Printable View
We have quotes, in ancient Greek, from people who lived after the events, but no direct words.
There is no handwriting, or drawing or anything left from Jesus. His disciples, knowing what they knew, and witnessing what they saw, did not think to preserve something for posterity.
Christ, being God etc, could easily have arranged to have a sign left somewhere, and which could be used to ward of the evil one.
If such a sign was found, what would be the reaction of believers?
regards
m t
I'm slightly confused here. I would think the quotations of the Lord Christ as recorded in the texts of the Bible are a sign from Him. I would think that testimony would stand. Personally I would be very suspicious of any relic purported to be of Him, for example the Grail. We all know Indiana Jones found THAT!!;) Hope this helps or I've helped kill another thread but I do believe the scriptures are enough to study and feed on to last many a lifetime.
Indeed, we have nothing but posthumous attributions. Anybody can say anything about somebody after they die. I could say that the resurrected personage of my deceased friend appeared to me in the restroom at a McDonalds, and while you might not believe, you couldn't exactly refute me. I think such is the case with the Gospel accounts.Quote:
Originally Posted by mike thomas
The question as I understand it is that there are no writings by the hand of Jesus, attributable to his own hand in his own time. All the gospel narratives, anecdotes, letters, etc. occurred as early as 30 years after his supposed death, and perhaps as late as 60 to 90 years later, in the case of the Gospel According to John. In other words, there is no letter with Jesus' signature. No piece of wood he carved, not even anything written by someone who was actually with him at the time of his life. Everything we know about Jesus came from what people wrote down decades after his time.Quote:
I'm slightly confused here. I would think the quotations of the Lord Christ as recorded in the texts of the Bible are a sign from Him. I would think that testimony would stand.
Here is a quote by Bible scholar Bart Ehrman, which came out of a debate with evangelist William Lane Craig in Worcester, Massachusetts, in 2006:
http://www.holycross.edu/departments...transcript.pdf
Quote:
What do we have with the Gospels of the New Testament? Well, unfortunately we’re not as well off as we would like to be. We’d like to be extremely well off because the Gospels tell us about Jesus, and they are our best sources for Jesus. But how good are they as historical sources? I’m not questioning whether they’re valuable as theological sources or sources for religious information. But how good are they as historical sources? Unfortunately, they’re not as good as we would like. The Gospels were written 35 to 65 years after Jesus’ death—35 or 65 years after his death, not by people who were eyewitnesses, but by people living later. The Gospels were written by highly literate, trained, Greek-speaking Christians of the second and third generation. They’re not written by Jesus’ Aramaic-speaking followers. They’re written by people living 30, 40, 50, 60 years later. Where did these people get their information from? I should point out that the Gospels say they’re written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But that’s just in your English Bible. That’s the title of these Gospels, but whoever wrote the Gospel of Matthew didn’t call it the Gospel of Matthew. Whoever wrote the Gospel of Matthew simply wrote his Gospel, and somebody later said it’s the Gospel according to Matthew. Somebody later is telling you who wrote it. The titles are later additions. These are not eyewitness accounts. So where did they get their stories from?
"Indeed, we have nothing but posthumous attributions. Anybody can say anything about somebody after they die. I could say that the resurrected personage of my deceased friend appeared to me in the restroom at a McDonalds, and while you might not believe, you couldn't exactly refute me. I think such is the case with the Gospel accounts."
But you would be slightly more convincing if you and all your friends were prepared to die rather than admit that your deceased friend had not appeared to you in Macdonalds.
I agree on this, mon ami, but I think the movie did get one point right. Jesus was a simple man. His work experience was a carpenter. There would be no "Holy Grail" as in some large Gold or Silver chalice if it were the cup from the Last Supper. Wooden or earthenware, and very anceint, not bright and new looking. But seriously, ever noted the wording of these two scriptures:Quote:
Originally Posted by mtpspur
Matt.12
[39] But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
Matt.16
[4] A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.
Perhaps we are not meant to look for signs. Most of us, if we would be truly honest, find it difficult enough to simply try to "love thy neighbor as thyself." We grow angry without cause, bicker and fight, become selfish, hold grudges, and are apt to be quick with our mouth. And please note I said "we" which includes me.
God Bless
Pen
That is, indeed, how the argument goes, Whifflingpin, and a good point it is. The willingness to martyr oneself for an ideal is a real challenge to the skeptics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whifflingpin
That kind of starts to move me toward the subject of the psychological reality of one's spiritual convictions, and I thank you for budging me in that direction. As mtpspur correctly observed,
And, it's not because I agree with him on the factual merits of the historical truth of the gospels, but on their personal meaning.Quote:
I would think the quotations of the Lord Christ as recorded in the texts of the Bible are a sign from Him. I would think that testimony would stand.
I am led to wonder why some of Jesus' disciples were willing to risk their necks to propagate his teachings, was it because they so believed he really did rise from the dead? No, I don't really believe that. I think they were convinced by the wisdom of his living message. It's like being a salesperson. If you don't have a strong belief in the product, you're not going to be convinced that it is something of value. I think the disciples were sincere that what they were promoting was something of value for their time.
In response to Pendragon:
That might be what I would write into the narration if I mythologized the life of a long-since deceased human being I was trying to transform into a god through my writings. Just add to the story, "and if you go looking for evidence to confirm or deny my story, then you are evil and adulterous." See the problem? That kind of ad hoc scare tactic is still used by politicians today to keep the skeptical minded from looking too closely at what it is they are signing off to. It doesn't change our problem from an historic point of view, which is that those are sayings attributed to Jesus, but we don't know that he really said them because they were written decades after what was said to have occurred. And that brings us exactly back to the question of the first post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
"I am led to wonder why some of Jesus' disciples were willing to risk their necks to propagate his teachings, was it because they so believed he really did rise from the dead? No, I don't really believe that. I think they were convinced by the wisdom of his living message."
"Willing to risk their necks" is a feeble description - I understand that ten out of the twelve disciples chosen by Jesus did in fact suffer martyrdom, as did many others who met or knew him, starting with Stephen, who died, not repeating the Sermon on the Mount, but proclaiming the resurrection.
Paul, who probably did not know Jesus, but who was martyred before some of those who did, said that if Christ was not raised from the dead then his faith was vain. That was not sales hype in praise of a good teacher, it was a statement of a belief worth dying for.
Why would you second guess their stated words? I think few people surrender their lives for teachings that don't connect to eternity; having seen Christ's resurrection gave the apostles the power of knowing that death was not to be feared. As to your earlier comment on the difficulty of verifying Christ historically - surely you know that much of history is based upon eyewitness account - much of which could not stand up to our modern ideas of verification. We're quite willing to accept some archeologist's vision of ancient society, but not the eyewitness testimony?Quote:
Originally Posted by earthboar
I fully disagree; are you aware of the kinds of deaths some of the these men and women underwent for their beliefs? Sorry - I do not think people submit to this simply for "wisdom." Paul made it clear that if the resurrection of Christ is not true, than nothing else in Christianity matters because nothing else in Christianity can provide salvation/eternal life.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthboar
According to the Bible, Christ was seen by 500+ individuals after his death on the cross. Your doubt about the words of Jesus must be applied to many things said by many individuals throughout history; don't you see that you can't dismiss the historicity of Jesus without bringing many other aspects of accepted history into question? Isn't the real issue about who Jesus was? If he was the son of God, why would we doubt the veracity of the apostles accounts?Quote:
Originally Posted by earthboar
As Matthew was one of the Twelve Disciples of Christ, and as Wiff pointed out, very willing to die for what he believed to be the truth, (Matthew, the tax-collector from Nazareth who wrote a gospel in Hebrew, was preaching in Ethiopia when he suffered martyrdom by the sword (about 60 A.D.). http://www.allaboutfollowingjesus.or...he-martyrs.htmQuote:
Originally Posted by earthboar
I think we can safely say he, knowing what he preached was considered heresy and punishable by death would not lie.
God bless.
Pen
It's the question of whose words might we be second-guessing. Are they the writer's words, or Jesus' words? This isn't a discussion about faith, but that the earliest known accounts of Jesus don't seem to appear until about 60 C.E. Bringing the question back to the original post, were there no literate disciples among Jesus' followers to write down what he said at the time of his life?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Much of modern history is documented as it happens. What we have with the gospels is a different form of journalism. They are narratives that vary, one from the other, and written decades after the supposed event.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Martyrdom exists today, in cultures by people who have never witnessed a resurrected Mohammed, let's say, or some other prophet. The thought of the bravery of the early Christians to die for their convictions is as powerful today as it was to Constantine, who probably witnessed such martyrdoms and was impressed by their resolve. Yet, by 300 C.E., though many were willing to die for their belief, it is unlikely that all those that were martyred actually experienced a resurrection vision for themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Paul had a powerful epiphany, which seemed true unto himself. He was obviously good at convincing others of the reality of his personal experience, and the reality of someone he had never actually known.
I'm not questioning that modern followers have equally strong convictions. I'm simply looking at the provenance of the record. To reiterate, I think the original poster was very direct about asking why there was no written record from the time of Christ. That gospels and epistles were plentiful by the end of the First Century is without dispute. That person pointed out--justly so, I think--that provenance goes no further back than about 60 C.E.
Why not?
The Qumran Community were still writing Dead Sea Scrolls at that time. We have Dead Sea Scrolls written at the time of Jesus! Not just scrolls, but inkwells with dried ink in them. Artifacts from 0-to-32 C.E. abound in the Judean Desert. They don't mention Jesus of Nazareth, however. Maybe he visited Qumran, maybe not, who knows? The Qumran community wasn't that far from Jerusalem, so it is conceivable Jesus might have visited them. The point is, people were writing during that period. Everyone, that is, but Jesus and his disciples. Maybe there are some primary sources that simply have not been discovered? Maybe there are primary sources that have been discovered, but are in private hands, and are being deliberately silenced, for some reason.
(see: The Jesus Papers, Exposing the Greatest Coverup in History)
Flavius Josephus, a contemporary, was also writing during that time. Even though his famous lines in reference to Jesus have since been discredited as very late European forgeries, his other accounts of the 2nd Jewish revolt stand, as does his description of the three sects of Judaism--Pharissee, Saddccee, and Essene.
Ok, well, whether that is so or not falls out of the scope of this thread. When I quoted Prof. Ehrman, I was doing so because he is a respected scholar in the field, and also happens to be a skeptic. I pulled his quote from an argument against the resurrection as history, but the statement I used directly applies to this conversation: The earliest gospels were narratives of uncertain origin written beginning in the third decade after the death of Jesus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
To Pendragon:
I think it is not safe to say that Matthew the Disciple was the actual author of the Gospel According to Matthew. We know only that it was a document attributed to Matthew. I don't think there is an actual copy of the Gospel of Matthew that was signed by Matthew. Do you know of such a copy? Pseudepigrapha were common between 300 B.C.E. and 300 C.E. That's 600 years at least of writers attributing their documents to more famous personages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
Thanks!
If we treat the gospels as we treat any book we can actually admire the artistic aspect of them. How Mathew use references to the old testament knowing his public had those books as references or how John seeks allegories to enrich the spiritual side of his story. But the main part is : Neither of them (the 4 gospels) are works of History but story. Even if we analyse the historians of that time (Flavio Josefo among them) we are going to see that the style of the text was different from the gospels.
It is pretty obvious that the writers of the gospels are not worried with the veracidity of the story they told (even because the difference is that we worry about it now, they didn't, so they do not have the same care) and that is why the gospels are a doubtful source for History.
OK. That is a line of thinking that may or may not have a valid reasoning. I will concede that.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthboar
To take this to more recent levels, the plays of Shakespeare have always been of dispute as to whether or not he actually authored them. I have it on good authority that his signature never spells his last name the same way twice. So what we have is a series of plays attributed to Shakespeare, but we cannot be certain that he wrote all or most of them. What do we go by to claim authenticity? The manner of writing, and the language use, the way the words are put together. But, what one man may do another may imitate. So we are back to square one. We either accept the plays or we go with the scholars that proclaim them written by others.
The same goes for The Gospel of Matthew. We either accept that Matthew authored it, or go with the ones who say nay.
God Bless
Pen
That make no sense at all.
There was a playwritter named Shakespeare and that bulk of plays that are atributed to him have several similarities that make people believe with a certain degree that are from the same man. Some people still dispute who was this man.
The Gospels are never atributed to Mathew, there is no texts to be used a comparassion (if I am not mistaken there is not even a original language source), and they are named "Mathew" latter and not based in anything but some tradition.
Shakespeare texts are contested as being his work - and we have evidences to believe this - so it is very reasonable what earthboar propose - There is no way to claim any gospel was written by eyewittness since even the source that selected the gospels centuries ago and we can have any evidence of the authorship. (Comparing with Shakespeare is silly, if we knew for sure about Shakespeare it would not affect the fact we do not know about the gospels, as we are not sure about Homer)
I don't think it has ever been disproven that the gospel was written, or at least originated from Matthew. One problem with the gospels, which isn't even a problem to me, is the possibility of their having originated as an oral tradition. I allow for that possibility, and I equally allow that a Third Century Gospel of Mary Magdalene was, in fact, inspired by the words of the long-since dead Mary Magdalene, companion to Jesus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
To tie this back to the O.P., if nothing in written form survived the Jesus years, then perhaps the orally recorded history did. With a stern caveat: The stories were reported and re-reported, until they achieved mythical and fantastic proportions, something like Louis Wain's progression of cat paintings.
We have now drifted so far off the original problem, thank you, Earthboar for the stern beware, that we were in danger of the thread locking. Camillo, I was just trying to point out a comparison. I am sorry that you find it irrelevant, based on the fact that even if we knew for certain about Shakespeare we would still have the original problem with Matthew.
Earthboar, I would hesitate to say that no written work by Matthew ever existed. Having been a tax collector, he would have certainly been educated enough to read and write, since he would have been required to keep records. Oral tradition was something that was passed down, but the Scribes of the Levites were always at work copying new scrolls of the Old Testament. The scrolls were copied word for word, ready for the day when one wore out and needed to be replaced.
A good point on that is when the wise men came seeking Jesus and asked Herod the king.
Matt.2
[1] Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
[2] Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
[3] When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
[4] And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.
[5] And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,
[6] And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.
He knew where to look for the information, in the scrolls, and the scribes knew chapter and verse.
I know from the KJV that at least one more book is missing, for Paul says
Col.4
[13] For I bear him record, that he hath a great zeal for you, and them that are in Laodicea, and them in Hierapolis.
[15] Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.
[16] And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.
So the Bible I read seems short by one book. If the scholars read this and had that book, I wonder why they would leave it out?
God Bless
Pen
In my opinion, Jesus Christ DID leave a sign.Quote:
Originally Posted by mike thomas
It is the Shroud of Turin.
http://www.shroudstory.com/
http://www.factsplusfacts.com/shroud...negativity.htm
http://www.factsplusfacts.com/
http://www.shroudofturin.com/
http://www.shroud.com/menu.htm
Strange that you say the disciples of Jesus did not leave anything for posterity.
The entire New Testament of the Bible is written by disciples who were eye-witnesses of the Resurrected Christ.
It was a very good reason. If I get a time machine and travel to find Mathew writing the gospels I would still unware of Shakespeare writting, in other worlds, I would have to travel to england to see Shakespeare writing. They are not related to serve as a fair comparasion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
But the worst part is that people doubt about Shakespare autorship so why would not any reasonable person doubt about the authorship of a text that had no signature, no original and was found decades after the supposed author was dead?
The "fact" that Mathews wrote the gospel is considerable more fragile than the "fact" Shakespeare wrote the Taming of the Shrew.
Jesus was very likely able to write as well - read for most part - if we consider that he was educated in the study of the hebrewish holy texts. Yet, we do not have those texts. Also, Mathews text is not a journal writen down registering daily facts, as would be a eyewittness text. In fact, we can see lots of influence of OT texts, which make safe to believe the writer of Mathew's gospels was closer to be a poet than a journalist.Quote:
Earthboar, I would hesitate to say that no written work by Matthew ever existed. Having been a tax collector, he would have certainly been educated enough to read and write, since he would have been required to keep records.
Yes, they duty, about their "sacred" function. But they are a minority (as the other societies back them) since the text production was slower, more expensive and materials more rare. That society still mostly a oral tradition society where the majority did not considered to left writings like we do.Quote:
Oral tradition was something that was passed down, but the Scribes of the Levites were always at work copying new scrolls of the Old Testament. The scrolls were copied word for word, ready for the day when one wore out and needed to be replaced.
Yes, it shows the rarity of the scrolls and the scribes. Herodes, a rich, upperclass man had access to them and even so he needed one class (scribes) to perform the duty. It is good to show that not everyone wrote, had access to texts, etc.Quote:
A good point on that is when the wise men came seeking Jesus and asked Herod the king.
Matt.2
[1] Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
[2] Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
[3] When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
[4] And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.
[5] And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,
[6] And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.
He knew where to look for the information, in the scrolls, and the scribes knew chapter and verse.
Paul could not tell anything about the bible which was selected 300 years after him and we all know well several gospels are left out of the bible for several reasons. The epistles are just letters, writen by people who never meet Jesus, I can not see the importance of this information in this topic.Quote:
I know from the KJV that at least one more book is missing, for Paul says
Col.4
[13] For I bear him record, that he hath a great zeal for you, and them that are in Laodicea, and them in Hierapolis.
[15] Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.
[16] And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.
So the Bible I read seems short by one book. If the scholars read this and had that book, I wonder why they would leave it out?
This Shroud of Turin myth is long debunked. It was sent by the Church to three different places for dating and all came up with the results of it being a fraud.Quote:
Originally Posted by sciencefan
Incorrect. Paul never knew Jesus and the Gospels were written thirty to sixty years after his death by unknown authors and were named after the disciples, not written by them.Quote:
Originally Posted by sciencefan
Rather than go point by point, I'll restate my position in a simple way: I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God; that means that I believe that what is written in it is from God - maybe not every specific word choice, but that the ideas, the concepts, and the episodes given are provided by God. As such, those assumptions require me to also believe that the Gospels were inspired by God and that they reflect an accurate portrayal of Jesus Christ, his words, deeds and actions. Once we treat the Bible as a simple historical document, it falls apart under textual scrutiny such as that you are suggesting. Fine - but that "falling apart" is made under the assumption that the Bible is a humanly conceived and exectued document. It's not. Once we establish the "frame" concept that God is behind the Bible, then many things that humanly conceived books suffer from, the Bible becomes immune to.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthboar
That explanation satisfies me, believe it or not. Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
It is easy to find a skeptic on any subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Star
Whoa! Really? Wow. I'm kind of stunned into silence here. Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthboar
Well, I would point out something about this. What has been debunked is that the Shroud of Turin could have ever been the cloth Jesus was buried in. It is simply not old enough. How the image was put into the cloth is more of a mystery, for the cloth is old enough to pre-date photography and it gives a positive image in the negative.Quote:
Originally Posted by sciencefan
I would call it debunked myself, simply on the fact that it shows the face of Jesus as artists usually depict Him, and no one knows what He looked like.
Kudus to Red for a good explanation that did the job of helping the problem. I had wandered myself from the simple path into defense of authorship, instead of simple acceptance of God's word as that. Thank you for the reminder, Red.
God Bless
Pen
http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l1...lies/Peace.gif
It is the opinion of many, that the Shroud has NOT been proven to be of the wrong age. It is the C14 dating that was done wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
I would also like to point out that it is believed that the reason art looks like the Shroud is because some artists saw the Shroud (when it was known as the Mandylion) and copied it, not the other way around.
The Shroud is a photograph of Jesus before He resurrected from the dead.
I am glad that Red answered your concern for you.
I was responding to the OP- mike thomas-
but as of yet I have not received a response.
C14 cant be done wrong, especially not by more than one group on one item.
C14 is one of the most acurrate forms of dating we have, and can bring any object that is being dated as close to its origin as possible, give of take 50 years. when you sre dating something that is over a thousand years old, 50 years either side of its dat is pretty good going.
http://www.livescience.com/history/0...in_shroud.html
Personally i dont think Jesus left any personal sign for mankind. The only written documentations about Jesus from the time of his death are Roman Annuls that, if i recall correctly, were written by Tacitus and portray jesus as an ordinary man, not the divine son of god.
Camera Obscura. Leonardo knew about them. They were first mentioned by Chinese philosopher Mo-Ti in the 5th Century.. The first known constructed camera obscura was by Muslim scholar Ibn al-Haitham in the 11th Century. How did the image get etched onto the cloth? Silver nitrate, or some other photo-sensitive chemical that alchemists would have been playing around with in Da Vinci's time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
Also, there was supposedly a second face discovered on the Shroud.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3624753.stm
While some speculate, "Is that one Jesus' face?" More than likely it was the result of the cloth or subject outside of the camera obscura moving. In those days, for an image on an object like the Shroud to develop, it would have taken several hours of exposure. It is conjectured Leonardo used a cadaver.
If it had been a genuine shroud, it seems highly unlikely that a merry prankster would have tried etching another, bogus image on top of an authentic image, that notion just defeats reason.
Yeah, sorry, I gave the wrong impression. I believe it very likely that disciples, apostles and others wrote down Jesus' communications. Where they are now, who knows? So many writings have turned up over the centuries, a periodical was named for it, called "Discoveries of the Judean Desert", which began publishing excerpts from the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1950s. Another question is whether such writings may, in fact, be in the hands of some private collectors or organizations, but have not risen to publicity level, or perhaps remain untranslated. You know, when the Nag Hammadi codices were first discovered, many of them were burned as kindling before a light went off in the Egyptian fellow's head that these might be valuable. There are a whole range of options as to why we don't know about such provenance, but I agree, it is not justifiable to say there are no such writings or artifacts, only that we don't know of any.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
Reggarding the shroud, it is also false that it portraits Jesus face as the artists did it, during the middle age it was very commum a Jesus without beard as well. It was the popularity of the renascense authors that defined "jesus face" because a beard is a genuine way to portrait a middle aged man. Just like Maria Magdalena portrait have similarities or the long bearded God - those are images that turned popular (besides the obvious influence of the shroud image).
I think it must be obvious when I - and that was what I thought earthboar was talking - that when he says left no writing is not that never wrote anything, as even sailors may write down their commercial trades, is a reference to a document such as the gospels or letters and that obviously we are talking about documents that we are aware of.
One flaw in the equation is that this prophecy from Isaiah 50:Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
[4] The Lord GOD hath given me the tongue of the learned, that I should know how to speak a word in season to him that is weary: he wakeneth morning by morning, he wakeneth mine ear to hear as the learned.
[5] The Lord GOD hath opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious, neither turned away back.
[6] I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting.
[7] For the Lord GOD will help me; therefore shall I not be confounded: therefore have I set my face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed.
would seem to indicate that along with the beating, they also pulled Jesus' beard out, common enough in those days to shame a man.
II Samuel 10:
[4] Wherefore Hanun took David's servants, and shaved off the one half of their beards, and cut off their garments in the middle, even to their buttocks, and sent them away.
[5] When they told it unto David, he sent to meet them, because the men were greatly ashamed: and the king said, Tarry at Jericho until your beards be grown, and then return.
<Camera Obscura. Leonardo knew about them. >
As did I Earthboar, but my mind slips from time to time. Quite correct.
And now, the biggie. This shroud being true or false will not be what decides my faith. My faith in God is already decided as true, and in Jesus as true. What did He leave for me? Forgivness for my sins. That is plenty.
God Bless
Pen.
http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l1...asterCross.gif
So, explain to me first of all, why no one in the realms of theology or history would take the claim that the Gospels were written by the folks they were named after seriously, why you think Jesus' disciples would live to between sixty and ninety in a time where people were lucky to hit thirty five...and what has to do with me being a skeptic.Quote:
Originally Posted by sciencefan
I'd also like to know why three different uses of Radiometric dating on that piece of cloth all said it was from the 13th or 14th century if it was the cloth actually on Jesus.
This has nothing to do with skepticism, you were simply wrong.
The Roman Annals, like every non-Christian source (unless one considers the Gospel of Thomas to be a non-Christian source :rolleyes:) on Jesus weren't written until post 100 AD and tend to contain second and third hand hearsay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niamh
Amazing. So, the bible will contradict the fact that Jesus was also portraited without beard during the dark ages as well ? I suppose we should destroy all those byzantine vitrals with the bible. :idea:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
Then why trying to build up such argument that Jesus have an universal figure with beard and thus the shroud is true because the beard there? It is a flawed argument... If the Shroud is a farse the artist would use the beard because it is an universal figure and he had to use a figure people would reckon as Jesus and it is factual, poor of the bible prophets, that Jesus was also portraied without beard before.Quote:
And now, the biggie. This shroud being true or false will not be what decides my faith. My faith in God is already decided as true, and in Jesus as true. What did He leave for me? Forgivness for my sins. That is plenty.
I used to have a 5 picture set of creation and Jesus as a black person in the middle.
Please bear in mind I said "would seem to indicate", not "proves".Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
I stated that I would be satistfiied that the shroud was false merely because the face appears to match the common conception of Jesus. Others, yourself for example, may not see it that way. It is something called "preception, or point of view". Everyone may see the same thing and yet see it differently. The scientific evidence is overwhelming that the cloth is simply not old enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
Now the question is one of faith. Does mine lie in the cloth that may or may not be the burial cloth of Jesus or in Jesus himself? In other words, do I believe there was a ressurection? I do. That is something that cannot happen by any scientific means, when the body has been dead three days, buried in the cave tomb. It would take a power beyond science, the power of God. Let argument cease on this point.
God Bless
Pen
http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l1...Kane/Angel.gif
Rather than continue with this argument over what is considered a religious artifact by the church, and Maybe to keep on track of the topic, we should be discussing that the personal mark or sign that Jesus left for mankind and his followers is his word, wisdom and his death. We have no evidence that these words were truely spoken by Jesus but the whole point of christainity is faith, so therefore we should have faith in these words and not look for evidence. The fact that he died on the cross for humanity, is the sign he left. He is basicly saying "i died for you, so that you can feel the true love of god. Love one another as i have loved you."
Also in the mean time i'd like to remind you to respect each others opinions. Just because we believe one thing doesnt mean everyone should. Everyones opinions are equal and should therefore be treated as equal. :)
I have no intention of debating with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Star
You will never change your mind, and neither will I.
Apparently the original poster has no intention of taking part in this discussion he started.
I am not here to argue with people.
Allow me to suggest something I've gleaned from a recent reading of Philip Yancy's Disappointment with God.
Had Christ left actual evidence - writings or something such - we would still not be convinced of anything. This idea also points to the atheists who insist that "proof" of God is necessary for them to believe. The OT gives us ample proof in the Israelites during the exodus from Egypt that belies the idea that a tangible demonstration from God would silence scoffers. The Israelites had tangible proof of God's presence - He guided them in the form of a cloud and pillar of fire, gave them water from rocks, parted the Red Sea, opened the earth to swallow rebels and gave them startling military victories and clearly demonstrated His presence in the desert tabernacle and on Mt. Sinai. Nonetheless, none of these "proofs" apparently convinced the Israelites to serve God for longer than a few weeks/months at a time. Apparently, even "proof" is insufficient to foster the proper faith in God. God made Himself a daily, tangible reality in the world of the Israelites, and it did nothing to bring them into a proper relationship with God; in fact, they continued to be rebellious and unfaithful throughout the OT history.
So much for proof.
You know me, Red, and you know how I stand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
But I hardly think your statement is completely fair. Many people who choose not to believe in God do not do so because they are firmly convinced that God does not exist. Rather they do not believe that God as described in the Bible doesn't exist. They cannot equate a God of love with the very obvious terrible things that go on in this world.
I have been asked the question many times, "Couldn't God stop it, if He is so loving and all-powerful?" Not a question with an easy answer, slice it anyway you like.
I don't know you personally, mon ami, maybe everything has always gone good for you. For one like myself who must daily walk that razors edge, faith has come at a high price. I will not lie to people, and tell them that God doesn't allow things to happen. He does.
I don't claim, as some do, to understand the purpose behind all of it. To do so would be another lie. Will I become your enemy because I am unafraid to face the truth, that no one really understands God, we only know of Him what He allows us to know?
Niamh said it best right here: The fact that he died on the cross for humanity, is the sign he left. He is basicly saying "i died for you, so that you can feel the true love of god. Love one another as i have loved you."
That is all we know of Him. We accept it, the love and the grace, and try to pass it along, even when people don't accept us. The rest, all that God is and His purpose in doing things, we cannot understand.
In closing, I will say that, like the Devil, God gets the blame for a lot of things that are all too human.
Matthew 24:
[3] And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
[4] And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
[5] For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
[6] And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
[7] For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
[8] All these are the beginning of sorrows.
[9] Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
[10] And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
[11] And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
[12] And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
[13] But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
[14] And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
God Bless
Pen
http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l1...asterCross.gif
See, I question all of that. I don't know that Jesus died for me, or that Jesus even died on the Cross. I only know those things were written into gospels, many of them, after the life of the one about whom they were written.
If there is anything about the many gospels written in the First and Second Centuries I would trust, that might be Jesus' humanism, and faith in human potential, rather than a theological ideology. Jesus didn't say he was God, but according to the Gospel of John, he did say we are all gods:
John 10:34 - Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'?
My interpretation of Jesus' teachings? He was showing us how to be like gods. When he called himself the son of God (John 10:36), he did not say, "that applies to me, only, and not you."
It's historical relevance is all moot, anyway, since those were sayings written by others between 60 CE and 100 CE. We don't know who actually wrote them, but we know people gave them names like "The Gospel of John".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
OK. That is exactly what I was saying. Some question the Bible, or perhaps better stated, the way the Bible has been presented to them. Earthboar, you state you do not know that Jesus died for you or even that He died on the cross. This isn't because you haven't heard it or read it in the Bible. It is because it is something you find difficult to accept. And please, people, trying to force feed others what you personally believe has caused a lot of heartache.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthboar
Rom.14 [5] One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. Note the part I highlighted.
I don't have the answers. People say, "You're a preacher, you're supposed to have the answers!" Why? Am I super-human? Did I suddenly become divine? Do you pray to me? Of course not. I have to study for a sermon, and if I should get that wrong, I will answer for it someday myself. I'll pray for you, Earthboar, but in the end, you must find your own peace with God.
God Bless
Pen
http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l1...lies/Peace.gif
Pen, I'm not sure which part of my statement you quoted that you take issue with; I'm well aware that there are many, many reasons for which people decide God is not real; my comments were in reference to the numerous posts I've read and responded to sprinkled throughout the religious threads where non-believers insist upon some sort of "evidence" in order to believe in God; my comments simply pointed out that even a direct "appearance" by God (as the Israelites experienced) would likely be insufficient to change their hearts (as it failed to do for the Israelites). How does that point suddenly warrant your response to me?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
I'm also at a loss as to how my response warrants a comment about my life in terms of its "suffering content." Could you help me a bit?