Christianity - Plague of the MIND

[lostinidlewonder]

The bible is indeed based on alot of letters, but my problem with those letters are, that they are written in a time where people had an entirely different perception of events....

This doesn't seem to make sense to me. You are saying that people in ancient history where irrational and unable to accurately understand the things they saw around themselves. This might have been true for other things but when it came to worshiping God, the Jewish people really knew what they where doing, it was based on many generations of tradition and teachings.

So if the letters of the New Testament are regarded as written by the early Christian witnesses to the Resurrection and if this is accepted by the early Christian Churches as guidance to the Christian faith, we have to measure why was this acceptance made?

Ancient Jews where extremely particular and detailed when it came to worshiping God, they treated it probably with more importance than what they do nowadays with all "modern day" factors to distract us. So what is written in the New Testament it is not just made up stuff written by some random person and believed by a few random other people who then encouraged others to do the same. The structure required for a revolutionary change in the ancient Jewish religious tradition just wouldn't work if the Jews where regarding random bits of made up letters to give them guidance. In fact the letters are ground breaking in lessons in morality and spiritual guidance all which use the teachings of Jesus as the source and source for elaboration through the Old testament.

If you compare the Old Testament to the New you will find similarity and contrasts. The thing is that the New Testament letters talk about no longer  a religion of works or following a Law for salvation, but rather a submission to guilt and an acceptance of your guilt to be dealt with through the sacrifice of Christ. But the New Testament does not do away with the Law, it re-enforces it but highlights we should not longer believe that we put ourselves right with God but following his Law but by upholding it and agreeing with it and understanding how we break our connection from God continuously, how we deal with our sin instead of trying to forget about it by continually and really hopelessly trying to follow a perfect model we will never alway maintain.

Secondly, few people could write in those days so its very much possible that dozens of people had to tell each other a story before it was actually written down, and you know what happens with stories with this treatment :p

This is not actually true. If you see what was written historically about Christ and the belief of the Resurrection it was written close to second hand and even third hand accounts of the Ressurection. Some older historical documents are written when there are even first hand witnesses to the resurrection! This is to say a lot if you study ancient history. A lot of accepted facts about history of all countries are based on accounts written 100's of years after the fact.

So it is futile to say that what is written in the Bible is all stories and mutated and corrupted. Even if things are changed, even if 50% of the bible is altered, it is impossible to destroy the message of the bible because we can measure teachings in multiple sections.

Let me give you one very brief example of how to measure what we read and how the bible texts have been corrupted. When Christ was dying on the cross one of the criminals who also was being crucified along side him asked Christ if he would essential go to Heaven. Christ responded with something along the lines of "I tell you, today you will be along side me in heaven."

Now some Christians have misinterpreted this to mean that the man was going to go to
heaven at the moment he died. This is a major misinterpretation and it is caused by the fact that a comma has been put in erroneously for the English translation, you will of course find no such punctuation in ancient Hebrew or Greek texts. It should read, I tell you today you will be ....... However Christians who study the bible will not be confused by this error, simply because we can see that Christ spoke often with the words, I tell you today etc. It was a way of expression back then, if we understand the historical context of what was being said we will not be confused, and we are shown obviously other times where this expression is being used in the bible.

But what happens if we are talking about words that have been changed? Certainly some words changed from Ancient texts to English. The characters for Raven in ancient Hebrew can mean up to 5 things for instance But the way in which the bible is written leaves no room for misinterpretation even if certain words are altered because how it is written reflects a pattern of knowledge, each which effects the other. I could almost describe it as a mathematics book in the way it so accurately orders the knowledge written in it.

In my own personal journey studying the bible i find seeing patterns in the teachings very rewarding to my understanding of the doctrines of Christianity. However Christianity is quite simple, all there is to it is Love that is the greatest commandment, but there is also the side of Christianity which will satisfy those who want to pick it apart and investigate every aspect of it. I have always done this with a neutral stance, it is useless to be bias when you research things

So if you are scared that everything in the Bible is made up then I would ask you to research who where the people who wrote the books in the New Testament. What historical evidence is there of them of actual have lived. This would require that you research others mentioning these people and it would then require you to research if what these people are saying can be believed or not. This sets you up with some work, and perhaps even you should read up on the method to study Ancient history before you try to research the history of the Bible. I would really suggest you read books concerning the historical reliability of the bible.

Thirdly, our catholic 'holy' friends in the dark ages had the tendency to change the bible as much as they pleased, as long as they were able to get richer.

All of which the Catholic church changed has been revealed to regard issues regarding hierarchy of power, they misinterpreted the bible more than changing what was written in the bible though. It is how they managed to institute a Pope as a human leader to all Roman Catholics, something which the Bible never taught should be done. How Catholics can call him and other priests Father, where the bible says that God is the only one that could be called Father. It all has to do with power control of the mass, it however does not change anything of the main teachings of Christianity, it all is essentially there. I would be confident to say that if 51% (which is ridiculous  if it is a fact, it is more like 99% of the bible is maintained) of it was there it would still be accurate enough because we can verify what we read through other texts

Even though the Catholics change things it all has been revealed and nowadays we have no excuse to say we can't study the bible because this group has change this or that. Everything that has been changed in the Bible has been documented and revealed for all to see! So if you mindlessly dive into say the Book of Mormon as truth research the history of where it came from, what evidence was given, you will find everything there is shrouded in mystery and there are no witnesses, nor any evidence of the tribes it talks of, nor any trace or witness to the tablets the books where written on etc.

The bible however is a completely different matter. If you now try to scrutinize its historical accuracy and relevance you will find you have task. All tribes mentioned in the bible can be found, there are so many places in the bible that can be found today, there are historical facts of Jewish history written in the Bible which can be verified by other non-biblical accounts of Jewish History. Jesus Christ can be found all over the place mentioned by all sorts of non-Christian ancient historians. These people wouldn't just listen to stories from one person they would actually look into things, they where professionals in their field of recording history, they where the academics of the time. They where not just some random person pulled from the street and asked to write whatever story they had heard, but this is the stupid belief some people who do not look into the facts actually believe.

Why do people believe in ancient roman history but selectively not the ancient history of the Jews regarding Christ? It is an obvious choice to ignore it! We can put all sorts of smokes and mirrors around us to deny this fact, but people are literally by choice saying, right there is evidence that Christ lived there is this evidence that he rose from the dead, I think its too hard to believe it is true because I will have to change a lot of things, humans being inherently lazy will take the easy path and simply deny and put up all sorts of doubts which give them the excuse to simply sit back and shrug their shoulders at the facts.

Yeh, people have been put away with other types of evidence and later found to be innocent.

This is true but has little relevance when it comes to testing the evidence for Christ. Sure people are put away and found to be innocent, Jesus was found to have existed and 2000 years later still found to existed. Much more time has passed to scrutinize if Christ really existed and rose from the dead.

[gyzzzmo]

Nice long reply, but its far too long for me to actually read :p

[timothy42b]

liw does go on at length, no? 

Hate to think how long church would be if liw did the sermon.

liw, you did not respond to my comment about the 20 gospels.  I've read all 20.  You mentioned that you have researched the Bible extensively so I'm sure you have read them as well.  They are clearly historical documents from the period with much to offer about the life of the early church.

I am curious as to what you thought of them.  And if you agreed with the Catholic church's decision not to include them all in the official canon. 

[gyzzzmo]

Why do people believe in ancient roman history but selectively not the ancient history of the Jews regarding Christ? It is an obvious choice to ignore it! We can put all sorts of smokes and mirrors around us to deny this fact, but people are literally by choice saying, right there is evidence that Christ lived there is this evidence that he rose from the dead, I think its too hard to believe it is true because I will have to change a lot of things, humans being inherently lazy will take the easy path and simply deny and put up all sorts of doubts which give them the excuse to simply sit back and shrug their shoulders at the facts.

K, i bothered reading the last piece, hoping it was a summary (probably not).
we only partially believe in ancient roman history. And we're not saying that this guy jesus never excisted. There's probably tons of 'evidence' that there was a guy who was bothering Jews in that era, all those guys might even be that same jesus.  But your 'facts' about any resurrecting or other miracles are highly controversial and impossible to prove.

Also the last thing you said is rather funny. Its easy to shrug shoulders at it if your parents were atheists, but if you're raised christian (like me) its very hard to start realising that all this stuff your parents have been talking about might actually not be true!

I'm not some antichrist, but i'm a scientist and criticise evething i encounter. And if you could objectivly look at your own religion and realise what its based on and how it developed last 2 millenia, there's no way of stating that your faith is scientificly founded.
But again, thats where the 'believing' starts. If you can believe those things its great for you. I know people get very comforted by those idea's, but i can't 'believe' i guess

gyzzzmo

[lostinidlewonder]

liw does go on at length, no? 

Hate to think how long church would be if liw did the sermon.

My calling in life is hardly to be a priest. It is unfortunate that my writing is long I guess, but I am a fast typer and just type my thoughts. This is a vast topic and I am hardly even highlighting the tip of the iceberg.

liw, you did not respond to my comment about the 20 gospels.  ...... They are clearly historical documents from the period with much to offer about the life of the early church.

I am curious as to what you thought of them.  And if you agreed with the Catholic church's decision not to include them all in the official canon. 

What did I think of them, can you be more specific? The Catholic Church did keep certain books which where attributed as early Christian texts but where later found to be corrupt texts and made up texts. You can certainly research the reliability of Apocrypha and realize that most of these Alexandrian translators of early Christian Church are fantasy or elaborations of the accepted gospel, the Catholic Church had good reason to censor these.

I however do not see the relevance to look into the past at what the Roman Catholic Church did when we are measuring the value of Christianity. What humans do is one thing.

... we're not saying that this guy jesus never excisted. There's probably tons of 'evidence' that there was a guy who was bothering Jews in that era, all those guys might even be that same jesus.  But your 'facts' about any resurrecting or other miracles are highly controversial and impossible to prove.

And I will say again as basically as I can, you are essential correct that it is impossible to 100% prove that the Resurrection is true, HOWEVER with research you can be close to 100% sure it is true! You research that it has to have happened to explain the effects you see. The fact you can research the historical relevance of Christianity so accurately and deeply is also an aspect unique to all religion out there.

Also the last thing you said is rather funny. Its easy to shrug shoulders at it if your parents were atheists, but if you're raised christian (like me) its very hard to start realising that all this stuff your parents have been talking about might actually not be true!

Your antithesis development is however without any basis and just a matter of opinion. Unless you have any groundbreaking revelations you'd like to share which make you realize Christianity is a sham? Certainly being a part of a family that is a part of a Christan offshoot denomination can make you have an overall negative perspective on Christianity. However this does not highlight the value of the bible beyond these human misinterpretations.

I'm not some antichrist, but i'm a scientist and criticise evething i encounter. And if you could objectivly look at your own religion and realise what its based on and how it developed last 2 millenia, there's no way of stating that your faith is scientificly founded...

So you are bascially saying the study of Ancient History is useless. I am sure a lot of Historians will be happy to cut your throat for that one 

[mike_lang]

And we're not saying that this guy jesus never excisted. There's probably tons of 'evidence' that there was a guy who was bothering Jews in that era, all those guys might even be that same jesus.  But your 'facts' about any resurrecting or other miracles are highly controversial and impossible to prove.

Hi Gyzzzmo,

I want to ask your opinion (and that of anyone else who cares to chime in :-) ), since we agree (I believe) that it is historically possible that Jesus existed.  If he truly did, what is it that made him so famous - why was he such a big deal?  What was unique about him and his work that energized the development of the church on earth in the beginning - and by this, I mean the first couple hundred years after his death - and gave it so much force?  Perhaps his rhetoric, some revolutionary social ideas, a new morality?  Just curious to see what ideas you have. 

I'm sorry if any of this has been already addressed, but the thread has grown so large that I haven't been able to keep up in following it :-)

[thalbergmad]

I want to ask your opinion (and that of anyone else who cares to chime in :-) ), since we agree (I believe) that it is historically possible that Jesus existed.  If he truly did, what is it that made him so famous - why was he such a big deal? 

Undoubtedly he was a great man and even without the ressurection, he still would have been "a big deal". He fulfilled the scriptures, healed the sick and died for our sins.

However, i think it is fair to say that the people who carried on his work and spread the word also contributed to his everlasting legacy.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

This doesn't seem to make sense to me. You are saying that people in ancient history where irrational and unable to accurately understand the things they saw around themselves.

Perhaps they had a different way of describing it.

Is it possible that Jesus suffered a spiritual death as opposed to a physical one? Was Lazarus really dead or did jesus raise him from a spiritual death?

Can we really be accurate in reading a 1st Century book with a 21st Century mind?

Thal

[gyzzzmo]

Hi Gyzzzmo,

I want to ask your opinion (and that of anyone else who cares to chime in :-) ), since we agree (I believe) that it is historically possible that Jesus existed.  If he truly did, what is it that made him so famous - why was he such a big deal?  What was unique about him and his work that energized the development of the church on earth in the beginning - and by this, I mean the first couple hundred years after his death - and gave it so much force?  Perhaps his rhetoric, some revolutionary social ideas, a new morality?  Just curious to see what ideas you have. 

I'm sorry if any of this has been already addressed, but the thread has grown so large that I haven't been able to keep up in following it :-)

Ey Michael, there i go 
Ofcourse i dont know for sure why this character jesus/christianity became so famous, and i can't throw around with 'facts' about how christianity developed. But ofcourse i have some idea's about it.
The first ingredient for movements like that is 'misery'. I've you have a bunch of people who dont have any hope for a decent future, they're willing to do everything for you, as long as you give them hope and a goal. A humble example of this is the situation of 1920-30 in Germany.
Given the second ingredient: a charismatic figure, you got yourself your puppetshow (WWII).

Thats how those movements start in general i think. But for something to grow as big as Christianity, you need something more. I dont know when Rome started adepting Christianity and why, but it could very well be politics, for getting alliances at the right places. Also, religion is a great 'tool' for getting people to do what you want (wars) or keeping your new country together after those wars. And since Rome was the centre of power in Europe, its not strange that it was Christianity what got so wide-spread.

I know im speculating, but you asked my opinion

Now yours?

gyzzzmo

[gyzzzmo]

(1)
And I will say again as basically as I can, you are essential correct that it is impossible to 100% prove that the Resurrection is true, HOWEVER with research you can be close to 100% sure it is true! You research that it has to have happened to explain the effects you see. The fact you can research the historical relevance of Christianity so accurately and deeply is also an aspect unique to all religion out there.

(2)
Your antithesis development is however without any basis and just a matter of opinion. Unless you have any groundbreaking revelations you'd like to share which make you realize Christianity is a sham? Certainly being a part of a family that is a part of a Christan offshoot denomination can make you have an overall negative perspective on Christianity. However this does not highlight the value of the bible beyond these human misinterpretations.

(3)
So you are bascially saying the study of Ancient History is useless. I am sure a lot of Historians will be happy to cut your throat for that one 

I'll keep it short :p
(1) Respecting the current ways of proving things, historians would be very happy with a percentage of 30%. Yes there might have been some jesus, meetings and dieing on crosses and whatever more. But most of the sources havent seen anything happening, wrote it down because they heard it from other people. You proudly said that most sources are second/third handed, but....... (2nd/3rd, ouch!) Adding the first centuries perception of happenings to that..

(2) Didnt say its a sham, just saying there isnt any decent proof that it happened. Maybe it DID happen, there's just no proof, and thats why i dont want to assume that its the truth.

(3) Im not saying (not even basicly) that  study of ancient history is useless. Without it, nobody can ever say that christianity is a 'sham' (your words ), or the truth.

gyzzzmo

[gyzzzmo]

oopsy, double post.

[thalbergmad]

The first ingredient for movements like that is 'misery'. I've you have a bunch of people who dont have any hope for a decent future, they're willing to do everything for you, as long as you give them hope and a goal. A humble example of this is the situation of 1920-30 in Germany.
Given the second ingredient: a charismatic figure, you got yourself your puppetshow (WWII).

Interesting point. If it were not for the Roman Occupation, would Jesus have ever been required?

I wonder how many great men would be otherwise consigned to a few sentences in the history books, were it not for chaos.

Thal

[gyzzzmo]

Interesting point. If it were not for the Roman Occupation, would Jesus have ever been required?

I wonder how many great men would be otherwise consigned to a few sentences in the history books, were it not for chaos.

Thal

Or if they chose another religion, would we all Boedists? Or if mr Lostinwonder was born in Iran, would he have been defending the Koran now?

[mike_lang]

Ey Michael, there i go 
Ofcourse i dont know for sure why this character jesus/christianity became so famous, and i can't throw around with 'facts' about how christianity developed. But ofcourse i have some idea's about it.
The first ingredient for movements like that is 'misery'. I've you have a bunch of people who dont have any hope for a decent future, they're willing to do everything for you, as long as you give them hope and a goal. A humble example of this is the situation of 1920-30 in Germany.
Given the second ingredient: a charismatic figure, you got yourself your puppetshow (WWII).

Thats how those movements start in general i think. But for something to grow as big as Christianity, you need something more. I dont know when Rome started adepting Christianity and why, but it could very well be politics, for getting alliances at the right places. Also, religion is a great 'tool' for getting people to do what you want (wars) or keeping your new country together after those wars. And since Rome was the centre of power in Europe, its not strange that it was Christianity what got so wide-spread.

I know im speculating, but you asked my opinion

Now yours?

gyzzzmo

I agree with you that a social condition could have made him and his ideology popular for a time, but it seems, as you say, that something more is needed.  It could be the Roman empire, but to my knowledge, the beginning of its political appropriation was in 313 when Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity (or, at the latest, in 392 when it became the official state religion).  This leaves the question of what kept it going for the first 300 years.

As you pointed out, Hitler was able to play on Germany's state of affairs for a time, but we of course speak there of decades, not centuries.  Thal points out the healing of the sick (which may or may not have occurred) - how were these sick healed?  Was it only certain types of illness that were cured - was Lazarus really raised from the dead (or was he just sleeping as Christ said), and was the blind man really made to see? 

You ask my opinion, and I hold personally that something extraordinary must have occurred in order for Christianity to exist today, but especially for it to have made it through the labor pangs of persecution that went on for a couple hundred years (and more).  I believe that Christ must have done something not only revolutionary, but possibly supernatural, in order for him to have been accepted truly as God, and not simply a hero, or "a god."

I believe in the existence of God, and I believe that all rules of nature are subject to this First Cause, and holding that nothing is prior to Him, I find that He must supersede nature.  This being the case, I believe that supernatural acts are possible if willed by God Himself.  Therefore, I do not find it far-fetched that He could exist in a nature by which He is able to enter time in order to accomplish His will, and having entered time, to perform, in His divinity, acts which supersede the natural law.

Nevertheless, I understand that it takes a "leap of faith" to decide that God exists, and that the history of Christ's time remains nebulous in the absence of the Bible and other written evidence.
What I am most interested in, therefore, is as I said, what Christ did that immortalized him.

[mike_lang]

He fulfilled the scriptures, healed the sick and died for our sins.

Dear Thal,

I find that "[dying] for our sins" remains enigmatic without the resurrection, and that it would of carried little or no weight if Christ had simply disappeared after his crucifixion.  What if he was simply a revolutionary who died for his cause?  If he was a liar - "destroy this temple, and I will rebuild it in three days," what would leave part of him so noble as to die for the sins of mankind?

I take issue, as you may see in my post above, with the idea of healing the sick.  It seems to me that the kind of healing spoken of in the gospels is that only type that would have become the stuff of legend (unless he were simply a magician and played tricks on people).

Just a couple of points I find to be worth considering :-)

[thalbergmad]

What if he was simply a revolutionary who died for his cause?  If he was a liar - "destroy this temple, and I will rebuild it in three days," what would leave part of him so noble as to die for the sins of mankind?

To some, he probably was a revolutionary who died for his cause.

I do not think he was a liar, but i also find it difficult to accept that everything the Bible says about him is true.

The spread of Christianity is indeed a fascinating subject on its own, and to me it would be impossible that it was built on a complete lie. However, i feel it is important to note, that whilst some people were "converted" by the word, some were converted by the sword.

Thal

[mike_lang]

whilst some people were "converted" by the word, some were converted by the sword.

I, too, enjoy this clever dictum, but I don't find it penetrates the question of the early church...

[lostinidlewonder]

Perhaps they had a different way of describing it.

Is it possible that Jesus suffered a spiritual death as opposed to a physical one? Was Lazarus really dead or did jesus raise him from a spiritual death?

Can we really be accurate in reading a 1st Century book with a 21st Century mind?

They study of ancient history allows us to know how to read the style in which the people wrote. Of course we do not read it as we would modern text but the method of reading is obvious and we can read it with just as much accuracy as we would normal texts.

...Yes there might have been some jesus, meetings and dieing on crosses and whatever more. But most of the sources havent seen anything happening, wrote it down because they heard it from other people. You proudly said that most sources are second/third handed, but....... (2nd/3rd, ouch!) Adding the first centuries perception of happenings to that..

You are misunderstanding the way in which stories where passed down in ancient times. Because they had no newspaper, no public media to write things down and tell everyone like we do these days, the way they passed on knowledge was through talking to one another. Again if you research the way in which the ancient jews passed on knowledge you will realise that even 5th hand account of the resurrection is damn accurate.

(2) Didnt say its a sham, just saying there isnt any decent proof that it happened. Maybe it DID happen, there's just no proof, and thats why i dont want to assume that its the truth.

You are avoiding the stance that you believe Christianity is a sham. If you say there is NO PROOF and no way to find the truth in Christianity and it is left up to BLIND FAITH, then you think this. But I am not going to present you again with some evidence you have to debunk. Your stance is simply, there is no proof and I do not want to search for proof, so I will say there is no proof and ignore the small amounts of proof that you wrote previously. That is really up to you, but anything you say is simply opinion and has no real academic grounds for argument.

(3) Im not saying (not even basicly) that  study of ancient history is useless. Without it, nobody can ever say that christianity is a 'sham' (your words ), or the truth.

You seem to contradict yourself now, before you said there is no proof, then you say without Ancient history you cannot say Christianity is the truth.

...Or if mr Lostinwonder was born in Iran, would he have been defending the Koran now?

I would think not. Given than in my family my mothers side is Christian and my fathers was Buddhist, I had to search for what I thought was right from the start. Of course I cannot fathom how much more difficult it would be to follow Christianity in a predominantly Muslim society or in a place with less spiritual freedom. I like to think that I would maintain my researched belief and faith no matter what.

[

To some, he probably was a revolutionary who died for his cause.

I do not think he was a liar, but i also find it difficult to accept that everything the Bible says about him is true.

The spread of Christianity is indeed a fascinating subject on its own, and to me it would be impossible that it was built on a complete lie. However, i feel it is important to note, that whilst some people were "converted" by the word, some were converted by the sword.

Christianity was never a conversion by the sword until much later on in its history when (eg: the spread of Catholicism, The Crusades). But the Catholics are hardly a voice for all Christianity they are simply the Roman authorities religious body. This is where we have to be careful when we try to understand Christianity, because there are so many denominations and bodies which adopted the Christian message it can become a complete confusion of what is the real Early Church Christian message.

It can be difficult to accept feats you read in the Bible however I have found when it comes to trying to believe them it is only the Ressurection you need. The other feats seem unimportant but are used to highlight the authority and message of the teachings. So what if (and I am not saying that there is a remote possibility that it could be) all the other stuff is inaccurate, if this guy really did die on a cross and come back to life, that is the impressive point! So I would focus your critique on the Resurrection itself. You almost would have to investigate a crime scene. If you look at a building which is in ruin and you are asked how it feel down, you will look at the results of the disaster and then come to conclusions. Just as you would look at the Resurrection, you see its effect, how it tore a divide in Ancient Jewish religious doctrines, don't just shrug at this monumental change, the reasons for it point towards the resurrection in many ways.

[timothy42b]

What did I think of them, can you be more specific? The Catholic Church did keep certain books which where attributed as early Christian texts but where later found to be corrupt texts and made up texts. You can certainly research the reliability of Apocrypha and realize that most of these Alexandrian translators of early Christian Church are fantasy or elaborations of the accepted gospel,

I'm not talking about the apocrypha or the 80 other odd books rejected by the canon.  Or the books read and quoted by Jesus, included in the canon, then later thrown out by the Protestants.  (Although I have some sympathy for Luther when he decided to get rid of Revelations and was later forced to include it anyway.) 

I'm talking about the other 16 Gospels.  You can't consider yourself to have studied the gospels, as you claim, without reading them all.

There really is no "later found to be corrupt."   By comparison to what?  There is only "later found to disagree with me, so I'll reject it." 

Okay, specifically, what did you think of the Gospel of Judas?  There are clearly inherent contradictions in the limited picture we have of him from the four, and this one offers another angle that in some ways makes much more sense.   

[maul]

It's all bullshit. Welcome to logic.

[gyzzzmo]

(1)
You are misunderstanding the way in which stories where passed down in ancient times. Because they had no newspaper, no public media to write things down and tell everyone like we do these days, the way they passed on knowledge was through talking to one another. Again if you research the way in which the ancient jews passed on knowledge you will realise that even 5th hand account of the resurrection is damn accurate.

(2)
You are avoiding the stance that you believe Christianity is a sham. If you say there is NO PROOF and no way to find the truth in Christianity and it is left up to BLIND FAITH, then you think this. But I am not going to present you again with some evidence you have to debunk. Your stance is simply, there is no proof and I do not want to search for proof, so I will say there is no proof and ignore the small amounts of proof that you wrote previously. That is really up to you, but anything you say is simply opinion and has no real academic grounds for argument.

(3)
You seem to contradict yourself now, before you said there is no proof, then you say without Ancient history you cannot say Christianity is the truth.

(4)
I would think not. Given than in my family my mothers side is Christian and my fathers was Buddhist, I had to search for what I thought was right from the start. Of course I cannot fathom how much more difficult it would be to follow Christianity in a predominantly Muslim society or in a place with less spiritual freedom. I like to think that I would maintain my researched belief and faith no matter what.

(1) With ancient Jews you probably mean the educated jews. With some thinking you'll realise the flaw.

(2) This is another factor why you and i differ so much, im a scientist and youre obviously not. An absense of proof doesnt mean that it didnt happen, it just means theres no proof. 'Sham' is your word, not mine. And i do know about some of the 'proof'. But that proof usually goes about general facts about some jesus, facts i dont care about since im not doubting his presence in the past. Other proof about wonders and other saintly stuff like resurrecting can hardly be called proof. And im saying that as a scientist, not as some antichrist. I'm not even going to start to explain it since your statement at the start of point (2) and point (3).

(3) I have no idea why this could be a contradiction. Not having proof doesnt mean you cant find proof in the future.

(4) You're not getting the point. You're raised half christian and i was talking about what would have happened with your faith if you were born in a non-christian country like Iran.

[lostinidlewonder]

....Okay, specifically, what did you think of the Gospel of Judas?  There are clearly inherent contradictions in the limited picture we have of him from the four, and this one offers another angle that in some ways makes much more sense.   

I still do not understand your question. You are asking me what I think about this Gospel but I would need a more direct question which a relevance to something. If you simply ask me what I think I don't know how to respond. So how is this question going to be relevant to the topic would help me.

If you direction challenging the accuracy of the Bible then you have a lot of things to debunk. I really do not want to discuss it all because it is a big topic and seriously if you want to see the evidence it is there online so there is no excuse to be lazy!
https://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/b_proof.shtml
https://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

These links only barely introduce the evidence however if these things are so accurate in the Bible why all of a sudden would a lie about a Resurrection be thrown in? There is no right or wrong answer here it is a question to mediate on yourself and find evidence to support your solution.

(1) With ancient Jews you probably mean the educated jews. With some thinking you'll realise the flaw.

This is your assumption that I am mistaken. Go read about how Jews passed on knowledge to one another and how it allowed them to still remain even though they have gone through all sorts of persecution throughout history. Anyway the reason why I brought this up was because you said 2nd+ hand witness of the Resurrection from a respected ancient Jewish scholar is unreliable.

... An absense of proof doesnt mean that it didnt happen, it just means theres no proof.

You are wrong if you are putting Christianity in this light because there is proof. Maybe there is no MPEG of Christ being resurrected which I am sure is what you would want.

'Sham' is your word, not mine.

Am I wrong to use the word? I am simply saying when you judge Christianity as not having proof you are really saying that you think that it is baseless and left up to magical hopeful thinking. Unless I am mistaken, however I cannot see you saying there is no evidence for Christianity in any positive light.

And i do know about some of the 'proof'. .... facts i dont care about since im not doubting his presence in the past. Other proof about wonders and other saintly stuff like resurrecting can hardly be called proof. And im saying that as a scientist, not as some antichrist. I'm not even going to start to explain it since your statement at the start of point (2) and point (3).

Antichrist basically means you are acting against Christianity. It doesn't mean you have demon horns protruding from your head and you are a terrible horrible person. When studying historical figures in our history you have to really know how to weight the evidence, if you are a scientist you know that we have to always know how to read out results and what it means. However when it comes to studying ancient history we do not work with EXACT measurements all the time, sometimes we do, often we don't. As a scientist you may not know what to do with these type of results. This is a good reason why we simply skip the difficult self research into the topic and read the academic papers already written on how to weight the evidence to prove the resurrection. Sure there will be people after reading all that still thinking that it didn't happen, but they are a minority not the majority.

It looks like we have a stalemate where I am saying there is evidence to weigh, and you are saying there is none when it comes to the Resurrection. We are not here to change each others opinions but I have given some evidence to scrutinize and no one has yet.

(4) You're not getting the point. You're raised half christian and i was talking about what would have happened with your faith if you were born in a non-christian country like Iran.

I am not getting the point? I did admit that I cannot FATHOM how much more difficult it would be to follow Christianity. So are you selectively reading? Anyway this had no relevance to the topic of the thread unless you have some reason to bring this up?

[michel dvorsky]

Jesus sounds like he would have been a nice chap.  I don't know what he did to deserve so many bad representatives these days. 

[timothy42b]

I still do not understand your question. You are asking me what I think about this Gospel but I would need a more direct question which a relevance to something.

Okay, you don't understand.  I thought you were just ducking the question, repeatedly.

I can't yet ask you a direct question because it has become clear you have not read the gospels, only small portions of them.

So I will back up a step and ask you a more general question.

I believe that the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Matthew are equally inspired of God.  From that starting point I can ask some questions about the differences in theology (approaches, not really contradictions.)  But to have that conversation we need to agree on that starting point.

Or if not, perhaps you can explain why not.  I'd rather it were your own words not a link.  You have no shortage of words, and the links you've sent before have not been directly on subject. 

[thalbergmad]

Jesus sounds like he would have been a nice chap. 

Yeh, i think i would have got on well with him.

I might have struggled should he have said "give up thy banjos and follow me". A man can only give up so much.

Thal

[lostinidlewonder]

Okay, you don't understand.  I thought you were just ducking the question, repeatedly.

I can't yet ask you a direct question because it has become clear you have not read the gospels, only small portions of them.

What gives you these assumption? I am writing on this thread to discuss and learn more. Please ask your direct question without creating a situation which give you an excuse not to.

I believe that the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Matthew are equally inspired of God.  From that starting point I can ask some questions about the differences in theology (approaches, not really contradictions.)  But to have that conversation we need to agree on that starting point.

You still have not asked your question you are stating there are differences is approaches in theology, what do you think they are or are you asking me to discuss them? If so, what is the relevance of discussing them in this thread. That is what is confusing me so if you could take control of the discussion and direct it I'd be happy .

Or if not, perhaps you can explain why not.  I'd rather it were your own words not a link.  You have no shortage of words, and the links you've sent before have not been directly on subject. 

The links oppose some of the critique concerning the accuracy of the bible in a very short which I believed you where critiquing.

[timothy42b]

The links oppose some of the critique concerning the accuracy of the bible in a very short which I believed you where critiquing.

This is what makes trying to have a conversation with you so frustrating. 

You don't respond to my questions, you don't even appear to read my posts.  I made no attack on the accuracy of the bible.  Posting links refuting an attack which I didn't make really doesn't help you to "discuss and learn more."

Discussing difference in the gospels can still be fruitful.  But.... just a gentle suggestion.  It would be helpful to read them first.  It is clear that you have not read Gospel of Judas.  It is not really even obvious you've read the synoptic gospels or you would be aware of the enormous difference between them and John.  Hope I'm not drawing too many conclusions, but your replies don't seem related to my posts so it's hard to tell. 

 

[ahinton]

Jesus sounds like he would have been a nice chap.  I don't know what he did to deserve so many bad representatives these days. 

For once I find that I can agree with you - and on both counts, too...

Best,

Alistair

[gyzzzmo]

I'm withdrawing from this discussion. If somebody doesnt understand what a 'fact' is and how something becomes a 'fact', its too hard discussing those 
But thats probably required to believe in saintly wonders.

[thalbergmad]

Me too, it is going nowhere and never will.

Thal

[gyzzzmo]

Me too, it is going nowhere and never will.

Thal

Thats why one of my first replys in this thread was about thats eventually always about 'believing'; knowing that theres something more than what actually can be supported by TRUE facts

[lostinidlewonder]

This is what makes trying to have a conversation with you so frustrating. 

You don't respond to my questions, you don't even appear to read my posts.  I made no attack on the accuracy of the bible.  Posting links refuting an attack which I didn't make really doesn't help you to "discuss and learn more."

I do not know what game you are playing at, if you want to run away from a discussion that is your problem not mine. If someone does not understand you it is your responsibility to make them understand not just say, OH I GIVE IN ITS NO USE! Please stop assuming what you know about me because you really don't know all of what I know and think.

Discussing difference in the gospels can still be fruitful.  But.... just a gentle suggestion.  It would be helpful to read them first.  It is clear that you have not read Gospel of Judas.  It is not really even obvious you've read the synoptic gospels or you would be aware of the enormous difference between them and John.  Hope I'm not drawing too many conclusions, but your replies don't seem related to my posts so it's hard to tell. 

Again here you are saying that I do not know anything so it is useless to start the discussion. So please tell me what is the problem with seeing differences between two books? In my mind this discussion has NO relevance to the topic of this thread. So I asked you kindly to direct the discussion so it has relevance, you simply throw your hands up and tell me its my fault that the discussion isn't working.


I have thrown down a number of evidence for Christianity and no one has opposed them. No one even has a clue what to do with the info. I have studied the historical accuracy of the bible for a good 10 years of my life, I am sure a few of you only think about it now and then when you try to push someone down who is researching it, or now and then give yourself an excuse not to research.

I am not here to stop people from their ways, whatever, it seems Americans like to think that everything is a competition of wits and we are here all competing with one another. That is a horrible way to learn people.

Thats why one of my first replys in this thread was about thats eventually always about 'believing'; knowing that theres something more than what actually can be supported by TRUE facts

To research the historical accuracy of the Bible or to research the evidence for the resurrection is a monumental task. People these days are so used to getting things instantly, so if they don't get it straight away they discard or put up barriers.

When someone says Christianity is a belief I say to them prove it, because I have proof it isn't and love to weigh the evidence proving that is it.

[ahinton]

Well, whatever else may or may not be said with or without justification about the ways in which this thread has continued to develop (or at least continued to continue), it has become self-evident that the long and now also long-established absence of pianistimo from this forum has by no means signalled the end of the long post, since this topic has given rise to contributions consisting of almost as many words as Christ himself is reckoned to have been dead years - and even a 217-word one from Thal, which must surely be a record for him?!

Best,

Alistair

[mike_lang]

has by no means signalled the end of the long post

Or the run-on sentence, for that matter... 

[timothy42b]

I do not know what game you are playing at, if you want to run away from a discussion that is your problem not mine.

This problem has no obvious solution.

I have no intention of attacking the bible.

You only intend to debate people you think are attacking the bible.  Since that does not include me, we can't have a conversation. 

Sorry it took me so long to realize this. 

[ahinton]

Or the run-on sentence, for that matter... 

Would you care, for the benefit of any forum members interested, to offer a definition of a "run-on sentence"?

Thanks in advance.

Best,

Alistair

[chopininov]

I do not know what game you are playing at, if you want to run away from a discussion that is your problem not mine. If someone does not understand you it is your responsibility to make them understand not just say, OH I GIVE IN ITS NO USE! Please stop assuming what you know about me because you really don't know all of what I know and think.
Again here you are saying that I do not know anything so it is useless to start the discussion. So please tell me what is the problem with seeing differences between two books? In my mind this discussion has NO relevance to the topic of this thread. So I asked you kindly to direct the discussion so it has relevance, you simply throw your hands up and tell me its my fault that the discussion isn't working.


I have thrown down a number of evidence for Christianity and no one has opposed them. No one even has a clue what to do with the info. I have studied the historical accuracy of the bible for a good 10 years of my life, I am sure a few of you only think about it now and then when you try to push someone down who is researching it, or now and then give yourself an excuse not to research.

I am not here to stop people from their ways, whatever, it seems Americans like to think that everything is a competition of wits and we are here all competing with one another. That is a horrible way to learn people.
To research the historical accuracy of the Bible or to research the evidence for the resurrection is a monumental task. People these days are so used to getting things instantly, so if they don't get it straight away they discard or put up barriers.

When someone says Christianity is a belief I say to them prove it, because I have proof it isn't and love to weigh the evidence proving that is it.

If you "believe" in something hard and long enough, eventually you'll start [making]finding evidence to support your beliefs whether they be fact or fiction.

[lostinidlewonder]

...I have no intention of attacking the bible.

You only intend to debate people you think are attacking the bible.  Since that does not include me, we can't have a conversation. 

I would love to discuss what you want to outside of this thread just to keep everything on topic and not tangent all over the place. If we start discussing the Gospel those who critique the bible might pipe up with some critique which will confuse the main focus. There is no point in debating specific issues in the bible if those critiquing it do not believe it is an accurate document to start with.

If you "believe" in something hard and long enough, eventually you'll start [making]finding evidence to support your beliefs whether they be fact or fiction.

Perhaps this works with other things but it doesn't relate to Christianity. If one is honestly interested in studying Christianity they will realize what makes it unique amongst the religions because it is not left up to belief. In fact I am not making up the evidence to support Christianity, if it came from myself I would be worried, the small amount of evidence I presented comes from scholars, people who study this their whole life and we have had hundreds of years of study on this topic closely scrutinized by many many people their whole life.

People should realize that they do not know everything, and when it comes to Christianity and the truth behind it, most people do not understand it or take the time to research it, thus they say, oh its all left up to belief and magical thinking. I am here to say you are wrong in this thinking.

[chopininov]

So what exactly is this alleged "evidence"? So far all i've seen you spew are accusations and opinions. And yes, I have read your posts.

EDIT: And if you'd be so kind as to outline these "facts" in an organized manner (preferably bullet points) it would be much appreciated. 

[lostinidlewonder]

The problem with listing evidence in point form is that it is very open to misinterpretation. You really have to research the full details of these points, but here are some points anyway and I won't be able to help myself to elaborate very slightly

- Strength of the witness of Christ. Living 1st hand witnesses to the account circulated through the New Testament. Writers of the 4 Gospels either witnessed the events themselves or relay the account of a 1st hand witness.
   There where over 500 witnesses to the post-ressurected Christ and we could certainly infer that not all of them where followers of Christ. All of these people had 1st hand eyewitness to the resurrection, and a testament themselves to spread from this witness, and it would be an understatement to say this didn't act as a catalyst to the spread of Christanity.

-Massive changes in religious teaching of Jews when Christ rose. It is really part of why there was such a great change in the religious teachings of ancient jews at that time. Those who where not following Christ immediately followed him after witnessing his resurrected body.
   You can look at this point of time as a huge nuclear bomb explosion because there is so much change in such relatively small space of time unheard of throughout history.

-Certainly researching the event when Jesus was put in the tomb to when we was found alive, there is a lot of evidence to research there. Witness from the Roman guards, witness to the empty tomb, testing critique if it was the Wrong tomb, if the body was stolen etc  etc.

-Understanding how stubborn Jew's are historically when it comes to change in their tradition or religious teachings is very important to really appreciate this great shift towards Christianity. Many tribes talked about in the bible no longer exist they have been either wiped out or assimilated into other cultures. Jews however remain, they have remained for thousands of years and why? Because of how strict they are in keeping their language, their culture and their religion. They are survived persecution throughout history, they have been killed throughout history, look at World War 2. But they still remain maintaining their religion, culture, language.
      Christ came by and turned it all upside down and with effects that have remained throughout history. Nothing in the Jewish history has ever caused so much religious change.  This to me is very striking evidence supporting the fact that Christ actually did rise or this was the greatest hoax of all time.


-Reliability of the New Testament can be verified by about 25,000 copies of early New Testament manuscripts. There are also many non-christian historians who where very hostile towards Christians but found Jesus important enough to mention and verify.

-Researching the Resurrection with evidence relating to the; medical, missing body, appearances, circumstantial evidence. Let me just expand on one point; the circumstantial evidence. Disciples died for their faith in Christ, skeptics where converted, large changes in the Jewish religious structure, communion and baptism (why did the early Christians come together to celebrate the death of Christ?), the emergence of the Church and how the Romans used it. There is plenty more but this should suffice. 

 - Analyzing Christ: determine the Identity(did Christ think of himself as Son of God?), Psychological (is Jesus mad to think that he is the son of God?) and Attributes of God (did Christ actually fulfill the attributes of what makes a God?)

To closely examine this evidence requires a lot of reading and researching time and there is certainly a lot more you have to look into that I haven't mentioned. I do not consider myself an expert in this area I certainly feel belittled when I see what other people know who devote their life to this study. I'd like to elaborate or discuss any of these points I've mentioned above though if anyone wants to say anything.

[michel dvorsky]

k. but u hav no proof.

[maul]

Idiots don't need proof.

[timothy42b]

I do not consider myself an expert in this area I certainly feel belittled when I see what other people know who devote their life to this study.

Just so you know liw's starting point:  All of this stuff appears to come from one apologist, Josh McDowell.  Skim a copy at the library or bookstore and you'll see, and also have a good idea of the reliability of the info. 

[lostinidlewonder]

k. but u hav no proof.

I don't expect everyone to be bothered learning how to weigh the evidence, I hope you never become a lawyer or police investigator

Idiots don't need proof.

Everyone needs proof in some form or another. You just don't expect a burning bush.

Just so you know liw's starting point:  All of this stuff appears to come from one apologist, Josh McDowell.  Skim a copy at the library or bookstore and you'll see, and also have a good idea of the reliability of the info. 

All this stuff appears to come from one person? Hardly. Perhaps many academics have talked about these things, but not just one person. Much of this basic info is introduced in Lee Strobel's book (and he interviewed and had commentary from many experts in the field, not just from his own opinions) which I recommended, actually and I plucked bits out of my head and mentioned them here.

[chopininov]

Regarding the "evidence" above, some of it is speculation but most of it is just you bullshitting your way out of giving a respectable answer. Telling me that there is 'a lot of evidence to research there' is not an argument. Not to mention the alleged witness reports from over 2000 years ago. I now see what the members above were talking about...

[lostinidlewonder]

Regarding the "evidence" above, some of it is speculation but most of it is just you bullshitting your way out of giving a respectable answer. Telling me that there is 'a lot of evidence to research there' is not an argument. Not to mention the alleged witness reports from over 2000 years ago. I now see what the members above were talking about...

Do you consider yourself able to study Ancient history with your blunt approach? If so, then Ancient History is all made up and scholars of Ancient History who have used it to find places, remains of tribes etc are wasting their time. Did you know archaeologists they actually found sites described in the Bible because of the Bible? Go research yourself how archaeological findings have enhanced the credibility of the Bible.

You then will throw up your hands and say WHAT ABOUT THE RESURRECTION PROVE THAT! I am sorry if you feel this way you are wanting everything too fast without effort on your behalf. It is what people these days need, INSTANT knowledge, instant gratification, instant consumption, you just don't get that when you want to accurately verify the Bible and Christ. You do not aim to prove anything you aim to weigh the information you get not just think that it is a simple maths addition question.

https://www.4truth.net/site/c.hiKXLbPNLrF/b.2903877/k.7280/Archaeology_and_the_Bible.htm

People still do not appreciate the fact that the Bible is historically accurate and archaeologically accurate. They might realize that ok it has these sites and places which are true and can be confirmed but so what? It is just useless information isn't it? It isn't telling us anything, its just telling us of places which they could have just written in anyway to make the story sound believable. Sure this could be the fact, what have you researched to make you think this way? Seeing the archaeological evidence itself is not enough, but it verifies that the Bible doesn't make up people nor places like you might find in other religions. Critics have tried to debunk the Bible with archaeological evidence but so far no one can but we can confirm facts the bible talks about with the evidence.

[chopininov]

This has nothing to do with instant gratification (this is the second time you've wedged that argument into your posts on this page alone). All I ask is for verifiable evidence. If you insist on defeating the atheistic masses with your vast knowledge of Biblical accuracy, you need proof--not speculation or observation--to validate your arguments.

[gyzzzmo]

The problem with listing evidence in point form is that it is very open to misinterpretation. You really have to research the full details of these points, but here are some points anyway and I won't be able to help myself to elaborate very slightly

There, you created your own problem. All the 'evidence' is too open for misinterpretation, wich usually means that the 'evidence' is too vague and not supported by facts. You know as much as i know, that all your 'evidence' can be easily undermined. You only need to google abit for the pro's and contra's. But you choose to believe the pro's and ignore the contra's wich leads it all back to the same thing: believing or not.
Theres just no way of proving theres a god, or that he even has a son.

But the fact that a god somehow never seems to show up, does some miracles or whatever, just to end all the arguing and killing, means 2 things for me:
A) Either there is no god at all or,
B) He's an evil son of a pregnant dog, since the killing/misery can easily be solved by a godly presence, but he chooses not to. And i prefer not to worship evil-son-of-a-bitches. And if he's evil, the bible/christianity doesnt seem to make sense.

gyzzz

[mike_lang]

But the fact that a god somehow never seems to show up, does some miracles or whatever, just to end all the arguing and killing, means 2 things for me:
A) Either there is no god at all or,
B) He's an evil son of a pregnant dog, since the killing/misery can easily be solved by a godly presence, but he chooses not to. And i prefer not to worship evil-son-of-a-bitches. And if he's evil, the bible/christianity doesnt seem to make sense.

Well, now that that's resolved, can we close this thread?

[timothy42b]

Well, now that that's resolved, can we close this thread?

Or, we could use the evidence recently presented to try to answer the original question.  I'll rephrase it a tiny bit.  Does religion in general and Christianity in particular interfere with critical thinking?  And if so, is this restricted to matters supernatural or does it generalize to the rest of life?

We don't need to look at archaeological evidence, just look at the writing here in this thread.  It is of course a very limited sample so we must be careful in drawing conclusions.

liw is drawing from Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell, each of whom draw from the other.  Neither is a researcher or scholar;  both have become very wealthy telling gullible people what they want to hear.  The question then is not whether they are right or wrong, but whether religious people can assess their writing with any degree of thinking skill or honesty.

That is the reason I and liw both recommend you read these authors.  I recommend it because I think at a glance it is apparent that they have all the style and accuracy of the National Enquirer, and liw recommends it on the theory they are credible just short of scripture itself.