tribes being :

Heruli
Lombards
Anglo-Saxon
Sevi
Visigoths
Ostrogoths
Vandals
Burgundian
Franks
Alamanni

In 538 AD the Catholic Church received absolute power over other religions and for the first time became a power not only religiously but also politically

As this was coming to be established three(Heruli,Ostrogoths,Vandals) of the ten tribes were being destroyed, the last being the Vandals in North Africa which were conquered by Belisarius in 534AD.

I think thats fairly precise really and thats only some of the prophecies.

If you read on to see the characteristics of the little horn it can be no one but the Catholic church("He shall think to change times and laws"). The Catholic church changed the sabbath day from saturday to sunday by law, consequently changing God's law "Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy, six days shalt thou labour but the SEVENTH day is the sabbath of the lord"

Look up Saturday in the dictionary, it will tell you it is the seventh day, because you can never stop the daily cycle despite what you may do to calenders.

The Bible is astoundingly logical but is it any surprise that we have confusion on the issue when it says we have the "Father of lies" against us.

Also I am not setting myself up above others I am as bewildered and confused in this world as the next but I know enough to understand that the bible can never have been written by man and that there is a God and there is hope.

I'm a Seventh Day Adventist and find their interpretation and means by which they deal with The Bible very reasonable and to such an extent that the Bible becomes somewhat like an intellectual playground with a great and serious theme, the Bible is not boring at all.

ShoutGrace

11-08-2006, 08:53 AM

You know the only reason people don't believe in Christianity is because they've had it badly explained to them or they know nothing about it.

This is presumptuous and misinformed. There are atheists with advanced degrees in theology and philosophy, who know all there is to know about “Christianity.”

Perhaps you meant “One possible reason that some people don’t adhere to the Christian faith is a lack of knowledge concerning it?” Perhaps still a questionable statement, but less so.

First off, just responding to your title... well, what if? It's difficult, if not impossible, to "prove" that most people not currently walking the earth
ever existed at all.

Exactly right, in my opinion. Who can prove that anybody from the ancient world existed? Do we question whether Alexander the Great existed? Or Thucydides? Vlad the Impaler?

We have no proof. We have social/historical evidences, which do not constitute proof.

I don't see why it should matter. The fact that the story of Adam and Even did not literally happen doesn't seem to have disolved Judaism, I can't imagine that the revelation that nobody ever actually turned water into wine would signifigantly damage Christianity (hypothetically speaking, of course).

I think proof that Jesus didn’t exist would annihilate the Christian faith. Everything concerning Christianity and the Holy Bible as a whole ties directly back to his person, and his actions during his life.

and besides, there's plenty of historical texts about jesus - enough for us to be semi certain that jesus the man existed. jesus the son of god or jesus the god on earth is different.

I agree completely. Jesus as “God” is something that depends on personal experience, which couldn’t be proved by 2,000 year old papyrus.

I think it is clear that there is a “historical” Jesus of Nazareth.

the stuff predicted in revelation 13 are so vague and so many metaphors are used.

At present, after having read the New Testament and leading eschatological theories, I can’t say that I have an understanding of the book of Revelations. People extrapolate and interpret everything contained therein, and do so with such confidence that I find the need to question all of it. Anybody who says they know exactly what is happening in that book is misspeaking.

That being said, I think the original question is still a valid one for a Christian to ask, that being, is there any physical evidence of the existance of Jesus Christ?

Was that really the opening question?

Cuppajoe : Considering the bible condemns the Catholic church as "Mystery, Babylon the Great, Mother of Harlots" it's no surprise that you're not convinced.

I would have assumed that he wasn’t convinced due to the fact that his own constitution and intellect haven’t given him any overwhelming reason to be convinced?

Christian

11-08-2006, 09:47 AM

Shoutgrace : Informed sufficiently to understand it as not presumption to say that when Christianity is the Truth, anyone and EVERYONE who does not believe in it have been misled or are ignorant of it entirely.

The Bible is the most logical of books I have come across, it is so remarkably symmetrical and fully capable of interpreting the future.

When you consider this principle, that The Bible must explain it's own symbols, then you have but to decipher the symbology with its own word and apply that understanding to the worlds history, and it is not vague it is precise and specific. You have to have support from the bible on your understanding of a symbol, and so many(not all) churches do not have that. The Seventh Day Adventist Church does.

ShoutGrace

11-08-2006, 10:02 AM

Shoutgrace : Informed sufficiently to understand it as not presumption to say that when Christianity is the Truth, anyone and EVERYONE who does not believe in it have been misled or are ignorant of it entirely.

As it stands, this is factually false, and you need to establish your premise. You believe Christianity to be the “Truth,” but how can you validate that? If you can, let me know, because that’s a real gift, and something that billions of people past and present would like to be aware of.

Your thought here depends on Christianity being “Truth.” Thus, if you want your suppostition to have some validity, you've got to prove that.

How can somebody get a PHD in New Testament studies and not have an understanding of it? I’m trying to remember the name of a prominent atheist philosopher, who has multiple degrees in theology, bible studies and church history. I’ll edit this post when I find the guy.

The Bible is the most logical of books I have come across, it is so remarkably symmetrical and fully capable of interpreting the future.

Opinion. Which is fine, as long as you aren’t purporting that you’re supplying an argument here.

Think about what you're saying. Everyone who doesn't use the Bible to divine the future is ignorant??

When you consider this principle, that The Bible must explain it's own symbols, then you have but to decipher the symbology with its own word and apply that understanding to the worlds history, and it is not vague it is precise and specific.

Then why don’t historians give the symbology of the Bible utter validity? Why aren’t educated persons turning to the Bible to get a thorough understanding of the future?

Ah, yes, they are ignorant/misled. It’s all perfectly logical.

You have to have support from the bible on your understanding of a symbol, and so many(not all) churches do not have that. The Seventh Day Adventist Church does.

Clearly.

Christian

11-08-2006, 10:14 AM

Shoutgrace : Yes I thought you would like that post

I really do not think it is FACTUALLY false

Your prominent atheist philosopher with multiple degrees, first category : Misled

Christian

11-08-2006, 10:35 AM

Shoutgrace : In all sincerity and arrogance aside, if you were to study the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation from a Seventh Day Adventist perspective then it's likely you would come to the same opinion. I don't want you to join my church and pay tithe so the establishment can grow and more can be purchased based upon your contribution. I want you and any other to test whether what I say is true and find out for yourselves that it is so, the amount of evidence is astounding.

I don't know everything(it would be illogical to say so) but I do know that Jesus lives and his return is imminent.

Christian

11-08-2006, 10:43 AM

You can believe in Christianity without trying to predict the future from prophecy

cuppajoe_9

11-08-2006, 10:58 AM

Cuppajoe : Considering the bible condemns the Catholic church as "Mystery, Babylon the Great, Mother of Harlots" it's no surprise that you're not convinced.

The Bible condemns an institution that didn't exist when it was written, eh? You could tone down the arrogance a little, there are practicing Catholics on this board.

Informed sufficiently to understand it as not presumption to say that when Christianity is the Truth, anyone and EVERYONE who does not believe in it have been misled or are ignorant of it entirely.

Ok, I think at this point it's farily clear that I'm not going to get anywhere talking to you.

I think it is clear that there is a “historical” Jesus of Nazareth.

Obviously. Religions don't just spring from nowhere.

I think proof that Jesus didn’t exist would annihilate the Christian faith. Everything concerning Christianity and the Holy Bible as a whole ties directly back to his person, and his actions during his life.

Ok, maybe my claim that it would "not signifigantly damage" Christianity was a bit overblown, but I think, on the whole, that Christianity would survive. The way I read it, the important bits of the New Testament are not the miracles, but the moral lessons, the responsibility of the fortunate to the less fortunate, the importance doing unto others as you would have done to you, &c. In fact, in the long run, such a revelation might actually be good for christianity, as some people (present company aparently excluded) have a tendancy to focus on the 'water into wine' bits and ignore the rest. A bit presumptuous, I know, and I would like to restate that this is all hypothetical.

Imagine it was proven that Henry David Thoreau never existed. Would his admirers go back to being materialistic? Of course not (I hope). Walden obviously exists and therefore somebody had to have written it, and whether or not that person actually went and lived in the boonies for a while has no impact whatsoever on whether or not the philosophy therein is valid.

Christian

11-08-2006, 11:25 AM

Cuppajoe : Of course, that is the climactic issue within apocalyptic prophecy, that the Catholic Church will come forth

Most if not every single reformer within the reformation knew without a doubt that the Antichrist was the Catholic Church, but where in their denominations is that knowledge now? The information and the facts remain the same the knowledge of that it seems has not.

Christian

11-08-2006, 11:31 AM

Cuppajoe : It is not the individuals but the system, the institution, the organization and doctrines that is condemned and anathematized by The Bible

Agar

11-08-2006, 03:00 PM

Christian

11-08-2006, 03:20 PM

The book of Daniel prophetically extends to at least 1844 if you take the 2300 days, so whether it was written in 2nd century BC or AD it would still be worth studying.

A portion of it's scroll was found along with most other OT books in the valley of Qu'mran 1947, the finding most know as the Dead Sea Scrolls, housed in a museum in Jerusalem. From this as you said, it was dated to approx 200-150 BC.

Agar

11-08-2006, 04:31 PM

cuppajoe, i just have a question for you: you say your a "practising catholic" but you think the most important bits of the new testiment are the moral teachings?
Tell that to your priest and see what he says.
Guy either your in or out, don't pervert the faith, Christianity or Catholicism, by puting in your own personal beliefs.
Christian: Are you serious you accually think the Catholic church is the Antichrist? Augustine, Gregory the Great, St. Isidore,St. Patrick your condenming them all. John Calvin always quotes Aungustine in his institute.
You can't be the antichrist if you proclaim Jesus as Lord. Which many popes have and did.

cuppajoe_9

11-08-2006, 05:29 PM

Most if not every single reformer within the reformation knew without a doubt that the Antichrist was the Catholic Church, but where in their denominations is that knowledge now? The information and the facts remain the same the knowledge of that it seems has not.

The Catholic church has existed for centuries and the world doesn't seem to have ended, so it would appear that most if not every reformer within the reformation was a raving nutter.

It is not the individuals but the system, the institution, the organization and doctrines that is condemned and anathematized by The Bible.

And you think this sentence excuses you, in the eyes of the Catholics, from describing their church using the word 'whore', do you?

Why did you spend so much time trying to understand it? Were you lost and searching? i don't get it.

Far be it from me to speak for blacksheep, but I personally am interested in Christianity because it is fascintating, and because it is the largest religion in the world, and therefore it helps to understand it if you want to make any headway in understanding the world.

...did you think Christians would be shocked that you read so much and do not understand it?

What makes you think she doesn't understand it? The fact that she doesn't believe it? What a bunch of nonsense. I understand The Lord of the Rings, I just don't believe any of it ever happened.

P.S. You remind me of the teacher from the book "Hard Times"

Nowhere in Hard Times is Gradgrind described as an atheist, a nihilist or a hedonist. Hard Times is an attack on the Victorian school system's supression of emotion and imagination, not a call for people to stop calling what they take to be rubbish rubbish.

cuppajoe_9

11-08-2006, 05:33 PM

cuppajoe, i just have a question for you: you say your a "practising catholic" but you think the most important bits of the new testiment are the moral teachings?

I don't think I did say that. I hope I didn't say that, because I am not a practicing Catholic, I am a lapsed Catholic and therefore still technically a Catholic. I'm currently an atheist. And yes, I think the most important part of any religion is the moral lessons as opposed to the magic tricks, and furthermore, I think my former priest would back me up on that.

blacksheep

11-08-2006, 08:22 PM

*buys blacksheep a beer*You can work out that 3+4=7 on your fingers, but you can't work out transubstantiation.

Tip: if you are attempting to explain your religion to people, it is best not to imply that they are stupid while you are at it.

... thanks! too bad I'm underaged. buy me sparkling pear juice instead. :P
However I thought addition is an axiom. it is complicated or impossible to prove that 1+1=2. its based from empirical evidence. every time you add one and one, you get 2. (im not sure if what i say is true. correct me if it ain't.)

blacksheep

11-08-2006, 08:27 PM

Ok, maybe my claim that it would "not signifigantly damage" Christianity was a bit overblown, but I think, on the whole, that Christianity would survive. The way I read it, the important bits of the New Testament are not the miracles, but the moral lessons, the responsibility of the fortunate to the less fortunate, the importance doing unto others as you would have done to you, &c. In fact, in the long run, such a revelation might actually be good for christianity, as some people (present company aparently excluded) have a tendancy to focus on the 'water into wine' bits and ignore the rest. A bit presumptuous, I know, and I would like to restate that this is all hypothetical.

Imagine it was proven that Henry David Thoreau never existed. Would his admirers go back to being materialistic? Of course not (I hope). Walden obviously exists and therefore somebody had to have written it, and whether or not that person actually went and lived in the boonies for a while has no impact whatsoever on whether or not the philosophy therein is valid.

yes, i agree that the New Test's teachings would survive. its a philosophy. however, the christian philosophy isn't the same as the religion itself. there's no more personal connection to Jesus.
Thoreau never said that his philosophy depended on himself. The Jesus of the New TEstament did.

blacksheep

11-08-2006, 08:49 PM

To blacksheep the man of reason, the man of facts, Descarte himself.
I am impressed that you, an athiest, read so much on the faith. probable more than most Christians. First of all i know that words won't ever change your beliefs (the bible tells us its foolishness to the world). Why did you spend so much time trying to understand it? Were you lost and searching? i don't get it. Paul knew most of the Torah (almost by heart) but as he tells us he did not understand it until he believed. I'm not trying to beak you (this isn't an attack) but did you think Christians would be shocked that you read so much and do not understand it? Of course not. I do agree with you however that the book of revelation has so many images that noone can tell what it means. But the person you were replying to was also talking about predictions in Daniel (by the way you need to understand the OT in order to understand the new). Written during, or just after the Jewish Exile (around 500 B.C.). It predicts Perisa, Greece, then another larger than ever before (Rome). Read it for yourself. But after you read it you'll proable "google" Daniel+source+criticism and come back and say "modern scholars place the date at around the 2nd century B.C. so it was written after most of the events occured." So i guess it is kind of pointless to tell you.
P.S. You remind me of the teacher from the book "Hard Times"
"Now, what i want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are are wanted in life."

NOOO!!! I'M NOT A MAN!!! not again! I'm a woman. feminist.
and I don't quite accept descarte's philosophy. cogito ergo sum. but how can I know that my concioussness is just the result of something greater? if there is consiousness, there has to be something existing but it doesnt have to be "sum". it could be anything.
of course, I am referring to the brain in the vat thought experiment. (gotta love Putnam)

I have spent a lot of time (what seems to me a lot. i have to say, probably less than most christians who have actually thought about christianity) because, like Christian said, a lot of people are christians. Some of my best friends, and now, even my father just became a christian. He's always telling me that atheists are immoral and all that and I want to understand why they think that way. I can't deny that religion is an interesting subject. Christianity is just one of the easier ones to read about - one of the biggies that influence literature and everything else. its a big part of our society. it influences politics. I'm sorry but church and state is not seperate in the states.

you are dead wrong. I do google for criticism of the bible but I also google the verse itself (or go flip through one of the many bibles I have and read it)
I google apologetic sites for some of the stuff and since the internet bible is usually hosted on a christian website, you are bound to find information that is pro bible.

would you rather that I remain completely ignorant about any religion and stay atheist without trying to understand anything else? its what so many people do - both atheist and christian (and muslim and jewish and everything.) I feel that I need to at least try to see something from another perspective. however, reason is not something I am willing to foresake.

cuppajoe_9

11-09-2006, 04:26 PM

... thanks! too bad I'm underaged. buy me sparkling pear juice instead. :P

What kind of a hedonist are you? ;)

blacksheep

11-09-2006, 06:40 PM

i prefer sparkling pear juice to beer anyhow. (shh. i am underaged. golly im shouting this out to the whole world, aren't I? migght as well as say, HELLO WORLD!)
i can't hold alcohol that well. gettin drunk aint always fun.
im a smart hedonist that plans ahead. :)

cuppajoe_9

11-09-2006, 07:18 PM

im a smart hedonist that plans ahead. :)

Hmm, a new kind...

Crusader

11-14-2006, 06:42 PM

What if Jesus never exsisted?? QUOTE]

There would be no Christianity at all.

[QUOTE=cuppajoe_9;278639] The way I read it, the important bits of the New Testament are not the miracles, but the moral lessons, the responsibility of the fortunate to the less fortunate, the importance doing unto others as you would have done to you, &c. ....[snip].....some people have a tendency to focus on the 'water into wine' bits and ignore the rest.

Christianity does not rest on the fact that Jesus lived, or on reports in the Bible or other sources of His many miracles. It does not even rest on His teachings on morality, charity or humility. All of these are secondary to the fact that He suffered on the cross, and died for our sins. But even this would not have been remarkable enough to change the course of the world. Many suffered and died at the hands of the Romans and the Herodians, but it was the singular fact of His physical resurrection, as witnessed by hundreds, that provided all sufficient evidence to any and all with “ears to hear”.

Today, just as then, those who cannot understand will not be moved. The Bible can not be understood as a piece of literature, or by applying pure logic. It was designed by its Creator as a mirror that shows your reflection on the image of God found within. If you cannot clearly see His image, then you cannot see how seriously flawed your reflection has become. And as a consequence, your soul cannot, or will not respond to His call.

ShoutGrace

11-14-2006, 06:50 PM

And as a consequence, your soul cannot, or will not respond to His call.

Well that sounds like a terrible deal for those who cannot "clearly see."

*EDIT* Forget it . . . .

It was designed by its Creator as a mirror that shows your reflection on the image of God found within.

????

How do you know this? Why is your declaration that this is the way the Bible was designed valid?

Guzmán

11-15-2006, 06:29 PM

If you are doubting about 'real' evidence of the existance of Jesus how can you not ask yourself about where is the 'real' evidence of the existance of God.
Please do not point at the Bible; I could just as well do that (point at a book, not necessarily the Bible, although apparently "Beasts" are mentioned there which could suffice after all they are used to symbolize empires why not monsters) to prove the existance of the Loch Ness monster... AND with pictures!!

As far as defining the sum operation goes, its pretty simple to do it for a finite
group of Natural numbers, all that is needed is a double entry table, though i imagine it to be pretty hard (if not downright impossible, much more likely) for more complicated groups of numbers such as Real numbers etc..

Sorry if this last thing was off topic, its always a pleasure to talk math in a religious discussion...

Guzmán

11-15-2006, 06:32 PM

Of course by pictures I ment photographs: there are plenty of photos of Nessy yet none of God.

Sorry If this last post offended anyone (Christians or Scotts) i ws just kidding around.

Crusader

11-15-2006, 07:45 PM

Well that sounds like a terrible deal for those who cannot "clearly see."

It most certainly is........

How do you know this? Why is your declaration that this is the way the Bible was designed valid?

I suppose I should have qualified this with “my opinion” or some such, but that would have muddled the prose. 8^{)>

Experience has taught me that unless one is willing to see him/her self in what the Gospel has to show, you will see nothing. It is like a stereogram. If you look at the surface you can see nothing of the true picture. The Bible is a spiritual stereogram and its effect, the perception of the reality of God, is produced through a careful design of ambiguity and paradox, which allow you to discover the truth from different perspectives. You notice that Jesus usually spoke in parables that were understandable only if one was willing to hear. Several folks here (notably blacksheep) are perfect examples of this truth.

And beyond my opinion, God provided an even more succinct description:
1 Co 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

If you are doubting about 'real' evidence of the existance of Jesus how can you not ask yourself about where is the 'real' evidence of the existance of God. Please do not point at the Bible; ...

What is the ‘real’ evidence that there is no God? And please don’t point to yourself. Imagine you are blind from birth. I could describe how differing wavelengths of light are perceived by the eye, but I couldn’t tell you what red looks like. You cannot show the spiritually blind how to see, all that can be done is to slowly and hopefully chip away at the self erected barriers within that are blocking their vision.

Guzmán

11-15-2006, 08:34 PM

What is the ‘real’ evidence that there is no God? And please don’t point to yourself. Imagine you are blind from birth. I could describe how differing wavelengths of light are perceived by the eye, but I couldn’t tell you what red looks like. You cannot show the spiritually blind how to see, all that can be done is to slowly and hopefully chip away at the self erected barriers within that are blocking their vision.

As a matter of fact i dont think one seeing person could describe to another seeing person what the color red looks like, they could just talk about objects which radiate the same frequencies and assign to what they see the word red.

cuppajoe_9

11-15-2006, 11:12 PM

What is the ‘real’ evidence that there is no God?Standard response #3: You cannot provide evidence for a negative. Where is the 'real' evidence that there are no unicorns? There is none, but that certainly does not mean that we should take claims of unicorns seriously, and nobody will until somebody provides some pretty positive evidence for the existance of unicorns.

And as a consequence, your soul cannot, or will not respond to His call...Imagine you are blind from birth. I could describe how differing wavelengths of light are perceived by the eye, but I couldn’t tell you what red looks like...&c.How, exactly, does one reconcile the concept of an infinitely benevolent diety with the belief that said deity condemns millions of people to eternal torture based on birth defect?

Crusader

11-16-2006, 04:37 PM

As a matter of fact i dont think one seeing person could describe to another seeing person what the color red looks like, they could just talk about objects which radiate the same frequencies and assign to what they see the word red.

I agree that two sighted individuals may internally perceive the red frequency differently, but they would both agree that what they see is "red". Any color to the blind man would be a complely abstract concept, but the spiritually blind are that way by choice.

They can "see", but for a host of usually ego based reasons they do not. "There are none so blind as those who will not see"..... derived from Jeremiah 5:21 " "Hear this, O foolish and senseless people, who have eyes, but see not, who have ears, but hear not."

This spiritual blindness saddens me because all will cleary see what they currently deny..... and most will not like the view.

Crusader

11-16-2006, 05:28 PM

Standard response #3: You cannot provide evidence for a negative. Where is the 'real' evidence that there are no unicorns? There is none, but that certainly does not mean that we should take claims of unicorns seriously, and nobody will until somebody provides some pretty positive evidence for the existance of unicorns.

The retort to Guzman was a comment on his rules of engagement.
.......where is the 'real' evidence of the existance of God. Please do not point at the Bible...........
I could have said that God is evident in his creation, but that is also in the Bible...... To use an imperfect allegory, “Prove to me you are Guzman, but do not point to any written form of identification”. If one is open to the possibility of God’s existence, then the Bible is the only way to find him, but the Bible is just a book to a closed mind.

How, exactly, does one reconcile the concept of an infinitely benevolent diety with the belief that said deity condemns millions of people to eternal torture based on birth defect?

The “blind from birth” allegory was flawed in that the spiritually blind either consciously or unconsciously chose not to see, so the “birth defect” does not apply. See my previous post. The characterization of God as “infinitely benevolent” is flawed. More properly he is infinitely just and as such he cannot abrogate his own rules. He provides a path for all, but most choose to condemn themselves by rebelling against his authority. Good parents establish rules for the protection and well being of their children, but all rules have consequences for disobedience. If one child obeys, and another does not, how just would it be to either absolve or punish them both? How much more unjust would it be if the disobedient child did not even acknowledge the existence of the parent?

cuppajoe_9

11-16-2006, 09:14 PM

More properly he is infinitely just and as such he cannot abrogate his own rules. He provides a path for all, but most choose to condemn themselves by rebelling against his authority.And infinte justice means eternal torture for millions of perfectly moral atheists, not to mention billions of members of the incorrect religion, does it?

*anticipates explaination containing the word 'ineffable'*

jon1jt

11-17-2006, 02:45 AM

You know the only reason people don't believe in Christianity is because they've had it badly explained to them or they know nothing about it. The Bible has predicted the major world empires(that have bearing upon God's selected people), it predicted the rise of the catholic church, it's fall in the french revolution and it's rise again with the the second beast(America) in Revelation 13.

So many people choose to condemn something they know so little about.[/

oh please. you don't know anything about people in here give it a break. i'd love to backhand you with Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

Guzmán

11-17-2006, 07:51 AM

They can "see", but for a host of usually ego based reasons they do not.
Thats one of the reasons I could never understand Christianity; the obliteration of pride. It is very often that, after a Doctor performs a succesfull operation the patient´s family goes all "Oh thank god he´s allright". Well if I were the doctor i would exclaim "No, thanks to me, it was me who spent two hours in the operating room, not to mention 8 years of medschool, I deserve your gratitude as much i deserve my paycheck".
In my personal life, I work very hard for the triumphs involving my career, but when i achieve them it feels good to be proud about myself, even, being a very competitive person it makes me proud to beat others, its part of what keeps you going, after all, competition is a part of academic and professional life. I know next to nothing about Christianity but the impression i always got was that pride and vanity were awful sinful things. After getting up everyday at 5am for a week to study I like to think it was me who aced those tests, not God.

QUOTE=Crusader;282599]
This spiritual blindness saddens me because all will cleary see what they currently deny..... and most will not like view.[/QUOTE]

well i guess i will be riding my big fat ego all the way to hell then.

Whifflingpin

11-17-2006, 10:01 AM

I know next to nothing about Christianity but the impression i always got was that pride and vanity were awful sinful things. After getting up everyday at 5am for a week to study I like to think it was me who aced those tests, not God.

Vanity is pride in things that have no value that would merit pride, so clearly that is wrong, and is sinful when the vain thing is chosen over the valuable.

There is nothing wrong with pride in a job well done, but if you think you did it all on your own then your pride is, to say the least, misplaced. Apart from parents who raised you, people who wrote the books you studied, and all the other humans who enable you to live the life you do, there is grass that grows and rain that falls with no help from you, or any other human, whatsoever. The pride that sets a person as the centre of the universe, without acknowledgement and gratitude for all the rest, that is sinful.

This spiritual blindness saddens me because all will cleary see what they currently deny..... and most will not like view.

Alas, there are members of most religions or ideologies whose blind dogmatism does more to drive people away than encourage them to stay.
Matthew VII vv 3-5 offers a useful response to such.

.

Adelheid

11-17-2006, 10:20 AM

What if Jesus existed, and His message is true? What if there really is a heaven and hell, and that you will go to hell after you die because you did not ask Jesus to wash away your sin?

What if Christianity's message is true? Those who do not believe and do nothing about it will die eternally in hell, and be tormented with fire and brimstone. What if?

Then, I tell you. Those who do not believe will die in hell, while those who have accepted the gift of eternal life from God will spend eternit with Him in heaven.

But then you might ask: what if Christianity is wrong, and WE are right in saying there is no Jesus, no heaven, no hell- just nothingness after death?

Then well, no heaven for the christians, is all!

I tell you, IF Christianity's message is real and there is a Jesus, there is a Judgment Day for all, there is a heaven for believers after death, and there is hell for those who are not cleansed from their sins, then the unbelievers have FAR more to lose (they are losing their souls for eternity), than Christians, (if the message they believe in is false).

Understand this please. It's important you do- I care for you all, and that is why I tell you this. Think through it logically, and I pray that you will find the truth.

Guzmán

11-17-2006, 10:57 AM

There is nothing wrong with pride in a job well done, but if you think you did it all on your own then your pride is, to say the least, misplaced. Apart from parents who raised you, people who wrote the books you studied, and all the other humans who enable you to live the life you do, there is grass that grows and rain that falls with no help from you, or any other human, whatsoever. The pride that sets a person as the centre of the universe, without acknowledgement and gratitude for all the rest, that is sinful.
.

Obviously I acknowledge help from others, my point is, god has nothing to do with it.

Guzmán

11-17-2006, 11:18 AM

What if Jesus existed, and His message is true? What if there really is a heaven and hell, and that you will go to hell after you die because you did not ask Jesus to wash away your sin?

What if Christianity's message is true? Those who do not believe and do nothing about it will die eternally in hell, and be tormented with fire and brimstone. What if?

Then, I tell you. Those who do not believe will die in hell, while those who have accepted the gift of eternal life from God will spend eternit with Him in heaven.

.

I sincerely appreciate your concern however much we may disagree. Regarding my time on this earth, given that this is after all a literary forum and the Bible has been quoted many times; I feel the need to quote "Steppenwolf" by the immortal (pun intended: read the book) Hermann Hesse, although it really has nothing to do with this:

"Thankfully, you tune the strings of your moldering lyre to a moderated, to a passably joyful, nay to an even delighted psalm of thanksgiving and with it bore your quiet, flabby and slightly stupefied half-and-half god of contentment; and in the thick warm air of a contented boredom and very welcome painlessness the nodding mandarin of a half-and-half god and the nodding middle-aged gentleman who sings his muffled psalm look as like each other as two peas."

And...

"... smash my moldering lyre of thanksgiving in the face of the slumbering god of contentment and would rather feel the very devil burn in me than this warmth of a well-heated room."

jon1jt

11-17-2006, 11:26 AM

Thats one of the reasons I could never understand Christianity; the obliteration of pride. It is very often that, after a Doctor performs a succesfull operation the patient´s family goes all "Oh thank god he´s allright". Well if I were the doctor i would exclaim "No, thanks to me, it was me who spent two hours in the operating room, not to mention 8 years of medschool, I deserve your gratitude as much i deserve my paycheck".
In my personal life, I work very hard for the triumphs involving my career, but when i achieve them it feels good to be proud about myself, even, being a very competitive person it makes me proud to beat others, its part of what keeps you going, after all, competition is a part of academic and professional life. I know next to nothing about Christianity but the impression i always got was that pride and vanity were awful sinful things. After getting up everyday at 5am for a week to study I like to think it was me who aced those tests, not God.

QUOTE=Crusader;282599]
This spiritual blindness saddens me because all will cleary see what they currently deny..... and most will not like view.

well i guess i will be riding my big fat ego all the way to hell then.[/QUOTE]

then i'm on that bus to hell too and so be it. it was you who aced those tests, like it's you who has the will to steer your life any way you want to go. pay no mind to these penitent types. you're god. or if you don't believe you're god, that's too bad, because i believe i'm god.

Scheherazade

11-17-2006, 11:50 AM

A reminder of Religious Forum Rules (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15410):
Discussion of religious or sacred texts is encouraged here, but please remember to respect the beliefs of others.

These forums are not here for preaching, or attempts to convert, nor promote other religiously affiliated websites.Posts which do not abide by these rules aree likely to be edited/deleted with or without any further notice.

Crusader

11-17-2006, 04:06 PM

What if Jesus existed, and His message is true?
{snip}
Those who do not believe will die in hell
{snip}
What if Christianity is wrong?
{snip}
Then no heaven for the christians, is all!

Adelheid,
Nice sumarization of Pascal's Wager! I tend to be too wordy!

Crusader

11-17-2006, 05:15 PM

And infinte justice means eternal torture for millions of perfectly moral atheists, not to mention billions of members of the incorrect religion, does it?

*anticipates explaination containing the word 'ineffable'*

Sorry to disappoint, but this is a simple one. There are no perfectly moral atheists.
Not that an atheist cannot act morally, but I simply recognize the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality. Most people will say that their lives have morality, regardless of their philosophy, but atheism demands that all life is mere chance, and a life created by chance can have no objective morality, it can only have an imaginary, self-assigned, subjective morality. And subjective morality is only opinion.
Again, God makes the rules and by belief we both choose our path. But if you don’t believe in God, why would you care about non-existent eternal torture? :brickwall

Thats one of the reasons I could never understand Christianity; the obliteration of pride. {snip}
I know next to nothing about Christianity but the impression i always got was that pride and vanity were awful sinful things. {snip}
well i guess i will be riding my big fat ego all the way to hell then.
Yep...... Say hello to Hermann for me! :D

then i'm on that bus to hell too and so be it. {snip}
if you don't believe you're god, that's too bad, because i believe i'm god.
Sorry! I didn't recognize you lord! :eek2:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Original Forum Topic: What if Jesus never exsisted??

None of us would hold what appear to be deeply seated and emotional opinions on the subject! :lol:

downing

11-17-2006, 05:17 PM

if Jessus wouldn;t have existed, we would have all gone to hell after dying

cuppajoe_9

11-17-2006, 06:04 PM

There are no perfectly moral atheists.
Moral atheists: Douglas Adams, Woody Allen, Isaac Assimov, Dave Barry, Ingmar Bergman, Björk, John Carpenter, David Cronenberg, Rodney Dangerfield, Ani DiFranco, Albert Einstein, Bob Geldof, Stephen Greenblatt, Billy Joel, Bruce Lee, Stanislaw Lem, Sir Ian McKellen, Mordecai Richler, Bertrand Russell, Kut Vonnegut Jr., Joss Whedon, Steve Wozniak, Frank Zappa

Moral Agnostics: Magaret Atwood, Windston Churchill, Clarence Darrow, Charles Darwin, Bill Gates, Stephen Jay Gould, Stpehen Hawking, Dave Matthews, Carl Sagan, Ted Turner

Hundreds more: http://www.celebatheists.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Also: http://www.secularhumanism.org/

I also feel compelled to point out that, although I do not presume to say that I am always completely moral, I am an atheist.

'Perfectly', in the context, obviously means the same thing it does in the phrase 'perfectly fine', not 'completly'.

Not that an atheist cannot act morally, but I simply recognize the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality.What about respect for one's fellow man? What about the desire to make the world a better place in which to live? What about compasion? What about a sense of justice? Are these not 'logical' bases on which to act morally?

Again, God makes the rules and by belief we both choose our path. But if you don’t believe in God, why would you care about non-existent eternal torture?I don't know, maybe there is a reason for humans to treat each other well outside of empty threats. I know I am coming off as a bit of an arogant atheist here, but you know what? I'm angry. I'll even apologize for the tone of this post, but not for the content.

ShoutGrace

11-17-2006, 06:22 PM

Re: Einstein - What kind of atheist believes in a God (whatever its nature)?

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” - Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941

Re: Dave Matthews - :lol: :lol: Why'd you pick him?

Hey, I think PETA would disagree with you:

http://www.sandiegoserenade.com/images/RSCovers/DMB.jpg

cuppajoe_9

11-17-2006, 06:26 PM

Re: Einstein - What kind of atheist believes in a God (whatever its nature)?

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” - Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941

This kind:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

- Letter to an atheist (1954) as quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side (1981) edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman

Re: Dave Matthews - :lol: :lol: Why'd you pick him?Political activism requires at least some sort of moral conviction.

Hey, I think PETA would disagree with you:That looks pretty fake to me.

ShoutGrace

11-17-2006, 06:38 PM

This kind:

I thought atheism could be termed "the doctrine of belief that there is no god?" If a person believes in any god, they cease to be atheist - true of false?

“I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things.”

- Albert Einstein, as quoted in Glimpses of the Great (1930) by G. S. Viereck

I think Albert Einstein futzed about throughout his life. The quotes are wide and varied, but I think it's generally accepted that he was not an atheist.

He was certainly not a Christian, Jew or anything like it - he clearly did not believe in a personal God or in what he called "dogmatic" religious systems.

Political activism requires at least some sort of moral conviction.

So does burning heretics at the stake. Are the advocates of such behaviour 'moral' in your mind? They certainly have great moral conviction.

cuppajoe_9

11-17-2006, 06:44 PM

He was certainly not a Christian, Jew or anything like it - he clearly did not believe in a personal God or in what he called "dogmatic" religious systems. Which is, in Crudader's mind, enough to get him tortured eternally, and therefore supports my point. I really don't want to get into a quote war with you, so I'd like to drop it.

So does burning heretics at the stake. Are the advocates of such behaviour 'moral' in your mind? They certainly have great moral conviction.Well if Dave Mathews does that, it's off the list with him. What he is doing is attempting to improve the state of the world, so he gets to go up there.

Pendragon

11-18-2006, 11:29 AM

Since I cannot get the above to edit (sigh...) I have reposted the post here with corrected spelling:

Now, I have a question. If you are endeavoring to reach out to someone, and show them the Life of Christ, the Love of Christ, have you ever considered that your attitude towards another always reflects on the way they are going to react to you? The quote you are looking for is this : Philippians 2:5 "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus." So what would Jesus do, try to make others feel inferior? Ask yourself that. God Bless. :angel:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crusader
Not that an atheist cannot act morally, but I simply recognize the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality.

Again, God makes the rules and by belief we both choose our path. But if you don’t believe in God, why would you care about non-existent eternal torture?

Logos

11-18-2006, 12:11 PM

I removed it for you Pen and added what you had quoted into your post. There is sometimes forum oddness when one goes to "Edit" their posts, usually if you click on "Go Advanced" that way works :)

ennison

11-18-2006, 04:24 PM

Nothing on faith? Parallel lines meet at infinity? Anyway the other point is that the question is not whether he existed - he did - but whether he rose from the dead. Our Muslim acquaintances might baulk at that. All atheists do. Generally they, like Macbeth, might choose rather that when the brains were out there 'was an end'. Unfortunately for them (and most of us) that was never true. The wedding and the wine is a symbolic story of great importance but this is not the immediate place for its interpretation.

Pendragon

11-18-2006, 05:18 PM

I removed it for you Pen and added what you had quoted into your post. There is sometimes forum oddness when one goes to "Edit" their posts, usually if you click on "Go Advanced" that way works :)
Thanks. Logos! I appreciate it! Have a nice day with your cat now! ;)

Pen

Logos

11-18-2006, 05:21 PM

Thanks. Logos! I appreciate it! Have a nice day with your cat now! ;)
Pen
ok! :D
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a57/c7767/misc/catwalk.gif

poetic_justice

11-18-2006, 06:22 PM

I can't understand why there is a five-page debate on it. Whether or not there was a man named Jesus back has been proven, or there is as much proof as possible given how long ago it was and how proof is hardly ever certain. Whether the son of Gos existed back then depends on your personal beliefs. As a Hindu, I read the bible and interpreted it differently than I think most Christians would. I felt Jesus was less of THE prophet and more of A prophet, I fit Christianity into my view of religion and the world.

cuppajoe_9

11-19-2006, 03:53 PM

I can't understand why there is a five-page debate on it. Whether or not there was a man named Jesus back has been proven, or there is as much proof as possible given how long ago it was and how proof is hardly ever certain.

Proofs in history? Anyhow, the debate isn't over whether there was even a man named Jesus (there still men named Jesus), but over how much basis the Jesus described in the NT has in reality.

bee01

11-19-2006, 06:15 PM

You know the only reason people don't believe in Christianity is because they've had it badly explained to them or they know nothing about it. The Bible has predicted the major world empires(that have bearing upon God's selected people), it predicted the rise of the catholic church, it's fall in the french revolution and it's rise again with the the second beast(America) in Revelation 13.

So many people choose to condemn something they know so little about.

I strongly disagree with this last part, littleLindkvist is only questioning the existence of God not condemning it. And questioning is necessary in order to further develop the human understanding. If no one questioned and everyone just accepted then there would be no individualism in the world.

Theshizznigg

12-22-2006, 03:34 AM

Jesus was a historical figure, he was a Rabbi under Jewish laws and is mentioned in many of the temple texts of that time, and even in reports given by the former Roman governer, and the his successor Pontius Pilatus.
The Romans were afraid of his large following and thus tried to ascertain if his group of followers was a predent to a Jewish uprising against Roman rule.
After they had figured he wasn't going to instigate uprising they left him be until the Pharisee's brought him to trial, when he was convicted he was sentenced and crucified. The records of his crucifixion like all criminals were sent back to Rome.
So as far as written history is concerned a man named Jesus did exist and was active in the timeline put down by the bible. Whether or not he was the son of God is completely up to those who choose to believe whether or not that is the truth.

Shizz.

"Your not so different you and I. You see I did say that." - Dr. Evil

Whifflingpin

12-22-2006, 05:54 AM

"Jesus was a historical figure, he was a Rabbi under Jewish laws and is mentioned in many of the temple texts of that time, and even in reports given by the former Roman governer, and the his successor Pontius Pilatus."

Do you have evidence of this? Where are the temple texts and gobernatorial reports currently kept?

.

Wintermute

12-22-2006, 09:05 AM

Jesus was a historical figure, he was a Rabbi under Jewish laws and is mentioned in many of the temple texts of that time, and even in reports given by the former Roman governer, and the his successor Pontius Pilatus.

Could you please provide a link, or even a specific quote from on of these "temple texts". Also a date of when the specific passage that you provide was actually writen. As I recall, stuff from Josephus an the like were written 75 - 100 years after Jesus supposedly existed. Can you provide and evidence from a contemporary of Jesus--someone who was alive, adult, and writing during the time he was alive? I've yet to find anything.

Niamh

12-22-2006, 04:51 PM

As an Ex Archaeologist i can say that there is both Archaeological and Historical evidence that Jesus existed as roman Historians wrote about him.

Whifflingpin

12-22-2006, 07:42 PM

roman Historians wrote about him.

Do you have any documentary evidence earlier than Tacitus, apart from the brief mention in Josephus?

.

Theshizznigg

12-23-2006, 03:26 AM

The texts of Jesus of Nazareth being a Rabbi were written by the former governer before
Pilatus took over the position.
As I said, the Romans were afraid that he was gathering an uprising. They were having uprisings in Celtic Britain and Gaul and didn't want another problem arising in the Middle East, so they replaced the former governer with the much sterner Pilate. I believe that the Church of Rome are the ones that now possess the reports and Pilates documentations from that period, (They written on clay tablets since parchment rarely kept in the middle east, and was difficult to transport.) and If I remember correctly it was a History Channel program on the life of the real jesus that I saw it.

sejseveer

12-23-2006, 07:04 PM

what constitutes balid proof? How much corroboration, or of what nature, do you expect?

Whifflingpin

12-24-2006, 05:49 PM

"what constitutes balid proof? How much corroboration, or of what nature, do you expect?"

I'm not sure who you are asking, but for me, valid proof is not possible, only adequate evidence. I have argued elsewhere in the forum that the existence of the early church is adequate evidence of Jesus' existence. People who claimed to have known Jesus were prepared to die for what they believed about him. I acknowledge that someone might die for a wrong idea, but no-one would embrace martyrdom to maintain something they knew to be a lie.

However, the earliest extant Christian writings (Paul's letters) seem to date from about twenty years after Jesus' death, and the earliest non-Christian sources that I was aware of are another twenty years later again. (Tacitus, born 56AD, writing 98AD & Josephus born about 37AD, writing 75AD)

So, when people claim that there is written evidence contemporary with Jesus, I ask "where are these documents?"

[Edit: I've just looked up Ponius Pilatus in Wikipedia. It is there stated "The first physical evidence for Pilate's existence was discovered in 1961, when a block of black limestone was found in the Roman theatre at Caesarea Palaestina, ...
The inscription is currently housed in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, where its Inventory number is AE 1963 no. 104. Dated to 26–37, it was discovered in Caesarea (Israel) by a group led by Antonio Frova."

Now, clay tablets containing reports of Pilates administration have been mentioned in this thread - I would expect a specific reference, in the Wikipedia style - "The tablets are held in the ..... Inventory number .... "

Looking down a little further in the Wikidedia entry, I notice: "The 4th century apocryphal text that is called the Acts of Pilate presents itself in a preface (missing in some MSS) as derived from the official acts preserved in the praetorium at Jerusalem. Though the alleged Hebrew original of the document is attributed to Nicodemus, the title Gospel of Nicodemus for this fictional account only appeared in mediaeval times, after the document had been substantially elaborated. Nothing in the text suggests that it is in fact a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic."

Is this totally spurious document the basis for the "many of the temple texts of that time, and even in reports given by the former Roman governor" comment made earlier in the thread?]

Wintermute

12-27-2006, 10:26 AM

As an Ex Archaeologist i can say that there is both Archaeological and Historical evidence that Jesus existed as roman Historians wrote about him.

Hi Niamh,

Could you please present some evidence. My critical thinking class suggested that it might be a good idea to ask for evidence when someone claims truth. Please provide specific, verifiable evidence of your claims--in fact, as an Archeaeologist (scientist) you should know this. Where's the Beef?

Whifflingpin

12-27-2006, 07:39 PM

"The texts of Jesus of Nazareth being a Rabbi were written by the former governer before Pilatus took over the position."

Just noticed an oddity in this statement - Pilate was the governor 26-37 AD, i.e. throughout the whole time (26-29) that is generally given for Jesus' ministry. So there is some sort of date anomaly - not insuperable, but requiring some adjustment or explanation, maybe.

.

Wintermute

12-28-2006, 09:48 AM

Whifflingpin

12-28-2006, 10:30 AM

Wintermute

12-28-2006, 02:01 PM

If I could understand why, 13 billion years ago, Big decided to Bang after sitting around for infinity....

[Edit - sorry, that was frivolous - I think there was a point there somewhere, but I've just gone brain dead]

No, Whifflingpin, I'm right there with you. It is the essence of being a fence-sitter. There does seem to be something amazing going on in the universe, but it's doubtful that it cares if I eat meat on Fridays--or for that matter cares what transpires on this little chunk of rock in the corner of a fairly common galaxy.

The point of both the [my] god and [your] big-bang observations is uncertainty--no one really knows. Anything is possible, nothing is certain.

Redzeppelin

01-04-2007, 04:07 PM

The question about Christ that has always bugged me is--why? If it is omnicient and omnipotent why not just do it right in the first place. If it already knew it was going to need to create a humanoid to send down to stoopid earth to get nailed to a cross because the folks weren't behaving as desired, why not just bypass all that silliness and do it properly from the beginning?

Have you read the Bible or sat down and had someone who understood it explain Christ's incarnation to you? Your language implies that God is some sort of bungling doofus whose behavior consists of "mistakes." First, you are greatly simplifying the issue of God's omniscience and freewill - since a thread already exists on that topic, I'll refer you there. Second, Christ did not sacrifice himself because we "weren't behaving as desired". Behavior was the symptom of humanity's problem, not the cause; "desired" makes God sound like an arbitrary Being; it's not that our behavior was "undesireable" it's that our behavior - as a consequence of our sinful natures - would lead us ultimately to death (not just physical, but spiritual as well). The correct answer is that God sent a worthy sacrifice to free humanity from the consequences of sin - an inevitable reality for all humanity because of Adam & Eve's "fall." The only way to "do it [create humanity] properly" as you so glibly suggest, is to create beings with no freewill - beings that cannot help but choose right, which are nothing more than automatons.

In fact, to me, the whole idea [human construct] of creation begs an answer to the question why? My grandmother said it was because it wanted fellowship--some apparently believe it wants to be adored and worshiped. I wonder what it was doing for infinity before creating the universe? If I could understand why, 13 billion years ago, it decided to create a universe after sitting around for infinity, I'd be well on my way to shedding my agnosticism--I think....

The only explanation of our origin that is verifiably of human construction is evolution. You assume that creation was manufactured by humans. As to your second point, many theologians believe that God has created other worlds and other life forms, but that we were created in His "own likeness."

Heather_1816

01-05-2007, 09:21 AM

Redzeppelin

01-05-2007, 05:42 PM

Wasn't there something about the fact that the Supreme Court - many years ago - examined the evidence and ruled that Christ did exist or something like that? Has anybody heard of that?

Wait, here's something I just found: (this is only an excerpt)

Pasted from <http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=3023>
Whitehead examines resurrection via legal, historical evidence
Feb 12, 1997
By Tammi Ledbetter
Baptist Press KANSAS CITY, Mo. (BP)--While the resurrection of Jesus Christ needs to be examined as a religious event in studies in Sunday schools and seminaries, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary Vice President Mike Whitehead noted it also can be studied from an historic perspective, much like the consideration legal experts give to evidence presented in court.

He provided a Feb. 11 chapel audience with the same evidence of the historicity of the resurrection that transformed a skeptical agnostic jurist like Simon Greenleaf into a convinced Christian. Greenleaf wrote a three-volume treatise on the laws of evidence that has shaped the rules by which the legal profession operates today.

Whitehead received his juris doctor degree from the University of Missouri and later served as chief counsel for the Southern Baptist Convention's Christian Life Commission before becoming vice president for business administration and assistant professor of church and law at Midwestern. He was co-counsel in the religious liberty case of Widmar v. Vincent before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1981.

Whitehead recounted the irritation Greenleaf initially expressed toward law students of the mid-1800s who repeatedly used Scripture in classroom discussions. When challenged to consider the case for the resurrection as an historic event, Greenleaf applied his rules of evidence to the Bible, focusing his inquiry on what Whitehead described as the linchpin of the Christian religion.

Whitehead said Greenleaf regarded the dare as a simple case, easily proven. "It required this sophisticated Harvard law professor to prove that dead men stay dead. If he can't win that case, he should hang up his law shingle, put up a notary public and live bait sign and just get into some other line of work."

And yet Greenleaf, like England's former chief justice, Lord Darling, concluded that because of the overwhelming evidence, "No intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story is true," Whitehead said. In 1846, Greenleaf wrote his conclusions in "Evidence of the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus." "It didn't just change their minds and become the subject for an interesting academic tome in a book," Whitehead said. "It changed Greenleaf's life when he concluded the resurrection story is a fact of history."

I don't expect this to convert anybody, but I thought it was rather interesting, and I'd really like it if someone located the actual US Supreme Court decision because I'm sure I remember hearing that.

Pendragon

01-06-2007, 09:20 AM

The question about Christ that has always bugged me is--why? If it is omnicient and omnipotent why not just do it right in the first place. If it already knew it was going to need to create a humanoid to send down to stoopid earth to get nailed to a cross because the folks weren't behaving as desired, why not just bypass all that silliness and do it properly from the beginning? In fact, to me, the whole idea [human construct] of creation begs an answer to the question why? My grandmother said it was because it wanted fellowship--some apparently believe it wants to be adored and worshiped. I wonder what it was doing for infinity before creating the universe? If I could understand why, 13 billion years ago, it decided to create a universe after sitting around for infinity, I'd be well on my way to shedding my agnosticism--I think....I think if you read Genesis, you'll find that God did it right in the first place. It has never from the begining been man having to ask where God went, but God who came down and had to ask "Adam, where art thou?" because man couldn't keep one law: "Of the tree of knowledge of good and evil thow shalt not eat." What did man do when he got caught? Blame someone else and if you read it correctly he did just what you are doing, he blamed God. "The woman thou gavest me". I.E. "You just had to mess things up, I was happy by myself, I never got out of line, but noooo, he's lonely, he needs a helpmate! See what help she's been!" And Eve: "The Serpent beguiled (tricked) me." Then God could have just wiped it all out and started over-- but He made a way of escape. He came Himself to die for sin, in the form of Jesus. Emmanuel, God with us. :angel:

fisherofmen

01-08-2007, 07:53 PM

roman Historians wrote about him.

Do you have any documentary evidence earlier than Tacitus, apart from the brief mention in Josephus?

.

documentary evidence is tough to find indeed... read this however

"Based on the unusual similarities and differences (see synoptic problem) between the Synoptic Gospels — Matthew, Mark and Luke, the first three canonical gospels — many Biblical scholars have suggested that oral tradition and logia (such as the Gospel of Thomas and the theoretical Q document)[36] probably played a strong role in initially passing down stories of Jesus, and may have inspired some of the Synoptic Gospels."
(wikipedia, 'Jesus')

Obviously I need to do a bit more research on the subject, but there is some food for thought.

Whifflingpin

01-08-2007, 08:24 PM

"Based on the unusual similarities and differences (see synoptic problem) between the Synoptic Gospels ..."

I have no problem with accepting that Jesus existed and lived more or less as described in the four canonical gospels.

This issue was, however that some posters were claiming that there was documentary evidence, contemporary with Jesus, independent of the gospels, and, in fact, independent of the early Christians. I was asking for proper references to this evidence. So far, I think, those references have not been provided.:)

fisherofmen

01-08-2007, 08:26 PM

The Jackle

01-12-2007, 05:47 PM

There is currently more evidence of the existence of Jesus than that of Nero.
The last book of the new testament recorded, 120years A.E(after event)
The Imperial history of Rome 700years A.E ordered by Emp. Claudius
The Imperial history of Rome is the chronicles of the early empire from an oral history. It is the main source in referral of the conquest of Hannibal and the rise of the early empire. Historians actual refer to the New testament to verify events in Jerusalem at that period , rather than any other history. Plus there is roman documentation on the crucifixion of Christ(found 1960A.D, in Isreal). Whether or not you believe in Christ the lords teaching, the evidence that A man of David's line born in Bethlehem, Preached across the land of Israel, and was Crucified by the request of the Elders is insurmountable. Hence this debate is pointless; the question should be" was Jesus christ son of god or a madman".

miss tenderness

01-22-2007, 05:07 PM

Speaking as a Christian I know that it seems impossible to prove that he exists. If you don't believe the Bible or the Quran then what about the Dead Sea Scrolls? They clearly record that Jesus did exist.

In fact, there is more evidence to say Jesus existed than there is to say that Julias Caesar existed and yet people don't doubt his existance half as much as they doubt the existance of Jesus.

The most difficult thing to prove is not really whether Jesus existed or not but whether he performed miracles or not. I personally believe he did, my evidence for this would be the gospels, but at the end of the day it is down to your own beliefs.

Good points , Heather.
My comment is on the last one, I have no doubt about Jesus, pbuh, existence . I also have no doubt that he performed miracles by the assistance of God. It's just unworthy to waste time on discussing if Jesus existed or not. If we discuss points like the miracles and if he was crucified ,that would be more useful .

Virgil

01-22-2007, 05:13 PM

In fact, there is more evidence to say Jesus existed than there is to say that Julias Caesar existed and yet people don't doubt his existance half as much as they doubt the existance of Jesus.

Look, I believe that there is evidence that Jesus existed, but your statement that there is more evidence that he existed than Julius Caesar is flat out wrong. There is tons and tons of evidence that Julius Caesar existed, including books that he wrote that we read today. Plus tons of documents and historical records cross referenced by several historians of his day. If there is anyone in the ancient world we know existed, it was Julius Caesar. Heather you can't just make that up.

Wintermute

01-23-2007, 09:32 AM

Have you read the Bible or sat down and had someone who understood it explain Christ's incarnation to you? Your language implies that God is some sort of bungling doofus whose behavior consists of "mistakes." First, you are greatly simplifying the issue of God's omniscience and freewill - since a thread already exists on that topic, I'll refer you there. Second, Christ did not sacrifice himself because we "weren't behaving as desired". Behavior was the symptom of humanity's problem, not the cause; "desired" makes God sound like an arbitrary Being; it's not that our behavior was "undesireable" it's that our behavior - as a consequence of our sinful natures - would lead us ultimately to death (not just physical, but spiritual as well). The correct answer is that God sent a worthy sacrifice to free humanity from the consequences of sin - an inevitable reality for all humanity because of Adam & Eve's "fall." The only way to "do it [create humanity] properly" as you so glibly suggest, is to create beings with no freewill - beings that cannot help but choose right, which are nothing more than automatons.

The only explanation of our origin that is verifiably of human construction is evolution. You assume that creation was manufactured by humans. As to your second point, many theologians believe that God has created other worlds and other life forms, but that we were created in His "own likeness."

Sorry, I've been away for a couple of weeks visiting Egypt so I was unable to reply to this.

After all the rhetoric you still didn't attempt to address my inquiry--why? But, no need to reply, I've already had this discussion many times. There is no answer.

Oh, and yes I have read the Bible, multiple times. In my opinion it consists of 10% common sense and 90% nonsense. Fundamentalists seem to like to address specific, direct (and legitimate in my opinion) questions about these kind of things by using the term "freewill." The only references I remember to freewill in the Bible centered around freely giving money or sacrificing animals to the lord.

Anyway, its clear [to me] that there are no answers here. I wish you all the luck in the world and in a way I envy your faith--it makes everything so simple. Peace.

Redzeppelin

01-24-2007, 06:27 PM

After all the rhetoric you still didn't attempt to address my inquiry--why? But, no need to reply, I've already had this discussion many times. There is no answer.

As far as I'm concerned, I did answer your question. Whether or not it convinces you is of little concern to me. Most educated people understand that not everyone who asks a question really wants an answer; some people ask questions not so much to have an answer as much as to provoke a fight.

Your post portrays God contrary to what the Bible portrays -I was simply correcting your inaccurate, incorrect, and highly simplified portrayal of God.

Oh, and yes I have read the Bible, multiple times. In my opinion it consists of 10% common sense and 90% nonsense. Fundamentalists seem to like to address specific, direct (and legitimate in my opinion) questions about these kind of things by using the term "freewill." The only references I remember to freewill in the Bible centered around freely giving money or sacrificing animals to the lord.

Reading and understanding are two different things. I can read a book on quantum mechanics - that doesn't mean I understood any of it. "Common sense" and "nonsense" are not necessarily objective terms -they simply reveal your particular attitude towards the content of the Bible. As well, you seem to have missed, during your "multiple readings" of the Bible, Paul's entreaties to "choose whom you will serve." The New Testament is replete with the idea that humans may choose their behavior, choose whom or what they serve, choose whom has mastery over them in their lives - God or sin. Surely you read that part?

Anyway, its clear [to me] that there are no answers here. I wish you all the luck in the world and in a way I envy your faith--it makes everything so simple. Peace.

So you say.

Wintermute

01-25-2007, 09:48 AM

"As far as I'm concerned, I did answer your question."

I must have missed the answer. Would it be possible for you to summarize your thoughts in a sentence or two?

Specifically--Why did God create the universe?

As I've stated, if I could understand this it would really help me understand the creationst philosopy.

"some people ask questions not so much to have an answer as much as to provoke a fight. "

I can only say that I had no hostile intentions in any of my postings. They are my deep-seated, honest feelings. By no means do I want a fight.

As an example of common sense in the bible I would reference the "Golden Rule".

As an example of nonsense I would reference the water walking, the seas parting, and all of the other paranormal references.

Redzeppelin

01-25-2007, 05:25 PM

I must have missed the answer. Would it be possible for you to summarize your thoughts in a sentence or two?

From Wintermute's earlier post: The question about Christ that has always bugged me is--why? If it is omnicient and omnipotent why not just do it right in the first place. If it already knew it was going to need to create a humanoid to send down to stoopid earth to get nailed to a cross because the folks weren't behaving as desired, why not just bypass all that silliness and do it properly from the beginning? In fact, to me, the whole idea [human construct] of creation begs an answer to the question why? My grandmother said it was because it wanted fellowship--some apparently believe it wants to be adored and worshiped. I wonder what it was doing for infinity before creating the universe? If I could understand why, 13 billion years ago, it decided to create a universe after sitting around for infinity, I'd be well on my way to shedding my agnosticism--I think....

Specifically--Why did God create the universe?

The problem with answering your question in two sentences is that you've not succinctly phrased it to begin with. I assume the "it" you mention is God - very strange for someone who claims to have read the Bible "multiple times" because the Bible clearly refers to God with the masculine pronoun "he" and "him." Moving right along…

As best I can tell, you've asked two questions: 1) Why didn't God "do" creation "right in the first place"? And 2) Why did God create humanity at all? Again, there is no way to answer these two questions in two sentences.

Question #1: Your question assumes there was a "right" way to create our world and all that fills it. I'm curious as to what you believe the "right" way for God to create this world is? So it's "sinless" and without evil? It was created with that intent - to be sinless and without evil. But freewill requires that humanity have the legitimate choice to rebel against God - otherwise, there is no way that a freely chosen love of God could exist. We could have been created without the freedom to choose evil, but then love would not exist either. And, since the Bible tell us God is love, we could assume that love is a crucial part of anything God chooses to create. God made no blunders: He created us with the capacity to choose - and we chose badly. The idea that God should not have bothered to create us if there was a chance that evil would develop as a result is as absurd as the adult who believes that unwanted or potentially handicapped children ought not be born because they'll have no real "quality of life." Parents have children to share their love and to demonstrate their commitment to each other - I would assume that God might have a somewhat similar reason for taking the risk of creating us.

Question #2: Why does any being create anything at all? Implicit in the idea that humans are created in the "image of God," it's reasonable to assume that our creative energies/desires and expressions are a mirror of His. The good things of this world - in their purest, most sincere form - love, creativity, kindness, compassion, generosity, loyalty, fidelity - are all products of God that reside within each of us. God created not out of need, but desire: He desires fellowship - He desires to share his love with His creation.

I can only say that I had no hostile intentions in any of my postings. They are my deep-seated, honest feelings. By no means do I want a fight.

Really? Terms like "stoopid" (sic) and "silliness" in reference to things/beings that many people hold in deep respect are not the language of someone who really has a sincere question - the connotation of such language is dismissive and reductive; generally one uses such language to establish a tone that clearly implies the triviality of the things/beings referred to by the adjectives.

Logos

01-25-2007, 05:35 PM

General Mod note to all:

Any more passive aggressive or provocative posts, comments on other's spelling or grammatical skills, or use of insulting terms will get this topic locked. Discuss the topic and not each other.

Redzeppelin

01-26-2007, 12:47 AM

My apologies.

Reccura

01-26-2007, 03:13 AM

He did exist! Just read the bible. Period.

Wintermute

01-26-2007, 10:08 AM

God created not out of need, but desire: He desires fellowship - He desires to share his love with His creation.

You might be right.

Redzeppelin

01-26-2007, 11:05 AM

Thank you.

Jetxa

01-26-2007, 10:19 PM

I am far from as eloquent as most of you here, but I will offer my two cents anyway.

The Pagan Christ: Recovering the Lost Light by Tom Harpur (based largely on the works of Alvin Boyd Kuhn) offers a look at a mythical Christ. In The Egyptian Book of the Dead, written centuries before Christ, the god Horus was born of a virgin (his mother being the Goddess Isis), turned water into wine, preached the Sermon on the Mount (word for word), had twelve followers, healed the sick, raised the death, was killed and was resurrected. Mr. Harpur, who is a Christian himself, sees not a human embodiment but a universal mythological Christ. I thoroughly enjoyed this perspective.

Redzeppelin

01-28-2007, 11:58 AM

Interesting. CS Lewis put forth the idea that Christ's incarnation into human form was the fulfillment of all other prior "Christs" who existed in mythical stories (such as that of Horus) and were present in the fertility cults popular prior to Christ's incarnation. Lewis contends that Christ is not a "borrowing" from earlier pre-figurations, but that He is the "becoming real" of these prior myths into reality. All other "Christs" and "Christ narrative" prior to His birth were simply anticipations - not forerunners.

Jetxa

01-30-2007, 09:53 PM

I knew you were going to say that! :D

Redzeppelin

01-30-2007, 11:11 PM

I knew you were going to say that! :D

Does that mean it was predestined, or did I have any freewill in the matter? :D

Whifflingpin

01-31-2007, 04:18 PM

"CS Lewis put forth the idea that Christ's incarnation into human form was the fulfillment of all other prior "Christs""

Well, perhaps. But who is CS Lewis, and what makes his/her claim authoritative?

Redzeppelin

01-31-2007, 04:39 PM

CS Lewis is considered one of the most influencial and intelligent apologists that Christianity has ever seen. As an Oxford professor in Medieval and Renaissance Literature and Philosophy (who also held the poetry chair at Magdalen College [may have facts a little off, but I'm going on memory here]), Lewis is an expert in philosphy, literature and Christian theology: he is quite qualified to talk about historical patterns in literature and how they relate to the Bible. Few Christians would question his authority, and non-believers alike generally concede that Lewis is a startling intellect. (Legend has it that he was never bested in a debate by an atheist [or humanist/naturalist as they were called in the earlier part of this century].) As well, as a reformed atheist, Lewis is qualified to assess arguments against the existence of God because he knows those arguments inside-out.

I would suggest he's equally (probably moreso) qualified as any other author quoted/referred to in this thread as a source of answers about Christ.

Jetxa

01-31-2007, 07:37 PM

I have heard many people say that God "spoke" to them and through this speaking revealed to them that Christianity is the true and correct path.

I was raised as a Jew in my early years as it was my father's path till he converted to Christianity and so, of course, the rest of the family was required to follow suit. I have spend many an agonizing time praying and seeking the "truth". God, in my mind and heart, has lead me to the Pagan path and I have never been more at peace. Are you telling me I am in error? Why, because I see the "word of God" in the life cycles of His creation and not in a "book"? Or because God couldn't have possibly led me to the path I am on because it is not a Christian one?

IMO . . . "God is like a prism. How you see him depends on where you are standing."

Redzeppelin

02-01-2007, 02:24 PM

I was raised as a Jew in my early years as it was my father's path till he converted to Christianity and so, of course, the rest of the family was required to follow suit. I have spend many an agonizing time praying and seeking the "truth". God, in my mind and heart, has lead me to the Pagan path and I have never been more at peace. Are you telling me I am in error? Why, because I see the "word of God" in the life cycles of His creation and not in a "book"? Or because God couldn't have possibly led me to the path I am on because it is not a Christian one?

IMO . . . "God is like a prism. How you see him depends on where you are standing."

I'm not going to display the arrogance to question God's leading in your life; but, as a Christian I will answer thusly:

The Bible is the standard in terms of God's character and identity. Through it we understand Who He Is and what He expects of us. "Paganism" is a broad term - but it generally points to a worship of nature or the existence of many gods - both of which contradict the image of God provided by the Bible.

As politely as I can, yes: I am telling you you are in error - but not because I say so but because religious systems of belief are generally mutually exclusive; that is - they each claim to be "the way and the truth" and that cannot be so for belief systems with contradictory statements about Who God Is. I assume Paganism would also generally tell me that I am in error in my (too dogmatic I'm sure) Christian faith. That's ok - the nature of religious systems dictates such disagreements as to what "truth" and "error" are.

It's not so much "Christianity" that's the issue, but Christ.

Nature is God's "other book" and through it we can learn of Him, yes: but the Bible is the primary source because nature cannot comment on moral character. I understand that people question the veracity of the Bible - but once we throw it out, God becomes whoever-I-want-Him-to-be and that, I believe, is a sure path towards strapping bombs to my body to kill for the glory of God.

Whifflingpin

02-01-2007, 02:52 PM

"I understand that people question the veracity of the Bible - but once we throw it out, God becomes whoever-I-want-Him-to-be and that, I believe, is a sure path towards strapping bombs to my body to kill for the glory of God."

That may seem to be logical, but experience teaches us otherwise. Pagans don't kill for the glory of God (though they may for ordinary human reasons.)
Anyone learing about God from the book of nature might be expected to follow some mild Wordsworthy or Thoreausian mode of life.

Redzeppelin

02-01-2007, 03:00 PM

That may seem to be logical, but experience teaches us otherwise. Pagans don't kill for the glory of God (though they may for ordinary human reasons.)

Experience validates my position as well. Pagans may not "kill for the glory of God" but there are many ways to distort God for one's own purposes - a task made easier if we dismiss the one record of His character and identity.

Whifflingpin

02-01-2007, 03:51 PM

Redzeppelin: "a task made easier if we dismiss the one record of His character and identity."

Not at all - first, of course I do not not accept any book as "the one record of His character and identity;" second, those who do are as good at distorting God for their own purposes as anyone else, only rather more likely to take an extreme view than those who learn about God in vernal woods.

Redzeppelin: "Pagans may not "kill for the glory of God" but there are many ways to distort God for one's own purposes"
This is a quick shift of position. You said that you believed throwing out the bible was "sure path towards strapping bombs to my body to kill for the glory of God." My response is those whose religion originated in the Old Testament have shown themselves more ready than most to kill for the glory of God.

Redzeppelin

02-01-2007, 04:36 PM

Not at all - first, of course I do not not accept any book as "the one record of His character and identity;" second, those who do are as good at distorting God for their own purposes as anyone else, only rather more likely to take an extreme view than those who learn about God in vernal woods.

Fine. Then what do you suggest we use to understand God? The Bible ostensibly offers up God's inspired narrative of His character. Let's get rid of it - now what?

Second, I'm rather tired of the over-used argument that goes something like this: "since Christians aren't perfect and the church isn't perfect, then any charge levelled towards another belief system is null and void." Ridiculous. None of what you said invalidates my point: without a reference point to Who God Is, then morality becomes a subjective affair. That Christians are capable of behaving badly makes them human - and no real Christian claims to be more than that.

Thirdly, nature does not give the best picture of God: nature is by and large predatory in nature; the "law of the jungle" is not the law of God.

This is a quick shift of position. You said that you believed throwing out the bible was "sure path towards strapping bombs to my body to kill for the glory of God." My response is those whose religion originated in the Old Testament have shown themselves more ready than most to kill for the glory of God.

See comment above on this one. My argument indicates that a God without some outline as to His character becomes a God-I-design. You can't just flip my argument around and assume that that means I'm saying Christians don't do the same thing: the difference is that the Christian must somehow reconcile his interpretation with the entire context of the Bible. The "bookless" believer can simply say "God is such and such because that's what I think." Without a book, that position can't be challenged; with a book, then the erring Christian can be challenged by other Christians.

Jetxa

02-01-2007, 07:03 PM

. . . what do you suggest we use to understand God? The Bible ostensibly offers up God's inspired narrative of His character.

My argument indicates that a God without some outline as to His character becomes a God-I-design. The "bookless" believer can simply say "God is such and such because that's what I think."

The God I seek is unknowable and indefinable as to its true character. It is unthinkable and ludicrous to me to think that one can say they truly know God in any way, shape, or form. God is an idea in the mind of man. A mystery we have created for ourselves to explain or give some kind of comfort to the unexplainable or unknowable. This is not to say God does not exist.

To those interested. Here is a link to Mystic Christianity from The Secret Teachings of All Ages by Manly P. Hall. (A fabulous book!) There are quotes there from people who, IMO, are a little more knowledgeable than C.S. Lewis.

http://www.worldspirituality.org/mystic-christianity.html

My bottom line is that if God "tells" someone something and that person tells another, then it becomes heresay. God is perfectly capable of telling me that which he wants me to know.

As this is always an interesting conversation, I am getting a bit tired. I do have other forums to read and participate in and it takes so much of my time already. It's been nice. Later . . .

Jetxa

02-01-2007, 07:08 PM

Without a book, that position can't be challenged; with a book, then the erring Christian can be challenged by other Christians.

Absolutely no offense, Red; but the first thing that came to mind was a bunch of people all beating each other with books! :lol: ROTFLMAO!!!

Seriously, though; isn't interpretation why there are so many different divisions of Christianity? It seems you can't even agree amongst yourselves.

*ducks the flying books* :flare:

Orionsbelt

02-01-2007, 11:29 PM

The only way to "do it [create humanity] properly" as you so glibly suggest, is to create beings with no freewill - beings that cannot help but choose right, which are nothing more than automatons.
.... but that we were created in His "own likeness."

Off topic ... I feel like I have to check in here ... with all due respect I have to assume God understood the risk. Therefore he is prepared to accept the result for what it is. So I am interested in your opinion... why then all of the Gosh l didn't expect that to happen?

Isn't the issue not so much that Jesus lived as it is his claim to be the Son of God. The ramifications of not existing is far less than the ramifications of his claim. It wasn't until the renaissance that western civilization recovered.

Jetxa

02-02-2007, 01:52 PM

. . . what do you suggest we use to understand God? The Bible ostensibly offers up God's inspired narrative of His character. Let's get rid of it - now what?

. . . nature does not give the best picture of God: nature is by and large predatory in nature; the "law of the jungle" is not the law of God.

Well, you know I disagree. Nature is in fact, "God's Word". He "wrote" it, didn't He? As nature has existed for millions of years, I find it laughable that all of a sudden God decided there had to be a creature to "correct" the world. From what?

So nature is predatory . . . how does that not show God's handiwork? Did nature commit some "sin"? It comes down to how one views good and evil and if one believes good and evil exist. You well know my position here.

The Bible puts a misconscrewed "value" on life. In nature life is seen as "all emcompassing" as it repeats itself in the life cycles of earth (and the universe). Nothng ends but changes and is always a part of the earth and its continuous cycle of death and rebirth. The very God-given earth shows us that life exists and always will. Jesus' message in his so-called death and resurrection was not to show that life stops and starts, but that life is a continuous state of being. The Christian belief of life being removed from the earth and reborn somewhere else baffles the heck outta me. Why is it is hard to believe what God has laid before your very eyes? Was it all a waste of His time?

yingqiee

02-03-2007, 06:06 AM

IMO, I doubt that the earth shows life to always exist. After all, the sun will die in 5 billion years while even before that, temperature on the earth will be so hot that water would not exist on the earth. All matter is believed to cease to exist in 10^40 years after the Big Bang (except in Black holes, but I dont think life exists in black holes)

Jetxa

02-03-2007, 07:44 PM

God, as the Author of Life, can never cease to exist, only the expression of life or the instrument used to "house" life can change or end.

ennison

02-03-2007, 08:04 PM

Nature - the natural world - is a created thing. It may inspire. It may reflect certain truths. It may teach. But ultimately like all created things it will die. Indeed it is groaning mightily and mighty loud this weather.

I shouldn't pun in such a serious thread but I did and as a result am going to log off

yingqiee

02-04-2007, 03:13 AM

Exactly my point. Sorry, I should have clarified earlier. What I meant is that nature will ultimately die, but God will not. Thus that Christian perspective of life in heaven is not wrong, because I feel that the argument that life will always exist is a little flawed:

The Bible puts a misconscrewed "value" on life. In nature life is seen as "all emcompassing" as it repeats itself in the life cycles of earth (and the universe)

The very God-given earth shows us that life exists and always will

Jetxa

02-04-2007, 01:01 PM

I didn't mean that life will always exist on earth, but that nature teaches us that life is never ending. God never ends, so life cannot end no matter how it is "expressed".

What I was really trying to say (and didn't) is that matter changes form, and life within that matter never ceases to exist. Of course, herein, one needs to have a pantheistic and/or animistic view of life.

IMO God expresses itself through matter, and if matter ceases to exist then God will find another avenue for its expression . . . or not.

The Christian view sees life as separate entities or souls given only to man that continue on after earthly death or separation from the material body. I see life as a "whole" in which there are and cannot be separate "pieces". God is All and All is God. Holding to this view . . . while there is life expressed on earth, life is continuous within the cycle of death and rebirth. This is to say that life is a constant within matter, as it now exists, and is not removed to "heaven" or any other abode of "safe keeping" or sanctuary.

It just seems that most religion sees God as the creator of life but separate from the life it creates. I do not. In essence I am God and God is me*. I am (and is all nature) how God chooses to express itself.

* or "I" ??

Redzeppelin

02-05-2007, 11:51 AM

The God I seek is unknowable and indefinable as to its true character. It is unthinkable and ludicrous to me to think that one can say they truly know God in any way, shape, or form. God is an idea in the mind of man. A mystery we have created for ourselves to explain or give some kind of comfort to the unexplainable or unknowable. This is not to say God does not exist.

My bottom line is that if God "tells" someone something and that person tells another, then it becomes heresay. God is perfectly capable of telling me that which he wants me to know.

The God you describe is a god of "one's own making" and that is a scary god because his existence hinges on my "creation" of him, and we create that which is like ourselves. The Bible allows us to "square" our view of God with a more "objective" view - one that He Himself sanctioned so that we could have some idea as to Who He Is and what is expected of us as servants of Him.
In essence, my view of God is legitimate only if it coincides with the God presented by the scriptures He ordained.

yingqiee

02-06-2007, 08:11 AM

I see what you mean. I suppose that we are using different definitions of "life"; mine as something split up amongst different entities, and yours as a unified whole. However, suppose that someone died. Isn't it that the being that died is cut off from life, and non eternal? Thus this appears to imply that a part of life has died, and by extension, because:

God is an idea in the mind of man. A mystery we have created for ourselves to explain or give some kind of comfort to the unexplainable or unknowable. This is not to say God does not exist.

A part of God would have died. Thus, since God is a mere idea in the mind of man, if all men died, then the idea of God would cease to exist, and God would cease to exist. Since all men are likely to die, and mankind to be extinct, God would cease to exist, which is a contradiction because by definition, God is eternal.

Thus, I feel that such a representation of God as being created by man, and man being God and God being man is flawed.

Redzeppelin

02-15-2007, 02:05 PM

Well said. That which is temporal and limited cannot conceive of that which is neither - and if we try, we will simply fashion it from an exaggerated idea of what we are (ideally - not in reality).

littlewing53

02-15-2007, 03:16 PM

may i be so humble....

Of old hast thou laid the foundtion of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed. But thou art the same, and they years shall no end. psalm 102:25-27

although the universe is perishing adn will one day be suddenly renewed, its creator never changes. his years will never end, and his word and his righteousness will never pass away.

JGL57

02-17-2007, 03:55 PM

...if all men died, then the idea of God would cease to exist, and God would cease to exist. Since all men are likely to die, and mankind to be extinct, God would cease to exist, which is a contradiction because by definition, God is eternal.

Thus, I feel that such a representation of God as being created by man, and man being God and God being man is flawed.

So, then, what is a god in your opinion, exactly?

hyperborean

02-17-2007, 04:48 PM

Referring back to "if jesus never existed", well the dark ages wouldn't have happened. Yes, Christianity brought down Rome which brought about the most unproductive era for man.

Virgil

02-17-2007, 06:57 PM

Referring back to "if jesus never existed", well the dark ages wouldn't have happened. Yes, Christianity brought down Rome which brought about the most unproductive era for man.

That is completely wrong. What brought down Rome was a combination of infectious diseases that significantly reduced their population combined with incredibly bad leadership from the Roman government, frequent civil wars, and a Germanic influx ("the barbarians") that did not have the advanced institutions that Rome had. Given the reduced population of Rome and the large Germanic population that took over large swaths of the empire, the resulting culture was mostly the backward Germanic culture. The Christian church actually salvaged some of the Roman culture, as best it could.

Let's not spread erroneous history.

hyperborean

02-17-2007, 08:59 PM

That is completely wrong. What brought down Rome was a combination of infectious diseases that significantly reduced their population combined with incredibly bad leadership from the Roman government, frequent civil wars, and a Germanic influx ("the barbarians") that did not have the advanced institutions that Rome had. Given the reduced population of Rome and the large Germanic population that took over large swaths of the empire, the resulting culture was mostly the backward Germanic culture. The Christian church actually salvaged some of the Roman culture, as best it could.

Let's not spread erroneous history.

No, the propaganda in your textbooks would probably say that "Christianity helped the world".

Christianity ruined Roman values. You're saying that people who sat around waiting to die or for jesus to come down and take selected people helped Roman values!? People stopped "living for Rome" and started "living for God". The Roman army disliked Jesus, they hated saying that they defended Rome because of prayer, and they were disgusted by Christian sacrificial rituals. Tell a western civ professor that "christianity didn't aid in the downfall of Rome" and he'll laugh. Of course there are many other reasons Rome fell; barbarians, slavery, and overall loss of roman values were big contributers. However, you cannot say that Christianity wasn't apart of the downfall.

Redzeppelin

02-17-2007, 11:05 PM

Christianity ruined Roman values. You're saying that people who sat around waiting to die or for jesus to come down and take selected people helped Roman values!? People stopped "living for Rome" and started "living for God". The Roman army disliked Jesus, they hated saying that they defended Rome because of prayer, and they were disgusted by Christian sacrificial rituals. Tell a western civ professor that "christianity didn't aid in the downfall of Rome" and he'll laugh. Of course there are many other reasons Rome fell; barbarians, slavery, and overall loss of roman values were big contributers. However, you cannot say that Christianity wasn't apart of the downfall.

Every history book I've read made it clear that Rome fell for a number of reasons, and I don't recall that Christianity played a significant role. In fact, it was actually the work of the Christian monks of the "dark ages" who copied the great works of antiquity that facilitated the resurgence of learning and art we know as the Renaissance. Would you be so kind as to specifiy which Roman "values" Christianity "ruined"? The feasting, orgies, self-indulgence, violent gladiatorial games? Christ Himself made it clear that Christians were to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" and Paul made it clear that government is established by God and that Christians were to obey established government (up until it required inappropriate compromise). Rome collapsed because all empires eventually collapse: none live forever, and the inevitable collapse of any society/empire (as history professors will tell you) is due to a number of things much more pervasive than a fledgling religious group. Rome was already fat and bloated by the time Christ showed up; Rome's frontiers were too extensive to maintain against the Eastern tribes and corruption was rife from top to bottom. Try as you might, you can't pin that on Christians - and even if you could, how was the loss of the Roman empire necessarily a bad thing?

Virgil

02-18-2007, 01:01 AM

No, the propaganda in your textbooks would probably say that "Christianity helped the world".

Christianity ruined Roman values. You're saying that people who sat around waiting to die or for jesus to come down and take selected people helped Roman values!? People stopped "living for Rome" and started "living for God". The Roman army disliked Jesus, they hated saying that they defended Rome because of prayer, and they were disgusted by Christian sacrificial rituals. Tell a western civ professor that "christianity didn't aid in the downfall of Rome" and he'll laugh. Of course there are many other reasons Rome fell; barbarians, slavery, and overall loss of roman values were big contributers. However, you cannot say that Christianity wasn't apart of the downfall.

What makes you an expert in classical history? If you have a personal problem with religion, try to respect other people's views.

Your idea that Christianity contributed to the decline of Rome was an idea that was held in the 18th century but historians today have essentially debunked it. This has nothing to do with whether I believe in Christianity or not. Why then did the eastern half of the empire, arguably the more religious half, survive for another thousand years as the Byzantine Empire? You don't know what you're talking about.

You can read about the various understandings of Roman decline here:
http://www.romanguide.com/ancientrome/fall-of-rome.html and
http://www.answers.com/topic/fall-of-rome-drink

One of the reasons which have gained in emphasis in recent years is the disease/plague which caused a severe population drop beginning into the third century. The second link I posted above has this:

William H. McNeill (b.1917), a world historian, noted in chapter three of his book Plagues and Peoples (1976) that the Roman Empire suffered a severe and protacted plague starting just before 200 A.D. For about twenty years, waves of a disease that seems to have been smallpox or measles swept through the Empire, ultimately killing about half the population. McNeill argues that the severe fall in population left the state apparatus and army too large for the population to support, leading to further economic and social decline that eventually killed the Western Empire.

The drop in population apparently caused the empire to absorb the Germanic people at first, but ultimately overwhelmed, militarily and politicaly, by them.

hyperborean

02-18-2007, 02:05 AM

I never said I was an expert in western history. Like I said in my original post...it's called propaganda. Of course the text books you read in colleges around the US are going to deny the fact that Christianity contributed to the downfall of Rome. I clicked on the links you provided and found this:

"Another reason why the Roman empire ended is because of Christianity. With its ethic, Christianity distracted the Roman elite from the problems of the empire, which could be solved only by intense and continuous application. Also the church deprived the empire of its natural leaders, as able and educated men chose to become bishops and abbots, rather than imperial governors." -http://www.romanguide.com/ancientrome/fall-of-rome.html

My buddy is getting his PhD in philosophy over in Europe and I would trust his opinion over yours. You're a smart guy, Virgil, but your ego gets the best of you. If you discredit my opinion then just say "I disagree hyperborean". Don't start calling me a child because my views vary from yours. I don't like to get into politics, but the inner conservative inside of you seems to be giving you the impulse to protect Christianity. I'm actually Catholic by the way...I just believe that Jesus' true intentions on this earth were misinterpreted. Like Nietzsche says "In truth, there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross."

redzeppelin, you are right about empires not lasting forever. Yes, Rome was going to fall eventually, but for it to collapse into dark ages was a little much. Change is good, but not when mankind is taking full steps back. And by the way, I like how you pin pointed "feasting, orgies, self-indulgence, violent gladiatorial games". All of those activities primarily took place during Rome's decline (sounds like the Roman values that HBO show "Rome" brings up).

Virgil

02-18-2007, 02:44 AM

I clicked on the links you provided and found this:

"Another reason why the Roman empire ended is because of Christianity. With its ethic, Christianity distracted the Roman elite from the problems of the empire, which could be solved only by intense and continuous application. Also the church deprived the empire of its natural leaders, as able and educated men chose to become bishops and abbots, rather than imperial governors." -http://www.romanguide.com/ancientrome/fall-of-rome.html

I'm sorry I added that cite. It was not a a historian based web site. It was the first I came across. The wiki had this:

John Bagnell Bury's History of the Later Roman Empire gives a multi-factored theory for the Fall of the Western Empire. He presents the classic "Christianity vs. pagan" theory, and debunks it, citing the relative success of the Eastern Empire, which was far more Christian.

He then examines Gibbon's "theory of moral decay," and without insulting Gibbon, finds that too simplistic, though a partial answer. He essentially presents what he called the "modern" theory, which he implicitly endorses, a combination of factors, primarily, (quoting directly from Bury, [2]:

"The Empire had come to depend on the enrollment of barbarians, in large numbers, in the army, and that it was necessary to render the service attractive to them by the prospect of power and wealth. This was, of course, a consequence of the decline in military spirit, and of depopulation, in the old civilised Mediterranean countries. The Germans in high command had been useful, but the dangers involved in the policy had been shown in the cases of Merobaudes and Arbogastes. Yet this policy need not have led to the dismemberment of the Empire, and but for that series of chances its western provinces would not have been converted, as and when they were, into German kingdoms. It may be said that a German penetration of western Europe must ultimately have come about. But even if that were certain, it might have happened in another way, at a later time, more gradually, and with less violence. The point of the present contention is that Rome's loss of her provinces in the fifth century was not an "inevitable effect of any of those features which have been rightly or wrongly described as causes or consequences of her general 'decline.'" The central fact that Rome could not dispense with the help of barbarians for her wars (gentium barbararum auxilio indigemus) may be held to be the cause of her calamities, but it was a weakness which might have continued to be far short of fatal but for the sequence of contingencies pointed out above.[3]"
In short, Bury held that a number of contingencies arose simultaneously: economic decline, Germanic expansion, depopulation of Italy, dependency on Germanic foederati for the military, the disastrous (though Bury believed unknowing) treason of Stilicho, loss of martial vigor, Aetius' murder, the lack of any leader to replace Aetius — a series of misfortunes which proved catastrophic in combination.

As you can read from later historians, the reason the Romans came to depend on the Germanic people was because of a dramatic drop in thier population.

Of course the text books you read in colleges around the US are going to deny the fact that Christianity contributed to the downfall of Rome.
I find this absolutely absurd. Are you saying that college textbooks are lying? For what purpose? If anything most college curriculm emphaisizes a Liberal point of view.

I would be perfectly willing to accept the fact that Christianity brought down the Roman empire. It would not add or detract to my beliefs. As someone who is a Roman historian buff, having read many books on the subject, I can tell you it's just wrong.

amanda_isabel

02-18-2007, 04:12 AM

the existence or non-existence of jesus really would not change the world. religion, and pretty much everything about jesus christ, is all a matter of faith.

scotoma: the mind sees what it wants to see.

see what you wish to see.

Redzeppelin

02-18-2007, 12:24 PM

the existence or non-existence of jesus really would not change the world. religion, and pretty much everything about jesus christ, is all a matter of faith.

First, I'm not sure I understand the logic of this statement. Second, how can you say that? Would you mind backing up that opinion? You speak as if Christianity and the words of Jesus have had no affect/influence in the world. That is flat-out wrong.

scotoma: the mind sees what it wants to see.
see what you wish to see.

This is true - but it's true for you as well as me - which means your perspective is as equally liable to the pitfalls of self-definition as is mine.

Scheherazade

02-18-2007, 06:50 PM

Some of the recent posts have been deleted. As we are all aware, discussion of politics is not allowed on this Forum; especially in the Religious Text section.

However, please also remember that other members' political references and/or posts against rules do not justify personalising your comments or making attacks on others either.

Logos

02-18-2007, 06:58 PM

Some of the recent posts have been deleted.

And some have been edited to remove certain little bits that are irrelevant to the discussion and used only as sharp pointy sticks to provoke :)

Yes there are general forum rules (link in my sigline) and specific rules for the Religious Texts forum. (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15410) Please don't make us close this topic.:smash:

hyperborean

02-18-2007, 07:17 PM

well if jesus never existed then we would all be jews waiting for the messiah to come down with golden robes and expensive jewels. There you go guys, I'm back on topic.

Redzeppelin

02-18-2007, 08:04 PM

Going back to the topic...well if jesus never existed then we would all be jews waiting for the messiah to come down with golden robes and expensive jewels. There you go guys, I'm back on topic.

Ergo: since we are not all Jews existing in the above depicted condition, then Jesus must have existed. Excellent.

hyperborean

02-18-2007, 08:11 PM

First off, I was kidding around (hope I didn't sound anti-semitic).

Christianity changed the world to a degree where we can't picture the world without it. Enough said...that's enough dwelling on the past for today. As sartre would say "focusing one's attention on past events would be acts of bad faith".

Redzeppelin

02-19-2007, 12:00 AM

Christianity changed the world to a degree where we can't picture the world without it.

Perhaps this is a good thing.

hyperborean

02-19-2007, 03:36 PM

Or a bad thing. It's personal opinion from here on in.

Jetxa

02-21-2007, 12:46 PM

Without a book, that position can't be challenged; with a book, then the erring Christian can be challenged by other Christians.

Just because I ran across this and it seemed appropriate to what history has shown.

"Once you write something down it becomes fixed. It becomes dogma. People can argue about it, they become authoritative, they refer to the texts, they produce new manuscripts, they argue more and soon they're putting each other to death." ~ from The Winter King by Bernard Cornwell

Redzeppelin

02-21-2007, 06:05 PM

Just because I ran across this and it seemed appropriate to what history has shown.

"Once you write something down it becomes fixed. It becomes dogma. People can argue about it, they become authoritative, they refer to the texts, they produce new manuscripts, they argue more and soon they're putting each other to death." ~ from The Winter King by Bernard Cornwell

Things that are written down are "fixed" only so much in that the words ultimately point to some thing and not to other things. "Dogma" maybe, maybe not: words still are flexible enough to contain a certain "life" within them. Many ancient books still speak to us today and many others do not - why? Because the "fixed" language in certain works continues to be relevant to generations beyond that which produced it. The alternative to having some "anchor point" ("fixed" language) is to drift aimlessly.

Cornwall's logic is reasonable, but by no means a necessarily cause-effect relationship. Just because two thing may occur in conjunction with each other does not mean they have to. I notice that Cornwall managed himself to have to resort to the "fixed" medium of print to get his point across.

Jetxa

02-21-2007, 06:28 PM

littlewing53

02-21-2007, 06:38 PM

dang, i love reading this forum....

Redzeppelin

02-21-2007, 07:01 PM

Not to change the subject, The Spell of the Sensuous by David Abram addresses the issue of how the written word has separated man from reciprocity with the natural world. A very interesting and truly worthwhile read.

Side note: I enjoy your posts, Jexta. It's such a relief to discuss these issues with someone who remains calm and focused on the argument. :)

Anyway, I understand your point in the prior post. I know that one of Christianity's stuggles deals with the argument about what the words of God mean. Much of the hostility between religions is based on the wrangling over what the words mean. I guess I see the codified writing of God's ideas about human behavior and the revelation of His character as the lesser of two evils because you can only "tweak" words so far before you change their meaning. Ultimately, "fixed" words allow us some idea as to who God is (as opposed to any-idea-I-prefer which ultimately has no real meaning outside of the individual's head).

Jetxa

02-21-2007, 08:40 PM

Interestingly, the Hebrew text was originally written without vowels. Vowels were left to the reader to be inserted and left the texts open to new intrepretation and thus was created a living, breathing "word" to be revealed by "the breath of God" to each new generation. The most holy name of God, YHWH is not a word or name but a "sound". Y-H is the sound of the breath on intake and W-H the sound of the exhaled breath. The "Word of God" was synonymous with the "breath of God" or the "breath of life".

The Greeks writings included vowels and made texts of only a single defined reading with very little left to intrepretation. God's "word" was no longer a living, breathing interaction, but the soul was now "imprisioned" within the body and no longer part of, or one with, the sensuous world and "Word of God".

Thank you much for the compliment, Red. I so do enjoy our exchanges. You keep me on my toes. ~ Jexta

Redzeppelin

02-21-2007, 08:57 PM

You bring up a good point about both Hebrew and Greek. I do believe that the written word of God is very, very limited in its ability to communicate about God (which is partially why I cannot take seriously some of the criticisms launched at God by non-believers who read through the Bible and then dismiss it). I do believe, however, that God - the ultimate "writer" (and archetype for the greatest of human writers) - is capable of working within the limitations of our language to provide us with at least a glimpse of His Self. That's why I sometimes have to rankle people's feathers by pointing out that the Bible clearly says that the Holy Spirit is what brings insight and clarity to the reader - not the Bible in and of itself. It can speak truths, but its most profound truths are revealed by God to the human heart. Reading the Bible as a non-believer is almost guaranteed to fail (unless it is the conviction and prompting of the Holy Spirit that inspires the non-believer to pick up the Bible).

blazeofglory

05-11-2008, 10:03 PM

I am studying religion.
Going trough the process of how "Christianity" went from being a jewish reform movement to an actual religion, I suddenly realized there isn't valid proof that jesus actually lived... the only the things we can rely on is the gospels.... and they years after was jesus said to have lived.

I am interested in knowing if it is 'enough' to believe he has lived... and just reactions in general...
would it change your believes???

There is no proof or document to prove the existence of Jesus. He dwells not on history but on imagination and his territory is in faith and he does not transcend this limit of faith.

Still I respect Zeus, mythological or historical for some of the ideas, perpendicularly seromons on the Mounts are appealing greatly.

Indeed such great personalities ( none-personalities?) contribute to the making of the world the way it is.

But a the same time there are fights, wars too. Man when misunderstands one another's religions