NationStates Jolt Archive

This was part of my question in Did Jesus really exist? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545783) but it got ignored, so I figured I'd try it out in its own thread.

If it was somehow proven that Jesus did not exist, would that hurt your faith?

(And this isn't about whether or not it can be proven either way)

This was part of my question in Did Jesus really exist? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545783) but it got ignored, so I figured I'd try it out in its own thread.

If it was somehow proven that Jesus did not exist, would that hurt your faith?

(And this isn't about whether or not it can be proven either way)


If there was no Jesus, and even if there was, but there was no death and resurrection, then as Paul said it, our faith would be in vain. The entire faith is that we are saved from sin, by his sacrifice, and when we accept that sacrifice, we come back into communion with el Shaddai, our Almighty God. And when we are in that communion we are lead to do things that we never would have imagined doing before. So everything in our faith rests on Jesus Christ being real, being the God in flesh, dying upon a cross, and rising again.

Interestingly, as a sop to those who suspect this of atheists, even if he was proved to exist, I would not give my life over to loving him - I simply wouldn't.

Happy to accept he existed if it's proved, totally unlikely to become Christian.

If there was no Jesus, and even if there was, but there was no death and resurrection, then as Paul said it, our faith would be in vain. The entire faith is that we are saved from sin, by his sacrifice, and when we accept that sacrifice, we come back into communion with el Shaddai, our Almighty God. And when we are in that communion we are lead to do things that we never would have imagined doing before. So everything in our faith rests on Jesus Christ being real, being the God in flesh, dying upon a cross, and rising again.

What if there were several people that Jesus was based on?

Also, assuming that Jesus was not a single real person, how does that automatically invalidate the rest of the bible? Isn't it possible that there was no Jesus, but your god as described in the bible does actually exist?

Interestingly, as a sop to those who suspect this of atheists, even if he was proved to exist, I would not give my life over to loving him - I simply wouldn't.

Happy to accept he existed if it's proved, totally unlikely to become Christian.

Actually the question was: if you are a christian, and it was somehow proven that he did not exist, would it hurt your faith? You might want to work on your reading comprehension.

Actually the question was: if you are a christian, and it was somehow proven that he did not exist, would it hurt your faith? You might want to work on your reading comprehension.

I don't care - I was putting down my own counterpoint on the subject, which I am free to do - the very same freedom I give myself that would mean I wouldn't follow Christ if he was proved to exist.

So there, for the first time I shall now use this icon :gundge:

What if there were several people that Jesus was based on? Like what people? Horus, mithras, dionysus and all that jazz? :rolleyes:



Also, assuming that Jesus was not a single real person, how does that automatically invalidate the rest of the bible? Isn't it possible that there was no Jesus, but your god as described in the bible does actually exist?
If there is no Jesus, then there is no salvation by grace. Instead you have to please God through works, which is impossible, if the OT is right. So again, with out Christ, there is no Christianity, and subsequently no Islam either. So that would be about 2.5-3 billion people without a faith, all because Jesus didn't exist.

I don't care - I was putting down my own counterpoint on the subject, which I am free to do - the very same freedom I give myself that would mean I wouldn't follow Christ if he was proved to exist.

So there, for the first time I shall now use this icon :gundge:

Fair enough
and back at you :gundge: :D

Like what people? Horus, mithras, dionysus and all that jazz? :rolleyes:
possibly, or maybe several jewish preachers, who in the process of stories being told about them the stories got confused and combined

If there is no Jesus, then there is no salvation by grace. Instead you have to please God through works, which is impossible, if the OT is right. So again, with out Christ, there is no Christianity, and subsequently no Islam either. So that would be about 2.5-3 billion people without a faith, all because Jesus didn't exist.

So the possible mistakes of men about one detail rules out the possibility that the message was right?

So the possible mistakes of men about one detail rules out the possibility that the message was right?

Exactly, if anything, it makes the message more compelling for it to be the philosophy of man rather than the decree of God.

possibly, or maybe several jewish preachers, who in the process of stories being told about them the stories got confused and combined
My leet skillz will slay any of those suspicions.



So the possible mistakes of men about one detail rules out the possibility that the message was right?

And what was his message? It was that the kingdom of God was at hand...where? In HIM. He told us that he was the incarnation of the living, loving Creator of all things. Sure, he did talk about healing the sick, helping the poor and so on. But that was all apart of his bigger message. He said that we should do these things in HIS name. So you see, His entire message revolves around Him being a real person. Without him existing, his message is the not so clever work of a bunch of idiots that try to put vague morals into a story they crafted, not so well. So, either He did exist, and His message is salvation,hope and peace in HIM, or he didn't exist and there is no message to be spread. I don't think it can be any more clearer about this.

And what was his message? It was that the kingdom of God was at hand...where? In HIM. He told us that he was the incarnation of the living, loving Creator of all things. Sure, he did talk about healing the sick, helping the poor and so on. But that was all apart of his bigger message. He said that we should do these things in HIS name. So you see, His entire message revolves around Him being a real person. Without him existing, his message is the not so clever work of a bunch of idiots that try to put vague morals into a story they crafted, not so well. So, either He did exist, and His message is salvation,hope and peace in HIM, or he didn't exist and there is no message to be spread. I don't think it can be any more clearer about this.

He being Jesus who is the son of Jehovah, and also a a part of Jehovah?

So if you take 'Jesus' out of the equation you'd being doing things in Jehovah's name, as you are now.

He being Jesus who is the son of Jehovah, and also a a part of Jehovah?

So if you take 'Jesus' out of the equation you'd being doing things in Jehovah's name, as you are now.

Jesus is an equal part of the God head. I'll even say as much as this really, no Jesus, no YHWH. And I bet every bone in my body, and every ounce of my life that both exist.

I really dont understand why the one is dependant on the other.

Why is it that the "message" of Jesus, is nowhere near as important as the mythology of his death and "ressurection"?

If one possesses a belief in god, why is it also necessary to believe in Jesus?

After all, the Jews seem to be doing quite well without him.

If one possesses a belief in god, why is it also necessary to believe in Jesus?

As was said in the other thread - that Jesus was resurrected instead of one of the 17 million other wannabes is the proof that his message was the right one. For some Christians anyway.

Well, I suppose I'd have to become Jewish then, wouldnt I?[/cleversoundingbutnotreallyremark]

Seriously though, if it was somehow proven beyond all doubt that Jesus did not exist, that would rather invalidate the point of Christianity, wouldnt it? I mean, it would just be Ianity, wouldnt it?
And 'Ian' just doesnt have the same ring as 'Jesus', does it?

As was said in the other thread - that Jesus was resurrected instead of one of the 17 million other wannabes is the proof that his message was the right one. For some Christians anyway.


Again, I dont see where one must include the other.
Even in Christianity, really. With so many different interperetations of that religion, I would not be suprised to find one that doesnt even need him. A different name might then be convienient, however.

isn't it more important about the teachings of Jesus than the guy self? It's the same with greek stories. it is there mainly to teach. it really doesn't matter of the person in the character existed or not

10 minutes with Christopher Hitchens: The cure for Christianity.

I really dont understand why the one is dependant on the other.

Why is it that the "message" of Jesus, is nowhere near as important as the mythology of his death and "ressurection"?

If one possesses a belief in god, why is it also necessary to believe in Jesus?

After all, the Jews seem to be doing quite well without him.

His main focus was that he was God. If the bodily incarnation couldn't be raised from the dead, then what type of almighty God is that?

His main focus was that he was God. If the bodily incarnation couldn't be raised from the dead, then what type of almighty God is that?

I really doubt that.

In fact, he seemed to dance around that insinuation. He claimked "YOU say that I am", and similar phrases.
His main focus was obeying God, and the lessons of the Sermon on the Mount, wich where mostly behaviour.
I tend to think that most of the dogmatic additions where done post 70 a.d.

10 minutes with Christopher Hitchens: The cure for Christianity.

one night drinking with Christopher Hitchens: The cure for a working liver.

I really dont understand why the one is dependant on the other.

Why is it that the "message" of Jesus, is nowhere near as important as the mythology of his death and "ressurection"?

If one possesses a belief in god, why is it also necessary to believe in Jesus?

After all, the Jews seem to be doing quite well without him.

Actually its not one and the other, for they are both the same as well as different. no part of jesus is more important than the other. His message of salvation could only be proven through the validation of the work.

As far as Jewish concerns, are you so sure that there is no 'Jesus'?

Actually its not one and the other, for they are both the same as well as different. no part of jesus is more important than the other.

There are several different factions of christianity, who beg to differ on this.





His message of salvation could only be proven through the validation of the work.

As far as Jewish concerns, are you so sure that there is no 'Jesus'?

Youre on dangerous ground, friend.

Proven, is a word you should be careful about using here.
"Provide the evidence", is the response you'll get.

As for Jewish concerns, Im not Jewish, but they dont believe Jesus was anything but an ordinary man. They seem to be doing just fine.

There are several different factions of christianity, who beg to differ on this.






Youre on dangerous ground, friend.

Proven, is a word you should be careful about using here.
"Provide the evidence", is the response you'll get.

As for Jewish concerns, Im not Jewish, but they dont believe Jesus was anything but an ordinary man. They seem to be doing just fine.

dangerous. let them kill me if a call for blood is what they are after, for i stand on my believe. Whether or not yours or theirs falter is entirely up to the individual.

if evidence is what you are looking for provide me with this. the first evolutionary strand of DNa and RNA that spontanouesly decided to give breathe and create life. Give me the building blocks of life.

as again on Jewish, I never said the Jewish community as a whole, now did I?

dangerous. let them kill me if a call for blood is what they are after, for i stand on my believe. Whether or not yours or theirs falter is entirely up to the individual.


Be of good cheer, Estis, we don't let Generalites kill each other. It's only "dangerous" in the debating sense. Proof is what they call for, not blood.

if evidence is what you are looking for provide me with this. the first evolutionary strand of DNa and RNA that spontanouesly decided to give breathe and create life. Give me the building blocks of life.


I will call the great Egyptian god Atum and ask him to masturbate some more life into being.

dangerous. let them kill me if a call for blood is what they are after, for i stand on my believe. Whether or not yours or theirs falter is entirely up to the individual.

Lovely, but irrelavant.
My point is that to bandy about the word "proof", means you have some. You do not.


if evidence is what you are looking for provide me with this. the first evolutionary strand of DNa and RNA that spontanouesly decided to give breathe and create life. Give me the building blocks of life.

Also, quite irrelavant.
You were mentioning the "validation" of Jesus through his work", wich, as I pointed out, isnt all that valid.


as again on Jewish, I never said the Jewish community as a whole, now did I?

"As far as Jewish concerns, are you so sure that there is no 'Jesus'? "

Seems that way to me, unless I misunderstand you.

This was part of my question in Did Jesus really exist? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545783) but it got ignored, so I figured I'd try it out in its own thread.

If it was somehow proven that Jesus did not exist, would that hurt your faith?

(And this isn't about whether or not it can be proven either way)

Speaking as a christian and a physicist; No, It wouldn't.

Speaking as a christian and a physicist; No, It wouldn't.

AHA!

You there!

Christian/physicist/clown person!

Do you say this because the "message" he spoke of, and his moral teachings are much more important than he, himself, a la "e messengeri e es no importante"?
Or that it would simply make no difference?

You filthy rational person, you!

if evidence is what you are looking for provide me with this. the first evolutionary strand of DNa and RNA that spontanouesly decided to give breathe and create life. Give me the building blocks of life.


Kind of irrelevent?

When I was a Christian, finding out Jesus wasn't real would actually have helped with some of the inconsistencies I encountered with the whole 'other gods' complication.

AHA!

You there!

Christian/physicist/clown person!

Do you say this because the "message" he spoke of, and his moral teachings are much more important than he, himself, a la "e messengeri e es no importante"?
Or that it would simply make no difference?

You filthy rational person, you!

I'm sure I'm missing something here. I was under the impression the non-existence of Christ would cause some major problems to a belief system named after the guy. If one follows Christ's teachings and message without belief in the fact that he existed, doesn't that essentially remove the need for a great deal of faith (and hence destroy it)?

I'm sure I'm missing something here. I was under the impression the non-existence of Christ would cause some major problems to a belief system named after the guy. If one follows Christ's teachings and message without belief in the fact that he existed, doesn't that essentially remove the need for a great deal of faith (and hence destroy it)?

Ok, Im not a christian, but my line of thinking is thus:

Does santa have to be real for us to enjoy Christmas?

If a person can admire Jesus for his teachings, and whatnot, then I guess I dont see why its truly necessary for him to have existed.
If one adheres strictly to the "no man shall enter heaven, unless through me" aspect, then, yeah, that would be different. Unless the whole point was for all to emulate his morality, and not a literal interperetation.

I'm not a Christian, so by the OP's terms my reply will be off-topic. I don't care.

I believe that a person named Jesus Christ existed, that he did and said roughly what the authors of the New Testament described, and that he was one hoopy frood who made a big impression on people.

If anything, the proof that he never existed, that no person of any name wandering around laying the "I'm the son of God" rap on people and getting away with it, and that the accounts of such were entirely founded on a mass hallucination of a non-existent person ... would strike me as very curious. I might even take that to be evidence of the existence of a God.

I'd also want a go on the "Television from the Past" time machine you used to prove the non-existence of Jesus. There's a few other things I'd like to look up.

Ok, Im not a christian, but my line of thinking is thus:

Does santa have to be real for us to enjoy Christmas?

If a person can admire Jesus for his teachings, and whatnot, then I guess I dont see why its truly necessary for him to have existed.
If one adheres strictly to the "no man shall enter heaven, unless through me" aspect, then, yeah, that would be different. Unless the whole point was for all to emulate his morality, and not a literal interperetation.

But if you are enjoying Christmas without believing in Santa, you have no faith in Santa. If Jesus didn't exist, one can certainly follow Christian teachings and ostenibly live the same way they did before. The question in the OP though was whether it would affect (well, 'hurt') faith. Surely if a figure you had faith in was shown to not exist it would obviously affect that faith.

But if you are enjoying Christmas without believing in Santa, you have no faith in Santa. If Jesus didn't exist, one can certainly follow Christian teachings and ostenibly live the same way they did before. The question in the OP though was whether it would affect (well, 'hurt') faith. Surely if a figure you had faith in was shown to not exist it would obviously affect that faith.

Im not so sure.

I dont think the two are always dependant upon each other.
Faith in Santa isnt really required to enjoy the holiday.
Faith in Jesus being the Messiah, isnt really required to live ones life according to the example he set forth. (assuming for the moment he really did exist).

For me, Lets say, the band Black Sabbath didnt really exist, yet, we still have all the music they recorded. I would still enjoy it, and it would still make me want to play the guitar.
So, is Tony Iommi's existance dependant upon my love of music?

The proof that Jesus did not exist: the stars of the Milky Way are rearranged suddenly to form the words "She says I am the One, but the Kid is not My Son -- Jehovah."

Then He burns a bush. Some folks can't read.

The proof that Jesus did not exist: the stars of the Milky Way are rearranged suddenly to form the words "She says I am the One, but the Kid is not My Son -- Jehovah."

Then He burns a bush. Some folks can't read.

That would explain why that glove was so sparkly.
It was covered in stars.

AHA!

You there!

Christian/physicist/clown person!

Do you say this because the "message" he spoke of, and his moral teachings are much more important than he, himself, a la "e messengeri e es no importante"?
Or that it would simply make no difference?

You filthy rational person, you!

Jesus taught by example. He was a rolemodel for how to live your life. Whether He existed or not, doesn't change the ideal He represented; in fact, it took about 350 years for christians to completely corrupt Christ's ideal and turn it into Catholicism(and every other spin-off of christianity since). I think 350 years is a record for us. *nod*

It's not the first time one of our greatest heroes and rolemodels was a fictional character. Probably won't be the last. So the real pertinent question isn't 'Did Jesus really exist'? It is, 'Was Jesus' message sent by God?' Well, Jesus certainly lived the kind of life that I'd like to think epitomized what God would want from us. Assuming of course that God is real and He lives up to this goofball's standards. That's where faith has to take over. *nod*

Or if you prefer, we can take it from a physics perspective: In an infinite number of universes, not only were there probably a bunch of real life Jesuses, but at least a few of them probably invented the Taco. :)

Im not so sure.

I dont think the two are always dependant upon each other.
Faith in Santa isnt really required to enjoy the holiday.
Faith in Jesus being the Messiah, isnt really required to live ones life according to the example he set forth. (assuming for the moment he really did exist).

For me, Lets say, the band Black Sabbath didnt really exist, yet, we still have all the music they recorded. I would still enjoy it, and it would still make me want to play the guitar.
So, is Tony Iommi's existance dependant upon my love of music?

But faith in Jesus being the Messiah is required to be a Christian, who the OP was directed at. Again, if Jesus was shown to not be the Messiah (by shown to not exist) this faith will be shaken. Sorry, I'm still not getting it.

Jesus taught by example. He was a rolemodel for how to live your life. Whether He existed or not, doesn't change the ideal He represented; in fact, it took about 350 years for christians to completely corrupt Christ's ideal and turn it into Catholicism(and every other spin-off of christianity since). I think 350 years is a record for us. *nod*

Ahh...that was precisely the answer I was hoping you'd provide.
I needed to hear that, because , since Im not a christian, my personal opinion isnt quite as valid as a christians on this matter.

For your reward:
http://www.marlerblog.com/tacos(1).jpg


It's not the first time one of our greatest heroes and rolemodels was a fictional character. Probably won't be the last. So the real pertinent question isn't 'Did Jesus really exist'? It is, 'Was Jesus' message sent by God?' Well, Jesus certainly lived the kind of life that I'd like to think epitomized what God would want from us. Assuming of course that God is real and He lives up to this goofball's standards. That's where faith has to take over. *nod*

Or if you prefer, we can take it from a physics perspective: In an infinite number of universes, not only were there probably a bunch of real life Jesuses, but at least a few of them probably invented the Taco. :)

Jesii?
Jesusesees?

But faith in Jesus being the Messiah is required to be a Christian, who the OP was directed at. Again, if Jesus was shown to not be the Messiah (by shown to not exist) this faith will be shaken. Sorry, I'm still not getting it.

I would say that faith in GOD is required to be a christian, and living by Jesus' example.

See LG's taco-licious post above. He pretty much says what Im getting at.

Ahh...that was precisely the answer I was hoping you'd provide.
I needed to hear that, because , since Im not a christian, my personal opinion isnt quite as valid as a christians on this matter.

For your reward:
http://www.marlerblog.com/tacos(1).jpg



Jesii?
Jesusesees?

Yay! :D *munches*

Jesi. *nod*

Jesus taught by example. He was a rolemodel for how to live your life.

Right on, man. Quit your job, wander around ranting at people about how full of shit they are, create a great groundswell of people quitting their jobs and wandering around ranting ... etc.

Get nailed by the law. Keep ranting about how full of shit everyone is. Die. Keep ranting.
Go Jesus, fight the power man!

It's not the first time one of our greatest heroes and rolemodels was a fictional character. Probably won't be the last. So the real pertinent question isn't 'Did Jesus really exist'? It is, 'Was Jesus' message sent by God?' Well, Jesus certainly lived the kind of life that I'd like to think epitomized what God would want from us. Assuming of course that God is real and He lives up to this goofball's standards. That's where faith has to take over. *nod*

God damn, you sneak up on people. That really is the important question ... in fact, "Jesus" was a common name. Saying "did Jesus exist" is like saying "did Shane really exist, you know, Shane, the one with the piercing?"

The important question is indeed "Was Jesus the son of God" ... even in the sense of being a prophet whose message was from some existing God.

Any "disproof" of such would need to come from God, or some similar authority.

Or if you prefer, we can take it from a physics perspective: In an infinite number of universes, not only were there probably a bunch of real life Jesuses, but at least a few of them probably invented the Taco. :)

Close brackets. ;)

Right on, man. Quit your job, wander around ranting at people about how full of shit they are, create a great groundswell of people quitting their jobs and wandering around ranting ... etc.

Get nailed by the law. Keep ranting about how full of shit everyone is. Die. Keep ranting.
Go Jesus, fight the power man!

Even death couldn't shut Him up. I like that. :)

Even death couldn't shut Him up. I like that. :)

I daresay I'd have got on board. Sure beats the "work hard, get sold into slavery anyway" options available otherwise.

Two thousand years later ... not so much.

This was part of my question in Did Jesus really exist? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545783) but it got ignored, so I figured I'd try it out in its own thread.

If it was somehow proven that Jesus did not exist, would that hurt your faith?

(And this isn't about whether or not it can be proven either way)

Would Jesus being proved to not exist hurt my faith....yeah, absolutely. It'd be pretty devastating for a lot of people. But the evidence would have to be air tight. Other than that, I would hope that my faith would be strong enough to deal with it.
But according to my beliefs, Jesus is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. So if Jesus were proven to be a myth, then I would be Jewish and still waiting for the Messiah.
But I would never discredit the teachings of Christ, because even though they're a really high standard, thats what I'd want to be like.

If it was somehow proven that Jesus did not exist, would that hurt your faith?
It would probably completely destroy my faith. There can be no Christianity without Jesus.

Thankfully, it is impossible to prove that Jesus did not exist. Unless you had a time machine, I suppose.

If there was no Jesus, and even if there was, but there was no death and resurrection, then as Paul said it, our faith would be in vain. The entire faith is that we are saved from sin, by his sacrifice, and when we accept that sacrifice, we come back into communion with el Shaddai, our Almighty God. And when we are in that communion we are lead to do things that we never would have imagined doing before. So everything in our faith rests on Jesus Christ being real, being the God in flesh, dying upon a cross, and rising again.
^ What (s)he said.

Thankfully, it is impossible to prove that Jesus did not exist. Unless you had a time machine, I suppose.

Or God Himself makes a statement, as mentioned above ;)

This was part of my question in Did Jesus really exist? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545783) but it got ignored, so I figured I'd try it out in its own thread.

If it was somehow proven that Jesus did not exist, would that hurt your faith?

(And this isn't about whether or not it can be proven either way)

I've been watching this thread, debating on whether to bother responding to it. On the one hand, it strikes me as ridiculously obvious what the answer is, and at the same time it appears to me (And I could be wrong) that the OP is setting some kind of a 'gotcha' snare where if a Christian admits it would wreck their faith, then they're somehow remiss in no longer believing the message, regardless of the existence or lack therof, of the messenger.

That just seems idiotic to me. Asking a Christian if they'd still be Christian without Jesus is like wondering what a Peanut Butter and Jelly sandwich would taste like if made in a world totally devoid of plant life. It's a non-sequitur question because the existence of the former implies the existence of the latter. They don't come apart.

I'm wondering what sort of evidence you think would be convincing enough to force a Christian to abandon his or her beliefs in the first place. I know that's a given in terms of the setup to the question, but in my mind th at's part of what makes the whole subject so nonsensical.

And color me bitter, but this whole business of trying to lead Christians to think in a non-Christian way is getting old and a bit obvious. Tell you what, I'm gonna start a thread asking the opposite question and let's see what sort of answers I get.

Actually its not one and the other, for they are both the same as well as different. no part of jesus is more important than the other. His message of salvation could only be proven through the validation of the work.

As far as Jewish concerns, are you so sure that there is no 'Jesus'?

That is the entire premise of this thread :rolleyes:

Speaking as a christian and a physicist; No, It wouldn't.

Yay, LG is the first christian to post who actually has strong faith

I've been watching this thread, debating on whether to bother responding to it. On the one hand, it strikes me as ridiculously obvious what the answer is, and at the same time it appears to me (And I could be wrong) that the OP is setting some kind of a 'gotcha' snare where if a Christian admits it would wreck their faith, then they're somehow remiss in no longer believing the message, regardless of the existence or lack therof, of the messenger.

That just seems idiotic to me. Asking a Christian if they'd still be Christian without Jesus is like wondering what a Peanut Butter and Jelly sandwich would taste like if made in a world totally devoid of plant life. It's a non-sequitur question because the existence of the former implies the existence of the latter. They don't come apart.

I'm wondering what sort of evidence you think would be convincing enough to force a Christian to abandon his or her beliefs in the first place. I know that's a given in terms of the setup to the question, but in my mind th at's part of what makes the whole subject so nonsensical.

And color me bitter, but this whole business of trying to lead Christians to think in a non-Christian way is getting old and a bit obvious. Tell you what, I'm gonna start a thread asking the opposite question and let's see what sort of answers I get.

Good plan.

This was part of my question in Did Jesus really exist? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545783) but it got ignored, so I figured I'd try it out in its own thread.

If it was somehow proven that Jesus did not exist, would that hurt your faith?

(And this isn't about whether or not it can be proven either way)

It would certainly change my faith. How that would end up, I really can't say.

I tend toward the Abelardian view of atonement, which I think could more easily fit in that situation than the more common Anselmian view. However, even Abelard's ideas partially rested on the idea that Jesus did exist and died on the cross, etc.

Edit: Of course, Abelard's viewpoint only rested on that actual occurrence in that it made atonement easier and that Jesus brought the message of the way to live....

I guess the best answer I can give is that it might shake my faith - that I would have to reevaluate things - but that I doubt it would wreck it. I would likely still come to most of the same conclusions.

I've been watching this thread, debating on whether to bother responding to it. On the one hand, it strikes me as ridiculously obvious what the answer is, and at the same time it appears to me (And I could be wrong) that the OP is setting some kind of a 'gotcha' snare where if a Christian admits it would wreck their faith, then they're somehow remiss in no longer believing the message, regardless of the existence or lack therof, of the messenger.

That just seems idiotic to me. Asking a Christian if they'd still be Christian without Jesus is like wondering what a Peanut Butter and Jelly sandwich would taste like if made in a world totally devoid of plant life. It's a non-sequitur question because the existence of the former implies the existence of the latter. They don't come apart.

I'm wondering what sort of evidence you think would be convincing enough to force a Christian to abandon his or her beliefs in the first place. I know that's a given in terms of the setup to the question, but in my mind th at's part of what makes the whole subject so nonsensical.

And color me bitter, but this whole business of trying to lead Christians to think in a non-Christian way is getting old and a bit obvious. Tell you what, I'm gonna start a thread asking the opposite question and let's see what sort of answers I get.

Actually I've asked this question of christians IRL, and the responses I've gotten are pretty well split. It was not intentionally done as a 'gotcha' although to be frank, I have little respect for someone whose faith would be destroyed by the discovery the the authors of the bible made 1 error.

I really doubt that.

In fact, he seemed to dance around that insinuation. He claimked "YOU say that I am", and similar phrases.
His main focus was obeying God, and the lessons of the Sermon on the Mount, wich where mostly behaviour.
I tend to think that most of the dogmatic additions where done post 70 a.d.

I would add to this that he also focused on the reason for obeying God - that one should obey out of love and the inherent goodness of the action, rather than out of fear. Obedience out of fear led to letter-of-the-law obedience that ignored the spirit of the law - the reason for it in the first place.

Actually I've asked this question of christians IRL, and the responses I've gotten are pretty well split. It was not intentionally done as a 'gotcha' although to be frank, I have little respect for someone whose faith would be destroyed by the discovery the the authors of the bible made 1 error.

But if, in your scenario, we're taking for granted that whatever proof was offered of the non-existence of Jesus is irrefutable, then of COURSE it would change things.

Would it devalue the philosophy of brotherhood and charity, of course it wouldn't, but I think what a lot of non-Christians and even disturbingly many Christians seem to forget is that being a Christian isn't just a philosophy of life, it's a deep spiritual acknowledgement of certain facts and realities, and acting in accordance with the eternal implications of them. If there were no Jesus, then there's no salvation, and THAT is the cornerstone of ALL true Christian denoiminations, whether it be Baptist, Catholic, Mormon, Seventh-Day Adventist, Lutheran, etc.

But if, in your scenario, we're taking for granted that whatever proof was offered of the non-existence of Jesus is irrefutable, then of COURSE it would change things.
Why?

Would it devalue the philosophy of brotherhood and charity, of course it wouldn't, but I think what a lot of non-Christians and even disturbingly many Christians seem to forget is that being a Christian isn't just a philosophy of life, it's a deep spiritual acknowledgement of certain facts and realities, and acting in accordance with the eternal implications of them. If there were no Jesus, then there's no salvation, and THAT is the cornerstone of ALL true Christian denoiminations, whether it be Baptist, Catholic, Mormon, Seventh-Day Adventist, Lutheran, etc.

So 1 error destroys the entire message?

I believe that the Holy Bible is the word of God.

So, if the New Testament turned out to be false, then I'd probably just become a Jew.

I believe that the Holy Bible is the word of God.

So, if the New Testament turned out to be false, then I'd probably just become a Jew.

You are aware that the bible contains a lot of contradictions, right? So, by that reasoning you should be a jew now, of course there is probably contradictions in the talmud too. :(

You are aware that the bible contains a lot of contradictions, right? So, by that reasoning you should be a jew now, of course there is probably contradictions in the talmud too. :(
Back up your statement before you start telling me how to reason. To be more precise: show me some contradictions.

Back up your statement before you start telling me how to reason. To be more precise: show me some contradictions.

OK here goes:

Where did Jesus first appear to the eleven disciples after the resurrection?

On a mountain top in Galilee.
Matthew 28:16
Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him.

In a room in Jerusalem.
Mark 16:14
Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

Luke 24:33-37
And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread. And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

John 20:19
Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.


there's one

for more follow this link: more contradictions (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html)

Where did Jesus first appear to the eleven disciples after the resurrection?
Neither of the passages you quoted uses the word "first" or anything like it. It's entirely plausible that they saw Him first in Jerusalem and later in Galilee.

Next?

Neither of the passages you quoted uses the word "first" or anything like it. It's entirely plausible that they saw Him first in Jerusalem and later in Galilee.

Next?

There's a list of 393 on the linked website. One down.

Neither of the passages you quoted uses the word "first" or anything like it. It's entirely plausible that they saw Him first in Jerusalem and later in Galilee.

Next?

try looking in context
17Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

18Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the LORD, and that he had spoken these things unto her.

19Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

20And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the LORD.

21Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:



Sounds like the first time there...

Mark 16:10-16 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain



10And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.

11And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.

12After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.

13And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.

14Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned



but that one seems like a first time too....


OH NOES!! a contradiction.

Where did Jesus first appear to the eleven disciples after the resurrection?

This answers it better than I could:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/532

And this is an excellent answer, as well:
http://www.ankerberg.org/Articles/editors-choice/EC0305W3A.htm
(You'll have to scroll down to number 36 before it is answered.)

Here is a good one, as well:
http://skepticsannotatedbiblerespons.blogspot.com/2004/10/28-where-did-jesus-first-appear-to.html

Sounds like the first time there...
Key word is "sounds like."

Like Constantinopolis said, there is no explicit stating that it was a first time in either place.

but that one seems like a first time too....
Same thing. "Seems like."

OH NOES!! a contradiction.
No, you're just interpreting it in a way where there is a contradiction. Unlike you, however, I cannot interpret it in a way that could state that it is not the infallible Word of God.

It certainly would hurt my faith. However, if the person successfully convinced me my faith would probably already be pretty weak, so I'm not too worried about it.

Lovely, but irrelavant.
My point is that to bandy about the word "proof", means you have some. You do not.



Also, quite irrelavant.
You were mentioning the "validation" of Jesus through his work", wich, as I pointed out, isnt all that valid.



"As far as Jewish concerns, are you so sure that there is no 'Jesus'? "

Seems that way to me, unless I misunderstand you.

like I said before, you were never obligated to believe or even listen to my opinions.

And btw, why does anyone require proof that a man named jesus existed in the first place. If all of you are as obstinate and tanacious about disproving the fact of a man who was the son of God ever existed, why do you berate believers on their ability or lack therof to provide truth. or evidence, i.e. proof.

As you are adamant about the proof or lack of, enjoy your self decided proclamations and enjoy them until, as you say, your bodies decompose into nothingness as you die.

10 minutes with Christopher Hitchens: The cure for Christianity.

And the U.S. accepted him in 2007. Yay for us. :(

To be more precise: show me some contradictions.
Ohnoyoudin't.

But faith in Jesus being the Messiah is required to be a Christian,

Not buying it. Some Christians follow Jesus' lessons. Some believe he was the son of god. Some believe he was messiah.

Those claims aren't mutually dependent - you don't HAVE to buy into all of them to be allowed to go by the name. (Well, some groups would say you do.. but... well, other groups would say otherwise).

And color me bitter, but this whole business of trying to lead Christians to think in a non-Christian way is getting old and a bit obvious.

That's cute.

Sauce for the goose, though... guess you're gonna have to just suck it up.

Neither of the passages you quoted uses the word "first" or anything like it. It's entirely plausible that they saw Him first in Jerusalem and later in Galilee.

Next?

Proverbs 4:7 "Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding".

Ecclesiastes 1:18 "For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow".

How about the fact that Goliath get's killed twice by David, and once by some other dude? (Bad day to be Goliath, eh?)

Or how about this one:

Exodus 33:23 "And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen".

Where God let's Moses see his bum.

Versus:

John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him]".

What was in the Ark of the Covenant?

Only the two tables of Moses.
1 Kings 8:9
There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, when the LORD made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt.

2 Chronicles 5:10
There was nothing in the ark save the two tables which Moses put therein at Horeb, when the LORD made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of Egypt.

The tables of Moses, a golden pot filled with manna, and Aaron's budded rod.
Hebrews 9:4
The ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant.

Constantinopolis? Agerias?

Constantinopolis? Agerias?

It's all gone quiet. I was looking forward to those responses too.... :(

Exodus 33:23 "And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen".

Where God let's Moses see his bum.

Oh awesome. There's faith, alright ... giving up your hot ass to be used by God. Better yet with letting God turn up its hot ass for use by a mortal. Must be that oft-recessed/repressed feminine persuasion we've heard about but rarely seen so overtly.
Must've been familiar with Zeus' famous "golden shower". :D

It's all gone quiet. I was looking forward to those responses too.... :(

Especially that Aaron's budded rod part!

Speaking of which ... where's Bottle? :p

This was part of my question in Did Jesus really exist? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545783) but it got ignored, so I figured I'd try it out in its own thread.

If it was somehow proven that Jesus did not exist, would that hurt your faith?

(And this isn't about whether or not it can be proven either way)

Yes. Jesus is the central figure in the faith of Christians. it would therefore drammatically effect faith relating to him. basically. a christian without faith in Jesus Christ would be a Jew. Judaism is basically christianity except that Jesus wasnt the Saviour. so everything post-jesus and relating to Jesus is irrelevent*

*there are a lot more difference but this is just a basic answer to facilitate your question

It's all gone quiet. I was looking forward to those responses too.... :(

Yeah, I was curious how they were going to make that out to not be a contradiction :rolleyes:

I will give them the win on the last one, since it doesn't actually say that it was the 1st time he was seen, although to me it is implied

What was in the Ark of the Covenant?

Only the two tables of Moses.
1 Kings 8:9
There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, when the LORD made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt.

2 Chronicles 5:10
There was nothing in the ark save the two tables which Moses put therein at Horeb, when the LORD made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of Egypt.

The tables of Moses, a golden pot filled with manna, and Aaron's budded rod.
Hebrews 9:4
The ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant.
Yeah, I was curious how they were going to make that out to not be a contradiction :rolleyes:

I will give them the win on the last one, since it doesn't actually say that it was the 1st time he was seen, although to me it is implied

This isn't my debate, but if you guys are holding your breath and all, I'll help you out...

Hebrews says what’s in it, Exodus and Numbers confirm those things were in the testimony in the Ark…

Exodus 16:33-34
And Moses said to Aaron, "Take a jar, and put an omer of manna in it, and place it before the LORD to be kept throughout your generations." As the LORD commanded Moses, so Aaron placed it before the testimony to be kept.

Exodus 25:16
And you shall put into the ark the testimony that I shall give you.

Numbers 17:10
And the LORD said to Moses, "Put back the staff of Aaron before the testimony, to be kept as a sign for the rebels, that you may make an end of their grumblings against me, lest they die."

So now we have confirmation that the book of Hebrews didn’t pull this information out of thin air. What is true once does not always remain true forever, especially with things that can be changed/moved.

Many years ago I was asked if I was married or if I had any kids and if I owned a house. I said no, I do not own a house, I do not have any kids, I am not married.

Now I can say I am married, I have children and I own a house.

Neither time was I lying. Things change. A word written can be truth when it is recorded and circumstances change around it, so it’s not accurate anymore, but not a lie or a contradiction either. At one time the ark had all those things in it, at other times it was either before those things were added or after someone had taken them out.

No contradiction here at all.

Rather than debate whether or not the Bible is inerrant, I would like to point out that people can be Christian as well as doubt the historicity of Jesus.

Just ask the Reverend Bill Phipps (http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0011456).

Phipps - the newly elected moderator of the United Church of Canada - caused an uproar when he denied that Jesus is God and that he physically rose from the dead. "Some say I am a heretic," the genial pastor tells his flock.

While it is fun to pretend that all Christians are literalists and that each part of the Bible must therefore be interpreted completely literally, reality tends to have a bias towards more complexity than that. The truth is that many Christians believe a wide variety of different things.

While it is fun to pretend that all Christians are literalists and that each part of the Bible must therefore be interpreted completely literally, reality tends to have a bias towards more complexity than that. The truth is that many Christians believe a wide variety of different things.

But, even though we would be venturing very near the "no true scotsman" fallacy - why do those people call themselves Christians if they reject Christ ? Why not simply use a different name ?

But, even though we would be venturing very near the "no true scotsman" fallacy - why do those people call themselves Christians if they reject Christ ? Why not simply use a different name ?

Why do you believe they are rejecting Christ? It seems that Rev. Phipps believes that he is accepting Christ. Do you have reason to doubt his beliefs?

Why do you believe they are rejecting Christ? It seems that Rev. Phipps believes that he is accepting Christ. Do you have reason to doubt his beliefs?

How can he be accepting Christ if he doesn't even believe there IS a Christ. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

How can he be accepting Christ if he doesn't even believe there IS a Christ. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

I am aware that you have a distinctly literal approach to Xianity. The easy answer to your question is that you and he have different ideas as to who Christ is, and how one goes about accepting him.

I am aware that you have a distinctly literal approach to Xianity. The easy answer to your question is that you and he have different ideas as to who Christ is, and how one goes about accepting him.

Christ is a title given to a person. It is not a set of ideas, values and so on.
If you think the values and such are the true thing that matters you should call yourself Bible-ist, Other cheekist or something like that.

Christ is a title given to a person. It is not a set of ideas, values and so on.
If you think the values and such are the true thing that matters you should call yourself Bible-ist, Other cheekist or something like that.

That's nice that you believe that. Can you explain why all other people who call themselves Christian should believe that too?

Things change. A word written can be truth when it is recorded and circumstances change around it, so it’s not accurate anymore, but not a lie or a contradiction either. At one time the ark had all those things in it, at other times it was either before those things were added or after someone had taken them out.

No contradiction here at all.

A bit of a stretch, but I'll give you that one

how about this?:

Did Jesus tell his disciples everything?
Jesus told his disciples everything.
Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

There were some things that Jesus didn't tell them.
I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.


or this?
Who buried Jesus?


Joseph of Arimathaea
When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple: He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered. And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.

Joseph of Arimathaea ... took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre.
Joseph ... of Arimathaea ... took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre.

Joseph of Arimataea and Nicodemus
Joseph of Arimathaea ... took the body of Jesus. And there came also Nicodemus.... Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. There laid they Jesus....

The Jews and their rulers
For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him. And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain. And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.

If the bodily incarnation couldn't be raised from the dead, then what type of almighty God is that?
One who curses Legos
http://www.thebricktestament.com/judges/iron_chariots/jg01_19a.html
http://www.thebricktestament.com/judges/iron_chariots/jg01_19b.html
http://www.thebricktestament.com/judges/iron_chariots/jg01_19c.html
and fig trees? :p
BTW ...
What (s)he said.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13351376&postcount=48

:eek: Secret's out! :p

How can he be accepting Christ if he doesn't even believe there IS a Christ. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

*crickets doth chirp*

Those claims aren't mutually dependent - you don't HAVE to buy into all of them to be allowed to go by the name. (Well, some groups would say you do.. but... well, other groups would say otherwise).

You mean like the ones, for entrance petition, require snake-handling ability ... or polygamy ... ecstatic visions ... certain genetic traits ... and, for all, gullibility?

But, even though we would be venturing very near the "no true scotsman" fallacy - why do those people call themselves Christians if they reject Christ ? Why not simply use a different name ?

The divinity of Christ and the resurrection were strongly debated parts of Christianity prior to Nicea. There is nothing about being a Christian that requires you to consider Christ God unless you allow a Pagan emporer to decide what is and is not a Christian. You're not very near a fallacy. You're right in the middle of it.

Couldn't I equally call a claim into question when someone says that Jesus the Christ is infallible and then amends His words with the words of a man?

The divinity of Christ and the resurrection were strongly debated parts of Christianity prior to Nicea. There is nothing about being a Christian that requires you to consider Christ God unless you allow a Pagan emporer to decide what is and is not a Christian. You're not very near a fallacy. You're right in the middle of it.

Couldn't I equally call a claim into question when someone says that Jesus the Christ is infallible and then amends His words with the words of a man?

They were strongly debated. And those who claimed his divinity won. It's not allowing a Pagan emperor to decide, it's letting a council of Christians to decide, and they decided Christ was divine.

They were strongly debated. And those who claimed his divinity won. It's not allowing a Pagan emperor to decide, it's letting a council of Christians to decide, and they decided Christ was divine.

Yes, a council of Christians strongly influenced by a Pagan emporer that basically agreed to support the victors. And with a little bit of strong-arming you get a bunch of people to change their beliefs. Not exactly the kind of people I want deciding the elements of my faith. At all.

So what happens to all those Christians that came before Nicea? They suddenly aren't Christians anymore? Can we revote on Christianity, and vote out the people who think Christ is divine or does the idea of deciding Truth by democracy at the behest of a Pagan offering government support to the victor just seem a bit, well, unChristian.

Can we revote on Christianity, and vote out the people who think Christ is divine or does the idea of deciding Truth by democracy at the behest of a Pagan offering government support to the victor just seem a bit, well, unChristian.
Says who? A Pagan emperor? ;)
I don't think it was an example of democracy, though. I think the council of Nicea was very much like what continues in the Church, any philosophical group, really. People got together and debated, prayed, etc., until they finally found an answer a majority agreed with. Everyone else was shot.
Except for the last part, I think that's a pretty good method. I can't think of a better one.
Now, what could have happened was that the government just let people believe what they want. I think that's a better idea, actually. But some sort of unity has to be achieve to prevent the word "Christian" from becoming meaningless. As it is, I think it's pretty close anyway.

Says who? A Pagan emperor? ;)
I don't think it was an example of democracy, though. I think the council of Nicea was very much like what continues in the Church, any philosophical group, really. People got together and debated, prayed, etc., until they finally found an answer a majority agreed with. Everyone else was shot.
Except for the last part, I think that's a pretty good method. I can't think of a better one.
Now, what could have happened was that the government just let people believe what they want. I think that's a better idea, actually. But some sort of unity has to be achieve to prevent the word "Christian" from becoming meaningless. As it is, I think it's pretty close anyway.

The better way is so obvious. Take off your silly-ass hats and your extravagant robes and your rings to be kissed. Get up from your place of honor at the table. Stop praying to be seen by men. Go in the closet and have a relationship with God. And when you're doing so, perhaps God will see fit to tell you what is and isn't Christian, rather than men. Perhaps God will decide if you're a good Christian, rather than men. Perhaps we can be Christian brothers, and sisters, and husbands, and wives, and daughters, and sons, and stop worring about being Christian members who pay money to people who don't need and shouldn't have it regularly. Perhaps we can skip church and hit the soup kitchen or pull that ass out of the pit.

The lessons are all there and one has to forego so many of them to land at a Christianity decided on by majority, that says if you don't agree with me, you're not Christian, now take this here oath, pay your money to the church, show your loyalty to the emporer and get out.

Personally, I'll continue to let my Christianity be found in the lessons given me daily by God and my Savior. That okay with you?

Yes, a council of Christians strongly influenced by a Pagan emporer that basically agreed to support the victors. And with a little bit of strong-arming you get a bunch of people to change their beliefs. Not exactly the kind of people I want deciding the elements of my faith. At all.
Fuck yeah. *bows*

They were strongly debated. And those who claimed his divinity won. It's not allowing a Pagan emperor to decide, it's letting a council of Christians to decide, and they decided Christ was divine.

If you only invite the people that agree with you, and a few others you think you can browbeat into line... and if you ostracise those who still retain the clams to oppose you - well, yeah - you get a 'win' for one side.

It doesn't make it good. Or right.

The better way is so obvious. Take off your silly-ass hats and your extravagant robes and your rings to be kissed. Get up from your place of honor at the table. Stop praying to be seen by men. Go in the closet and have a relationship with God. And when you're doing so, perhaps God will see fit to tell you what is and isn't Christian, rather than men. Perhaps God will decide if you're a good Christian, rather than men. Perhaps we can be Christian brothers, and sisters, and husbands, and wives, and daughters, and sons, and stop worring about being Christian members who pay money to people who don't need and shouldn't have it regularly. Perhaps we can skip church and hit the soup kitchen or pull that ass out of the pit.

The lessons are all there and one has to forego so many of them to land at a Christianity decided on by majority, that says if you don't agree with me, you're not Christian, now take this here oath, pay your money to the church, show your loyalty to the emporer and get out.

Personally, I'll continue to let my Christianity be found in the lessons given me daily by God and my Savior. That okay with you?

Excellent post.

Especially the part about 'Christianity... by majority'. That's always been one of the biggest flaws in the whole prospect to me - the idea that someone else can pick which traditions and texts should best convey the spirit of god to me.

If you only invite the people that agree with you, and a few others you think you can browbeat into line... and if you ostracise those who still retain the clams to oppose you - well, yeah - you get a 'win' for one side.

It doesn't make it good. Or right.

And it has shite to do with what makes one Christian.

And it has shite to do with what makes one Christian.

No arguments with that.

A wise philosopher once wrote a discussion on God's 'two works', The Word, and The World - and how reading only one of them was missing the point.

I really liked that guy.

;)

Excellent post.

Especially the part about 'Christianity... by majority'. That's always been one of the biggest flaws in the whole prospect to me - the idea that someone else can pick which traditions and texts should best convey the spirit of god to me.

Honestly, Mike, this is where I think Christianity lost it. They sold their soul for peace. You have Jesus who sought not power and stuck his chin out and took it when they contested his claims, when bending a bit or compromising might have saved his life or protected his followers. He didn't. He said right was more important and he stood by it.

300 years later, they sell out. They take a personal religion and put right back where Jesus had taken it from. It became a governmental power of sorts. Essentially they became lawgivers.

They take the legacy of a poor man, by intent, and turn it into the richest organization in the world. An organization that used conquest, war, tyranny and outright forced payments to horde some of the greatest treasures of history. Treasures it's decided the world cannot have, though they could feed the poor of all the nations.

They put on jewels and giant hats and seats of honor and rings where people bow before them. And, yet, they worship a man that's greatest moments involved washing the feet of those "beneath" him.

They destroyed those who disagreed, threatened those that sought truth in the world with death, and basically took the personal out of personal religion entirely.

And is it any surprise? They made a deal for power, both that they gave and that they received. A pact. That's what happened in 325 AD. And from that day forward the religion that sprang from it was on a path that was completely seperate from the message of Christ.

Would Christ have murdered for his message? Nope. He proved He would not.

Would he argue with those that disagreed or have them destroyed? He proved it was the first.

Would he agree with the hording of wealth and power? Again, according to the Bible, He proved He would not.

How anyone can look at what birth Christianity and that fateful day and not see that could never be in sync is beyond me. Blind faith is one thing. This is a whole other level. And some would say that since it spread Christianity, it can only be good. I can't imagine a Jesus that endorsed any means to an end. If Jesus was who many who would argue with me believe, there is no worldly force that could have prevented him for wiping the world clean of all who would not follow. Christianity was a powerful message and there is nothing to suggest it wouldn't have survived without the obvious pact with the Pagan that it made.

300 years later, they sell out. They take a personal religion and put right back where Jesus had taken it from. It became a governmental power of sorts. Essentially they became lawgivers.

Maybe it didnt even take that long. From what I understand, they were fighting amongst themelves almost immediately. One faction claiming thier book and its author was the "chosen" to lead the Church, and the other arguing against them, oftimes coming to violence. This group touting this Apostle wrote thier book..etc...


They take the legacy of a poor man, by intent, and turn it into the richest organization in the world. An orginazation that used conquest, war, tyranny and outright forced payments to horde some of the greatest treasures of history. Treasures it's decided the world cannot have, though they could feed the poor of all the nations.

No arguement from me.


They put on jewels and giant hats and seats of honor and rings where people bow before them. And, yet, they worship a man that's greatest moments involved washing the feet of those "beneath" him.

Makes me think of the Jesus and the Moneylenders story.
If he got mad enough to whip out a scourge and go Rambo on them for that...
What do you suppose Jeeb's would to The Vatican?


And is it any surprise? They made a deal for power, both that they gave and that they received. A pact. That's what happened in 325 AD. And from that day forward the religion that sprang from it was on a path that was completely seperate from the message of Christ.

Seems to me it geared towards the importance of the Christ's divinity, and not really about Jesus message on the Mount, almost immediately.

Maybe it didnt even take that long. From what I understand, they were fighting amongst themelves almost immediately. One faction claiming thier book and its author was the "chosen" to lead the Church, and the other arguing against them, oftimes coming to violence. This group touting this Apostle wrote thier book..etc...



No arguement from me.



Makes me think of the Jesus and the Moneylenders story.
If he got mad enough to whip out a scourge and go Rambo on them for that...
What do you suppose Jeeb's would to The Vatican?



Seems to me it geared towards the importance of the Christ's divinity, and not really about Jesus message on the Mount, almost immediately.

That's the most amazing part. Suddenly, it became about worshipping Christ rather than simply following his message. How convenient. The story tells of a man, even a divinity, whose most important accomplishment was humility, peace, love. By making it about his sacrifice on the cross, suddenly following his example is so much less important.

And, assumed he was actually God, how could suffering on the cross possibly be a sacrifice for me? So many say because someone has to pay for sin for the purpose of justice, but how is the innocent suffering for the guilty bring justice? More importantly, how can the temporary suffering of a man on a cross who KNOWS he's going to the throne compare to the suffering we feel by being seperated from God, from not knowing, from spending so much of our lives unsure and unprepared (if you listen to the same people who tout the Catholic and predominant Christian message)?

As I've said many times, there isn't a person I would not burn for all eternity to save. I'd burn in hell for eternity for the opportunity to save one of you. How can such a sacrifice be considered divine? If we really believe the message of Christ should there be even one Christian that wouldn't do the same? Why is that the sacrifice we cannot get past? Instead of celebrating the life of Jesus, we celebrate his death. It's morbid and frankly misses the point.

They were strongly debated. And those who claimed his divinity won. It's not allowing a Pagan emperor to decide, it's letting a council of Christians to decide, and they decided Christ was divine.And? It's like electing the pope. The decision was reached through divine inspiration (as is claimed by the church), so what's the problem? That the god to do the inspiration did not exists? Isn't the whole thing such a farce so that the question of Jesus' divinity is really a minor one?

And? It's like electing the pope. The decision was reached through divine inspiration (as is claimed by the church), so what's the problem? That the god to do the inspiration did not exists? Isn't the whole thing such a farce so that the question of Jesus' divinity is really a minor one?

What a valuable post. I can see how sitting upon argumentum ad ignorantiam you'd want to criticize the logic of the council. Totally reasonable post. Thanks for your contribution.

Honestly, Mike, this is where I think Christianity lost it. They sold their soul for peace. You have Jesus who sought not power and stuck his chin out and took it when they contested his claims, when bending a bit or compromising might have saved his life or protected his followers. He didn't. He said right was more important and he stood by it.

300 years later, they sell out. They take a personal religion and put right back where Jesus had taken it from. It became a governmental power of sorts. Essentially they became lawgivers.

They take the legacy of a poor man, by intent, and turn it into the richest organization in the world. An organization that used conquest, war, tyranny and outright forced payments to horde some of the greatest treasures of history. Treasures it's decided the world cannot have, though they could feed the poor of all the nations.

They put on jewels and giant hats and seats of honor and rings where people bow before them. And, yet, they worship a man that's greatest moments involved washing the feet of those "beneath" him.

They destroyed those who disagreed, threatened those that sought truth in the world with death, and basically took the personal out of personal religion entirely.

And is it any surprise? They made a deal for power, both that they gave and that they received. A pact. That's what happened in 325 AD. And from that day forward the religion that sprang from it was on a path that was completely seperate from the message of Christ.

Would Christ have murdered for his message? Nope. He proved He would not.

Would he argue with those that disagreed or have them destroyed? He proved it was the first.

Would he agree with the hording of wealth and power? Again, according to the Bible, He proved He would not.

How anyone can look at what birth Christianity and that fateful day and not see that could never be in sync is beyond me. Blind faith is one thing. This is a whole other level. And some would say that since it spread Christianity, it can only be good. I can't imagine a Jesus that endorsed any means to an end. If Jesus was who many who would argue with me believe, there is no worldly force that could have prevented him for wiping the world clean of all who would not follow. Christianity was a powerful message and there is nothing to suggest it wouldn't have survived without the obvious pact with the Pagan that it made.

Constantine was a kiss of death, but the worst of it was already done. It took only as long as the ascension of Paul to go back to the Pharisee tradition, with Paul as the new high priest. No wonder he was rejected by those who actually followed a ministering Jesus.

The difference, I think, is that I can honestly believe Paul thought he was doing what was for the best.

And? It's like electing the pope. The decision was reached through divine inspiration (as is claimed by the church), so what's the problem? That the god to do the inspiration did not exists? Isn't the whole thing such a farce so that the question of Jesus' divinity is really a minor one?

No.

Next.

As I've said many times, there isn't a person I would not burn for all eternity to save. I'd burn in hell for eternity for the opportunity to save one of you. How can such a sacrifice be considered divine? If we really believe the message of Christ should there be even one Christian that wouldn't do the same? Why is that the sacrifice we cannot get past? Instead of celebrating the life of Jesus, we celebrate his death. It's morbid and frankly misses the point.

Why?

Because any religion, or organization is comprised of people. When big numbers of people get together, particularly in religions, they faction off, and develop cliques.
They become "Us" and "them" minded.
People who do not share the "Us" mentality, consequently become a "Them", and if theres one thing for sure, "Them" are bad.
Add money and power, and most especially influence, and "Us" can supress "Them", for a long time.

Did Jesus tell his disciples everything?
Jesus told his disciples everything.

There were some things that Jesus didn't tell them.

Compare the topic and scenario of this…

John 15
12 "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. 14You are my friends if you do what I command you. 15 No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. 16You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. 17These things I command you, so that you will love one another.

With this:
John 16
6But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. …
12"I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13
When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. …

There is no contradiction here. They simply couldn’t ‘bear’ to hear any more hard to endure things (Jesus leaving them and what things are going to happen) anymore (sadness, broken hearted etc.,). I see no contradiction here.


or this?
Who buried Jesus?
Joseph of Arimathaea
Joseph of Arimataea and Nicodemus
The Jews and their rulers
Who laid him in the tomb?
Acts 13:27-29
27For those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers, because they did not recognize him nor understand the utterances of the prophets, which are read every Sabbath, fulfilled them by condemning him. 28And though they found in him no guilt worthy of death, they asked Pilate to have him executed. 29And when they had carried out all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb.

Who are 'they', who do you think ‘they’ are if they are not Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus? It is said that Joseph of Arimethea was a member of the Sanhedrin (supreme court and legislative body of ancient Israel) and Nicodemus was a Pharisee and a member of the Sanhedrin as well. How are they not ‘rulers’ and Jews? Certainly they are candidates to be the people that laid Jesus in the tomb via the Acts passage. I see no contradiction here either.

Honestly, Mike, this is where I think Christianity lost it. They sold their soul for peace. You have Jesus who sought not power and stuck his chin out and took it when they contested his claims, when bending a bit or compromising might have saved his life or protected his followers. He didn't. He said right was more important and he stood by it.

300 years later, they sell out. They take a personal religion and put right back where Jesus had taken it from. It became a governmental power of sorts. Essentially they became lawgivers.

They take the legacy of a poor man, by intent, and turn it into the richest organization in the world. An organization that used conquest, war, tyranny and outright forced payments to horde some of the greatest treasures of history. Treasures it's decided the world cannot have, though they could feed the poor of all the nations.

They put on jewels and giant hats and seats of honor and rings where people bow before them. And, yet, they worship a man that's greatest moments involved washing the feet of those "beneath" him.

They destroyed those who disagreed, threatened those that sought truth in the world with death, and basically took the personal out of personal religion entirely.

And is it any surprise? They made a deal for power, both that they gave and that they received. A pact. That's what happened in 325 AD. And from that day forward the religion that sprang from it was on a path that was completely seperate from the message of Christ.

Would Christ have murdered for his message? Nope. He proved He would not.

Would he argue with those that disagreed or have them destroyed? He proved it was the first.

Would he agree with the hording of wealth and power? Again, according to the Bible, He proved He would not.

How anyone can look at what birth Christianity and that fateful day and not see that could never be in sync is beyond me. Blind faith is one thing. This is a whole other level. And some would say that since it spread Christianity, it can only be good. I can't imagine a Jesus that endorsed any means to an end. If Jesus was who many who would argue with me believe, there is no worldly force that could have prevented him for wiping the world clean of all who would not follow. Christianity was a powerful message and there is nothing to suggest it wouldn't have survived without the obvious pact with the Pagan that it made.

in the first part of your post i believe you are refering to the catholic church. But i also believe in a less popular conspiracy: Masonic Involvement

in the first part of your post i believe you are refering to the catholic church. But i also believe in a less popular conspiracy: Masonic Involvement

*grabs shovel*
The who-whatwhat?
*looks around nervously*
There was no moral! It's just a bunch of stuff ... that happened!

Referencing the earlier "contradictions", the plain fact of the matter is that the gospels are witness statements, as recorded by whoever it was that scribed. If they were 100% in agreement, they wouldn't be witness statements, they'd be a concoction. No two accounts of any event are ever identical. Bits that aren't clear aren't so important, in this case.

As with any analysis of witness statements, it's more important to focus on what they DO agree on, rather than what they DON'T. What they DO agree on can, generally speaking, be determined to be reliable.

In the instances given in this thread (I haven't gone to the links. Sue me.), the example given was where was Jesus when the disciples first saw Him after His resurrection.

The answers may differ, but the point of agreement is that they did see Him, and He had risen, and in a physical sense.

Isn't that a far more important point in this conversation than who saw Him first?

-Lyras

Referencing the earlier "contradictions", <SNIP BS>

So basically follow slavishly behind what you like, ignore what you don't?

I believe that the Holy Bible is the word of God.Why?

Why?

Because he's christian?

Referencing the earlier "contradictions", the plain fact of the matter is that the gospels are witness statements, as recorded by whoever it was that scribed. If they were 100% in agreement, they wouldn't be witness statements, they'd be a concoction. No two accounts of any event are ever identical. Bits that aren't clear aren't so important, in this case.

As with any analysis of witness statements, it's more important to focus on what they DO agree on, rather than what they DON'T. What they DO agree on can, generally speaking, be determined to be reliable.

In the instances given in this thread (I haven't gone to the links. Sue me.), the example given was where was Jesus when the disciples first saw Him after His resurrection.

The answers may differ, but the point of agreement is that they did see Him, and He had risen, and in a physical sense.

Isn't that a far more important point in this conversation than who saw Him first?

-Lyras


no lyras they are not.

they are written by person or persons unknown many years after the (supposed) death of jesus.

Because he's christian?That would be a circular reasoning.

10 minutes with Christopher Hitchens: The cure for Christianity.

Talk about the cure being worse than the disease: Hitchens is a sickening advocate of genocide.

Talk about the cure being worse than the disease: Hitchens is a sickening advocate of genocide.

10 minutes with hitchens might be the cure for atheism. anything that he doesnt believe so devoutly might be worth looking into.

That's a circular answer:

<SNIP>

You get the idea.

And? That doesn't mean that that isn't his reason.

Because he's christian?

That's a circular answer:

A: I believe that the Holy Bible is the word of God.
B: Why?
A: Because I'm a Christian.
B: Why are you a Christian?
A: Because I believe that the Holy Bible is the word of God.
B: Why?
A: Because I'm a Christian.
B: Why are you a Christian?
A: Because I believe that the Holy Bible is the word of God.
B: Why?
A: Because I'm a Christian.
B: Why are you a Christian?
A: Because I believe that the Holy Bible is the word of God.
B: Why?
A: Because I'm a Christian.
B: Why are you a Christian?
A: Because I believe that the Holy Bible is the word of God.
B: Why?
A: Because I'm a Christian.
B: Why are you a Christian?
A: Because I believe that the Holy Bible is the word of God.
B: Why?
A: Because I'm a Christian.
B: Why are you a Christian?
A: Because I believe that the Holy Bible is the word of God.
B: Why?
A: Because I'm a Christian.
B: Why are you a Christian?
A: Because I believe that the Holy Bible is the word of God.
B: Why?
A: Because I'm a Christian.
B: Why are you a Christian?
A: Because I believe that the Holy Bible is the word of God.
B: Why?
A: Because I'm a Christian.
B: Why are you a Christian?
A: Because I believe that the Holy Bible is the word of God.
B: Why?
A: Because I'm a Christian.
B: Why are you a Christian?
A: Because I believe that the Holy Bible is the word of God.
B: Why?
A: Because I'm a Christian.
B: Why are you a Christian?
A: Because I believe that the Holy Bible is the word of God.

You get the idea.

I don't believe that people spend an eternity in hell because Christianity, at least us sane Lutherans believe that God or whomever you choose or don't choose to believe in loves you regardless of your actions.??

Be of good cheer, Estis, we don't let Generalites kill each other. It's only "dangerous" in the debating sense. Proof is what they call for, not blood.

:(:eek:

*hides pitchfork*

Ugh, Christians are so different from each other that these, "As a Christian, because you're all definately the same, how could you possibly believe this?" threads need to go.

If I found out Jesus wasn't real? Meh, I don't know. I wouldn't flip out and riot and stuff, I'd probably just think about it for a bit, and move on with my life.

We're all going to die, and I believe, that at one point or another, we're all going to end up at the same place for our final result. I don't believe that people spend an eternity in hell because Christianity, at least us sane Lutherans believe that God or whomever you choose or don't choose to believe in loves you regardless of your actions.

I agree, fortunately this isn't one of them. :)

Ugh, Christians are so different from each other that these, "As a Christian, because you're all definately the same, how could you possibly believe this?" threads need to go.

If I found out Jesus wasn't real? Meh, I don't know. I wouldn't flip out and riot and stuff, I'd probably just think about it for a bit, and move on with my life.

We're all going to die, and I believe, that at one point or another, we're all going to end up at the same place for our final result. I don't believe that people spend an eternity in hell because Christianity, at least us sane Lutherans believe that God or whomever you choose or don't choose to believe in loves you regardless of your actions.

You are aware that the bible contains a lot of contradictions, right? So, by that reasoning you should be a jew now, of course there is probably contradictions in the talmud too. :(

There are plenty of contradictions in the Tanach, but interestingly they nearly all vanish once you realise that many of the books are really two or more source texts edited together. For example, at one point the Noah's Ark story has Noah taking 2 of each unclean animal and 14 of each clean animal, while another just has him taking 2 of each regardless.

This is cleared up once you realise that two different flood stories are present: the former (known as E for 'the Elohist') was written at some point before the fall of Israel to the Assyrians and the second (known as P for 'the Priest') at some point before the destruction of the first temple, but after E. In E, Noah took 14 of each clean animal so he could sacrifice 12 of them, but the author of P didn't believe that anyone except a priest of the line of Aaron could sacrifice to Yahweh, so he reduced the number to 2.

Ugh, Christians are so different from each other ...not different enough to not be christians :rolleyes:

I was going to give him/her the benifit of the doubt for the moment. :D

This is the best response he could manage, so don't bother
No, you're just interpreting it in a way where there is a contradiction. Unlike you, however, I cannot interpret it in a way that could state that it is not the infallible Word of God.

10 minutes with hitchens might be the cure for atheism. anything that he doesnt believe so devoutly might be worth looking into.

He's a magnificent speaker but I've never read any of his books. Unfortunately I can't bring myself to give any money to the man, so I might have to write begging letters to the local library. :p

And? That doesn't mean that that isn't his reason.

I was going to give him/her the benifit of the doubt for the moment. :D

Referencing the earlier "contradictions", the plain fact of the matter is that the gospels are witness statements, as recorded by whoever it was that scribed. If they were 100% in agreement, they wouldn't be witness statements, they'd be a concoction. No two accounts of any event are ever identical. Bits that aren't clear aren't so important, in this case.

As with any analysis of witness statements, it's more important to focus on what they DO agree on, rather than what they DON'T. What they DO agree on can, generally speaking, be determined to be reliable.

In the instances given in this thread (I haven't gone to the links. Sue me.), the example given was where was Jesus when the disciples first saw Him after His resurrection.

The answers may differ, but the point of agreement is that they did see Him, and He had risen, and in a physical sense.

Isn't that a far more important point in this conversation than who saw Him first?

-Lyras

Very good, I could hardly agree more. Good points. To specifically address early authorship AND confirmation that the scripture has not been added to nor changed during the first few centuries, I would like to point out some facts for those that care how we know what we know...

We know a lot more about the reliability of an early dating of the gospels than the skeptics around here like to pretend we do. From the period of roughly 100A.D. to 300A.D., we now have papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament that were not available to earlier scholars. Over the last century or so many manuscripts and artifacts have been found, the oldest one (by general consensus dating) is a papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John called artifact (P52), it has been dated to the period around 125AD, and that fact alone proved that the original Gospel of John was written earlier, i.e., in the first century.

Unlike the eighteenth century German textural critics who invented all of these supposed ‘late’ authorship theory’s of scriptural ‘editing and additions’ that were supposed to have taken place during the first three centuries, we now have very early evidence in support of the text being unchanged from the first century onward for the New Testament works.

A perusal of of the finds will make this clear for those who understand that the scholars who claimed it was all “unknown authors and unknown dating” said so BEFORE the finds of the last century (or so) were brought to light. The scholars that came up with those late authorship theories worked only with the Vaticanus manuscript held in Rome (and later ones) and 'imagined what must have existed before them and they predicted that if we found older scriptures (earlier dated ones), the new discoveries would be vastly and significantly different than the copies we already have from the later dates, and we could see where things were changed and the canon gospels would essentially not exist in the earliest versions, that prediction has turned out to be patently false.

ca. A.D. 125 200 250 300 350 450

Matthew P45 B S
Mark P45 B S A
Luke P4 P45,P75 B S A
John P52 P66 P45,P75 B S A
Acts P45 B S A
Romans-Hebrews P46 B S A
1&2 Peter-Jude P72,B S A
Revelation P47 S A
Link to more complete list on Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri)

The manuscripts S (Sinaiticus), A (Alexandrinus) and B (Vaticanus) are essentially complete manuscripts of the entire NT works. With the help of the papyrus findings we are now able to prove that the text of those long known and frequently challenged manuscripts are in fact reliable sources for what was written down before them, despite the attacks against them from the eighteenth and nineteenth century that still brings forth false claims of supposed "mystery" today, they accurately represent first century teachings and writings.

With these modern findings and new archaeological discoveries, facts unknown to the scholars before, challenges against those old assumptions of late authorship for the gospels (and NT books in general) have fallen apart. The most up to date scholars are coming down on the side of earlier and earlier dating for the NT books. John A. T. Robinson in Redating the New Testament argues that all the books of the New Testament were written before 70 A.D. And even more recently papyrologist, Carsten Peter Thiede, argues that Matthew’s Gospel is the account of an eyewitness to the events in Eyewitness to Jesus, written with Matthew D’Ancona, and they argue that the Magdalen Papyrus of St. Matthew’s Gospel was written around A.D. 60.

But in late 1994, considerable publicity surrounded Carsten Peter Thiede's redating of the Magdalen papyrus to the last third of the 1st century, optimistically interpreted by journalists. His official article appeared in Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik the following year. The text for the layman was cowritten with Matthew d'Ancona and presented as The Jesus Papyrus, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1996. Thiede's re-dating has generally been viewed with skepticism by established Biblical scholars.
Philip Comfort and David Barret in their book Text of the Earliest NT Greek Manuscripts argue for a more general date of 150-175 for the manuscript, and also for P4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalen_papyrus (I placed it at 200AD in the chart above, just in case and to be fair)

Other scholars have disputed the late dating nonsense as well. Gunther Zuntz, assigned the date 40 A.D. as the most likely date of Mark’s composition, Orchard and Riley in their book, The Order of the Synoptics, argue that Matthew was written in A.D. 43., Reicke’s "Synoptic Prophecies on the Destruction of Jerusalem," in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honor of Allen P. Wikgren, assign 50-64 A.D. for the writing of Matthew.

He's a magnificent speaker but I've never read any of his books. Unfortunately I can't bring myself to give any money to the man, so I might have to write begging letters to the local library. :p
Why would you have to write letters? Are you banned from entering on your own?

Very good, I could hardly agree more. Good points. To specifically address early authorship AND confirmation that the scripture has not been added to nor changed during the first few centuries, I would like to point out some facts for those that care how we know what we know...

We know a lot more about the reliability of an early dating of the gospels than the skeptics around here like to pretend we do. From the period of roughly 100A.D. to 300A.D., we now have papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament that were not available to earlier scholars. Over the last century or so many manuscripts and artifacts have been found, the oldest one (by general consensus dating) is a papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John called artifact (P52), it has been dated to the period around 125AD, and that fact alone proved that the original Gospel of John was written earlier, i.e., in the first century.

Unlike the eighteenth century German textural critics who invented all of these supposed ‘late’ authorship theory’s of scriptural ‘editing and additions’ that were supposed to have taken place during the first three centuries, we now have very early evidence in support of the text being unchanged from the first century onward for the New Testament works.

A perusal of of the finds will make this clear for those who understand that the scholars who claimed it was all “unknown authors and unknown dating” said so BEFORE the finds of the last century (or so) were brought to light. The scholars that came up with those late authorship theories worked only with the Vaticanus manuscript held in Rome (and later ones) and 'imagined what must have existed before them and they predicted that if we found older scriptures (earlier dated ones), the new discoveries would be vastly and significantly different than the copies we already have from the later dates, and we could see where things were changed and the canon gospels would essentially not exist in the earliest versions, that prediction has turned out to be patently false.

ca. A.D. 125 200 250 300 350 450

Matthew P45 B S
Mark P45 B S A
Luke P4 P45,P75 B S A
John P52 P66 P45,P75 B S A
Acts P45 B S A
Romans-Hebrews P46 B S A
1&2 Peter-Jude P72,B S A
Revelation P47 S A
Link to more complete list on Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri)

The manuscripts S (Sinaiticus), A (Alexandrinus) and B (Vaticanus) are essentially complete manuscripts of the entire NT works. With the help of the papyrus findings we are now able to prove that the text of those long known and frequently challenged manuscripts are in fact reliable sources for what was written down before them, despite the attacks against them from the eighteenth and nineteenth century that still brings forth false claims of supposed "mystery" today, they accurately represent first century teachings and writings.


Wishful thinking. The fact that there is a fragment that seems to be part of the John text, from about 125 AD is evidence ONLY of the fact that there was some material resembling a fragment of the John text, as early as 124-5 AD.

I notice the next fragments identified in the source you provide are dated most of a century later. It's a little intellectually dishonest to claim that one fragment of one text in AD 125 gives us ANY real idea of what would "accurately represent first century teachings and writings". Indeed - if the dating is accurate, it means we basically know bugger-all about what was taught in the first century... hell, we don't even have any evidence of what was taught in AD 124, for certain



With these modern findings and new archaeological discoveries, facts unknown to the scholars before, challenges against those old assumptions of late authorship for the gospels (and NT books in general) have fallen apart. The most up to date scholars are coming down on the side of earlier and earlier dating for the NT books. John A. T. Robinson in Redating the New Testament argues that all the books of the New Testament were written before 70 A.D. And even more recently papyrologist, Carsten Peter Thiede, argues that Matthew’s Gospel is the account of an eyewitness to the events in Eyewitness to Jesus, written with Matthew D’Ancona, and they argue that the Magdalen Papyrus of St. Matthew’s Gospel was written around A.D. 60.

But in late 1994, considerable publicity surrounded Carsten Peter Thiede's redating of the Magdalen papyrus to the last third of the 1st century, optimistically interpreted by journalists. His official article appeared in Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik the following year. The text for the layman was cowritten with Matthew d'Ancona and presented as The Jesus Papyrus, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1996. Thiede's re-dating has generally been viewed with skepticism by established Biblical scholars.
Philip Comfort and David Barret in their book Text of the Earliest NT Greek Manuscripts argue for a more general date of 150-175 for the manuscript, and also for P4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalen_papyrus (I placed it at 200AD in the chart above, just in case and to be fair)

Other scholars have disputed the late dating nonsense as well. Gunther Zuntz, assigned the date 40 A.D. as the most likely date of Mark’s composition, Orchard and Riley in their book, The Order of the Synoptics, argue that Matthew was written in A.D. 43., Reicke’s "Synoptic Prophecies on the Destruction of Jerusalem," in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honor of Allen P. Wikgren, assign 50-64 A.D. for the writing of Matthew.

Disputing dates is nice. But irrelevent. Evidence is what matters. I personally could care les what Gunther Zuntz, Orchard or Riley believe. If they think there were (proto)Christian scriptures around a decade after the alleged crucifiction, that's nice - but it's speculation unless they have the material evidence, or a good source of verification.

And, let's try to avoid the whole historicity trap before it even starts - there is no independent contemporary corroboration for any of it - the crucifiction, the nature of the proto-church, the scripture or doctrine. We have nothing - literally nothing - until about a century after the events are supposed to have taken place. Even the fragments you sourced, can only give us a rough idea of what might have existed in ONE text, as much as almost a century removed.

This was part of my question in Did Jesus really exist? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545783) but it got ignored, so I figured I'd try it out in its own thread.

If it was somehow proven that Jesus did not exist, would that hurt your faith?

(And this isn't about whether or not it can be proven either way)

No it wouldn't hurt my faith in the least. Everlasting life is granted from God. If man screwed the message up, God already knows that...and forgiveness is his forte. ;)

No it wouldn't hurt my faith in the least. Everlasting life is granted from God. If man screwed the message up, God already knows that...and forgiveness is his forte. ;)So you're a Jew? Because remaining Christian without a Christ, or Jesus as Christ, is somewhat pointless.

I look at Jesus, a man we only know as a character in a book a bit like I regard Socrates, a man we also only know as a character in a book (or rather a few books).

Philosophers and historians have come to the conclusion that the man called Socrates, about who Plato wrote, may in fact not have existed or done exactly the same things the character Socrates does in Plato's writings. I've read those writings. There re quite some tricks in them. A particularly interesting one is that Plato writes how Socrates once explained something by telling his audience that he had learned it from an immensely wise woman, Diotima. But did Diotima exist in truth? Chances are that she didn't and that Socrates only used her as a character to make it seem as if the wisdom was not his.

When you look at Plato's own work, you could in turn remark that all the wisdom in them is never displayed by Plato himself, but always by another character, Socrates. But no other records than Plato's books speak about a man called Socrates. So it is very well possible that Plato himself was the true wiseman, but he sought to teach it to others indirectly. It is certain that Plato himself existed, afterall, somebody has to have written those books, and whether or not he had the name Plato does not matter, he did write the books. Note that teaching something through a third person is very close to a religion, which also makes use of a third person.

In the case of Jesus it is more complex. It is vertually certain that a man called Jesus did truly exist. The reason is that there are numerous records who describe this man. However, like with Socrates, it is uncertain whether the biblical Jesus did exist in truth. Formulated differently: like whith Socrates, it is uncertain whether the book character Jesus fits with the Jesus who existed in truth.

How come? Well in 1948 and 1950, a number of documents of about 2000 years old were found in Israel and Egypt, which contain gospels. These gospels were for some reason not included in the bible when the Christian Church was founded in Rome in the first century BC. We do not know why. Most interesting is that these gospels describe Jesus very differently: not as a divine person, or as a son of God, but as a human being, like every one of us, however, a very good one and committed to the care for the unfortunate.

The cause of this discrepancy between various gospels (even between the four official gospels) is that 2000 years ago, no immediate records of Jesus' teachings and dialogues were made. No microphones and cameras were available. At best, just after a speech, some people went home and went writing down all that they remembered of the speech, and even that is unlikely. Most likely, the speech developed into a story before it was written down later. In any case, the interpretation of the person writing it down is crucial. When we read Mark's gospel, we don't read about the actual Jesus, but we view Jesus through Mark's eyes. We read Mark's interpretation of Jesus and all he said and all that was done. Part of what we read is possibly not even Jesus' wisdom, but Mark's, although the character Jesus in Mark's writings is saying it.

So whoever Jesus really was, we will never know. The Bible doesn't provide us with any final indisputable answer and other sources also don't. Just like when we are reading a gospel, we are an interpretation of Jesus by the author, we ourselves are in turn free to have our own interpretation of Jesus. Statistically speaking, the chance of one of those interpretations matching the real character and characteristics of the real Jesus (which are unknown) is just as big as any other. So any interpretation is just as correct as any other one, regardless of the differences and whether you agree with it or not.

As such, you could argument that no human being is "more equal" than any other, for all are Children of God, from the highest priest, to the worst sinner, and that as such none of them has the right to impose his interpretation (image or idol) on another. That bears remarkable resemblence with the first or second commandment, depending on which form of Christianity you consider yourself part of.

So you're a Jew? Because remaining Christian without a Christ, or Jesus as Christ, is somewhat pointless.

No, the messages of Judaism and Christianity differ

Well, if it was definitely proven that Jesus never existed, I would become Jewish. After all, I am already worshiping YHWH as it is, and I would feel really dejected, depressed, and atheistic for a time, but eventually I would become somewhat-orthodox Jewish.

Wishful thinking. *snip*

Here we go again. Save this post for next month. You'll certainly need it again.

No, the messages of Judaism and Christianity differBut the "God" is the same.

Well, if it was definitely proven that Jesus never existed, I would become Jewish. After all, I am already worshiping YHWH as it is, and I would feel really dejected, depressed, and atheistic for a time, but eventually I would become somewhat-orthodox Jewish.But why? Why follow YHVH??

TrueWhich means, the message does not really differ. It's always the same old shit.

But the "God" is the same.

True

This was part of my question in Did Jesus really exist? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545783) but it got ignored, so I figured I'd try it out in its own thread.

If it was somehow proven that Jesus did not exist, would that hurt your faith?

(And this isn't about whether or not it can be proven either way)

Only one way to find out...

Wishful thinking. The fact that there is a fragment that seems to be part of the John text, from about 125 AD is evidence ONLY of the fact that there was some material resembling a fragment of the John text, as early as 124-5 AD.

I notice the next fragments identified in the source you provide are dated most of a century later. It's a little intellectually dishonest to claim that one fragment of one text in AD 125 gives us ANY real idea of what would "accurately represent first century teachings and writings". Indeed - if the dating is accurate, it means we basically know bugger-all about what was taught in the first century... hell, we don't even have any evidence of what was taught in AD 124, for certain

Which one of us is being intellectually dishonest? I don't even need to say anything new, just point out what I've already said, and you pretend that I didn't say them or my argument didn't address them. P66 is dated seventy five years later in my chart, that is correct, but the p66 artifact is nearly the entire gospel of John and P4 is nearly 6 chapters long of Luke. And between them all and the many I didn't put in the chart but linked to a list of them, shows how the continuous existence of the gospels predates the S, A, and B manuscripts that were accused of being inaccurate representations of what came before them. The charge was and remains a false one. The newest discoveries have verified the unchanging character of the NT works, not refutes it. Whether you as a singular person is convinced or not is irrelevant to the fact that the evidence supports the view that the NT works went through the first three centuries unmolested.

Disputing dates is nice. But irrelevant. Evidence is what matters. I personally could care les what Gunther Zuntz, Orchard or Riley believe. If they think there were (proto)Christian scriptures around a decade after the alleged crucifiction, that's nice - but it's speculation unless they have the material evidence, or a good source of verification.
All the evidence that exists supports the interpretation of the first century church being accurately portrayed in the book of Acts, whereas no evidence has been found that is contrary to understanding that there was early existence of the NT works and the Christian movement of the first century. Nice try at a red herring argument though, your charge is nothing but a misdirection from the real evidence to a fantasy list of what you want to be produced...

And, let's try to avoid the whole historicity trap before it even starts - there is no independent contemporary corroboration for any of it - the crucifiction, the nature of the proto-church, the scripture or doctrine. We have nothing - literally nothing - until about a century after the events are supposed to have taken place. Even the fragments you sourced, can only give us a rough idea of what might have existed in ONE text, as much as almost a century removed.

If you don't want to talk about it why did you bring it up? But if you want to rehash the same old debunked accusations that used to say: "(we have no evidence) literally nothing - until about THREE centuries after the events are supposed to have taken place," and now, because new evidence has been brought to light of the last ten decades, we've shaved two hundred years off of that complaint and have it whittled down to a mere single century*... The date of the NT works is moving earlier and earlier as science and research progresses and you can drag your heels kicking and screaming all you want but it doesn't change a thing.

(*A single century only, that is, IF the evidence hasn't already been found that takes into the first century itself. I already cited a source that argues that the Magdalen Papyrus of St. Matthew’s Gospel IS a first century work, but I didn't put it there in my chart to recognize the controversial nature of that dating, but we very well may already have first century works in our possession)

Only one way to find out...

And that is?

This was part of my question in Did Jesus really exist? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545783) but it got ignored, so I figured I'd try it out in its own thread.

If it was somehow proven that Jesus did not exist, would that hurt your faith?

(And this isn't about whether or not it can be proven either way)

I personally believe he did, but I leave that to my faith. If for some reason we find out he didn't, I probably wouldn't believe it and just keep my faith. Just like any religion, you hold on to what you know.

This is not to say that I am ignorant to the value of scientific data. I have studied evolution and understand it. Science is something I love. Either way, if we evolved or were created, or a mixture of the two, I'm happy. It won't be the end of the world for me.

The way I see it, my belief in Jesus goes around the fact of being loving and caring to others as he taught. To be non-judgmental, showing no racist tensions towards your fellow man, and to help when someone needs help within reasonable limits. Concerning the conversion factor of Christianity, I tend to not pressure anyone rather preferring to just let them decide how much or how little they want to hear my ideas on faith.

So, in the end, even if he was proven not to exist, this man of the Bible, Son of God or Mythical Hero, taught me how to be a better person and a better man. To love and to care. To not judge and to experience life for what it is. Life. I believe he exists personally, and I believe I'm Saved. So either way, I'm happy.

Science is a wonderful thing, a very beautiful thing. Through it we understand our universe better and how it works. Faith and science sometimes come together, and sometimes go separate ways. In all honesty I'm not sure how these two ways to search for answers would butt heads in this case. I do so hope with civility and caring. Because it is faith, and to some of us its real and to some its just faith. No need to argue over it.

If he was, which I believe he was, then fine! If science finds him not real, then okay. I have my hero, either way.

Which one of us is being intellectually dishonest? I don't even need to say anything new, just point out what I've already said, and you pretend that I didn't say them or my argument didn't address them. P66 is dated seventy five years later in my chart, that is correct, but the p66 artifact is nearly the entire gospel of John and P4 is nearly 6 chapters long of Luke. And between them all and the many I didn't put in the chart but linked to a list of them, shows how the continuous existence of the gospels predates the S, A, and B manuscripts that were accused of being inaccurate representations of what came before them. The charge was and remains a false one. The newest discoveries have verified the unchanging character of the NT works, not refutes it. Whether you as a singular person is convinced or not is irrelevant to the fact that the evidence supports the view that the NT works went through the first three centuries unmolested.

Leaps like this should be in the Olympics.

You missed the entire point and then jumped from the tiniest bit of evidence to making a very bold claim.

Okay, the evidence from the third century doesn't address the first two. So mentioning P66 shows you don't really understand the point. I'll help.

Your claim is about ALL THREE centuries. You can't lump them all together. For the first two centuries we have no compelling evidence of your claim. The evidence we do have is so slim as to be unable to make a claim at all. You leaped right over that and started talking about robust evidence of the third century, which ignores the point made by GnI altogether.

If your claim is true, there must be evidence from each of the three centuries. What you're doing is equivalent to claiming that because I can look at the number of posts GnI has made on average the past three days that I have evidence of what he's done since he arrived on NSG. Without ACTUALLY looking at his history, the beginning, the middle and the end (in this case, you're focused on the first three centuries, so I'm only referring to them), you can't make sweeping claims about his history. You're doing yourself and an argument a disservice when you reference evidence from late in a period and then making sweeping claims about the entire period, claims for which the evidence does not exist as far as anyone knows.

Going solely by your chart, you have one piece of evidence from before the third century, scant evidence and evidence whose date isn't listed as 125 AD by your own link. Applying later evidence to that earlier evidence is intellectually dishonest, thus the accusation. Now, let's focus on the first two centuries which is what you're trying to make claims about. That puts out P66 and everything after it. You've got very little suggest anything about the Gospels or the teachings of Christians in the first two centuries. Deal with it.

So you're a Jew? Because remaining Christian without a Christ, or Jesus as Christ, is somewhat pointless.

No, not at all. It isn't the 'man' that is important it is the message. Christianity is to strive to live Christ-like, it is the belief that we can, the belief that we should try. I can 'believeth in Him" and not have to have a real man at a certain point in history to do so. The message reached us regardless if it came through one man or thirteen men. It doesn't matter.

No, not at all. It isn't the 'man' that is important it is the message. Christianity is to strive to live Christ-like, it is the belief that we can, the belief that we should try. I can 'believeth in Him" and not have to have a real man at a certain point in history to do so. The message reached us regardless if it came through one man or thirteen men. It doesn't matter.The message of Christianity is the complete submission under God (the invented Jewish god that is). The very same as in Judaism and Islam.
And "to strive to live Christ-like" means what? To go around and preach Judaism and ask folks to give up intelligence for ideology? To ask someone to believe means to ask for an end of thinking and reason.

The message of Christianity is the complete submission under God (the invented Jewish god that is). The very same as in Judaism and Islam.
And "to strive to live Christ-like" means what? To go around and preach Judaism and ask folks to give up intelligence for ideology? To ask someone to believe means to ask for an end of thinking and reason.

There are as many different ideas about the central message of Christianity as there are Christians. It would be very difficult to prove that one central theme or idea was the central message.

Some people think that to live in Christ is to demand the utmost of yourself in terms of moral behaviour. To approach each moment with a sense of universal love and community.

...To approach each moment with a sense of universal love and community.No, that's the hippies.

No, that's the hippies.

How about christian hippies?

How about christian hippies?

Those would be the Friends, or as they are more popularly known, the Quakers.

The message of Christianity is the complete submission under God (the invented Jewish god that is). The very same as in Judaism and Islam.
And "to strive to live Christ-like" means what? To go around and preach Judaism and ask folks to give up intelligence for ideology? To ask someone to believe means to ask for an end of thinking and reason.


For you that perhaps is what Christianity means but it doesn't for me at all. Christianity doesn't mean exactly the same cookie-cutter thing to any two people in my experience. In my case it is a very personal thing that is based in faith, a complete faith. Faith doesn't mean I have no reasoning abilities or cannot think. God gave me a very good brain and free will for a reason...to use it. It simply means that I know without question there is a higher power. And I do know that. In my case "submission" is simply a leap of faith.

But it isn't something I can convey to you or anyone else as 'provable' in layman terms. Sadly, I might add because it would be much easier if I could explain it simply. It is just something I know from experience. Like someone knowing what love is...but until you experience it you only have what you hear or read to understand it. The experience is completely different. Something you know when you are in love, really what you know more clearly is that you realize you had never been there before. I just know. That is why it isn't the 'man' that is the proof. There was a time I didn't know, when the time came that I did know that is when I poignantly knew I had never known. *sigh* I'm sorry I can't find the words to really convey this properly. :(

To strive to live 'Christ-like' is simply to follow those guidelines that are outlined in the Bible. Strive to live a good and honorable life. Conciously understand temptation and sin and willingly try to conquer those things.

I don't ask people to believe. I think I can only present what I know. The leap of faith has to come from within, not because someone told you to believe.

Do you genuinely believe that people who follow an ideology are not intelligent? I am sincere in my question and there is no inference at all, I would really like to know.

I look at Jesus, a man we only know as a character in a book a bit like I regard Socrates, a man we also only know as a character in a book (or rather a few books).

Philosophers and historians have come to the conclusion that the man called Socrates, about who Plato wrote, may in fact not have existed or done exactly the same things the character Socrates does in Plato's writings. I've read those writings. There re quite some tricks in them. A particularly interesting one is that Plato writes how Socrates once explained something by telling his audience that he had learned it from an immensely wise woman, Diotima. But did Diotima exist in truth? Chances are that she didn't and that Socrates only used her as a character to make it seem as if the wisdom was not his.

When you look at Plato's own work, you could in turn remark that all the wisdom in them is never displayed by Plato himself, but always by another character, Socrates.

Actually, in Plato's last work, The Laws, Socrates makes no appearance at all, and the main character is simply an anonymous Athenian.[/nitpick]

But no other records than Plato's books speak about a man called Socrates.

He's also mentioned by Aristophanes, Xenophon, and Aristotle. Aristophanes and Xenophon both knew Socrates, while Aristotle only heard second-hand accounts.

So it is very well possible that Plato himself was the true wiseman, but he sought to teach it to others indirectly.

Dubious. There is quite a noticeable divide between the views expressed by Socrates in Plato's early works and those in the later writings: it seems that Plato began by reporting Socrates' teaching but began to write his own views into the writings as they matured. For example, the early (and apparently authentic) Socrates is proud to declare that he doesn't know what comes after death: he accuses those who fear death of foolishness for being terrified of the unknown. This is in sharp contrast to Plato's later beliefs, such as the Phaedo where he has Socrates rattling off proofs for the immortality of the soul in his last moments, or The Republic where he tells a fully-fledged underworld myth.

It is certain that Plato himself existed, afterall, somebody has to have written those books, and whether or not he had the name Plato does not matter, he did write the books. Note that teaching something through a third person is very close to a religion, which also makes use of a third person.

This is a very strange claim. There are many good reasons for writing in dialogue form, including (but not limited to) encouraging readers to make up their own minds, presenting the opposing view in an elegant and integrated fashion, and disguising one's own views. Galileo's famous heliocentric work was written in dialogue form, as was David Hume's masterful Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (which can't be accused of being a religious tract by any stretch of the imagination).

It's also worth noting that not all dialogues have just one character representing the author: Hume is largely represented by the sceptic Philo is his Dialogues, but there are times when he allows the liberal-Christian Cleanthes to win a point (the third participant, the Fideist-Christian Demea doesn't really win anything at all, and his only role is to be shown up by the intelligence of Philo and Cleanthes).

In the case of Jesus it is more complex. It is vertually certain that a man called Jesus did truly exist. The reason is that there are numerous records who describe this man. However, like with Socrates, it is uncertain whether the biblical Jesus did exist in truth. Formulated differently: like whith Socrates, it is uncertain whether the book character Jesus fits with the Jesus who existed in truth.

How come? Well in 1948 and 1950, a number of documents of about 2000 years old were found in Israel and Egypt, which contain gospels. These gospels were for some reason not included in the bible when the Christian Church was founded in Rome in the first century BC. We do not know why. Most interesting is that these gospels describe Jesus very differently: not as a divine person, or as a son of God, but as a human being, like every one of us, however, a very good one and committed to the care for the unfortunate.

The cause of this discrepancy between various gospels (even between the four official gospels) is that 2000 years ago, no immediate records of Jesus' teachings and dialogues were made. No microphones and cameras were available. At best, just after a speech, some people went home and went writing down all that they remembered of the speech, and even that is unlikely. Most likely, the speech developed into a story before it was written down later. In any case, the interpretation of the person writing it down is crucial. When we read Mark's gospel, we don't read about the actual Jesus, but we view Jesus through Mark's eyes. We read Mark's interpretation of Jesus and all he said and all that was done. Part of what we read is possibly not even Jesus' wisdom, but Mark's, although the character Jesus in Mark's writings is saying it.

The Gnostic Gospels were probably all written in the late second century or later (with the possible exception of Thomas), wheras the four mainstream ones were probably written in the late first century (120 is the last sensible date for John, Mark and Matthew are almost certainly first century and I don't think Luke could be placed anywhere after 105AD; please note that these are the latest possible dates, they were probably all earlier).

Oh, and not all of the Gnostic Gospels portrayed Jesus as a man: most of them have even wilder miracles than the four Gospels.

If there was no Jesus, and even if there was, but there was no death and resurrection, then as Paul said it, our faith would be in vain. The entire faith is that we are saved from sin, by his sacrifice, and when we accept that sacrifice, we come back into communion with el Shaddai, our Almighty God. And when we are in that communion we are lead to do things that we never would have imagined doing before. So everything in our faith rests on Jesus Christ being real, being the God in flesh, dying upon a cross, and rising again.

why would we be saved from our sins by his death at all? its US that makes those sins not him i'd say let everyone pay for thier own but i don't expect god to do that in fact if god exists then i will make him pay for his first afther all he created a lot of mess and i am referring to the human race but he didn't clean his small play room and that is one of the things that humans are better in then god cleaning stuff afther all we have become quite efficient in waging war and that kills lots of humans i haven't seen god at all let alone clean his mess so even if everything in the bible is true i would still never follow god because god is simply just as flawed as humans who has powers he can't controll and he shouldn't play with powers he can't controll but like humans he must use powers he can't controll if he can use them and the next thing you know you have an entire race of super intelligent beings that kill crush destroy and abuse power i'd say its gods fault hoever i won't wait for god to clean it up i'm afraid thats something we need to do ourself
asuming god did exist else its evolutions fault but in the end only we can clean or own mess but back to jesus i think he didn't exist just like i don't belief god does/did if he did hoever i think his walking on water tactic was more like walking on ice or something and if you write that as walking on water you haven't lied but people might think he's super human not thinking about ice and thats just frozen water in other words they bible could be true in many cases but twisted or thier meanings twisted but to have eccual prove that jesus did or did not exist i can't say that everything is based on belief and brain work and well the bible can be just as fake so i can't call that prove i mean maybe it was just a simple amusment book instead of a holy book who knows

It simply means that I know without question there is a higher power.No, you don't. You believe. And in believing you only say something about yourself, but not about the higher power.

Do you genuinely believe that people who follow an ideology are not intelligent?Faith is an inherently flawed concept. And yes, I consider believers to be lacking a certain mental ability to accurately distinguish between things inside and outside their minds.

No, you don't. You believe. And in believing you only say something about yourself, but not about the higher power.

Faith is an inherently flawed concept. And yes, I consider believers to be lacking a certain mental ability to accurately distinguish between things inside and outside their minds.

No I'm sorry you do not understand, but I do know it is not just a belief. Once upon a time it was just a belief, it is no longer something I just believe it is something I know without question. My reasons that I know are mine and are extremely personal, but I do know.

Your view is interesting to me. I cannot imagine being so lost; or rather I should say I can't imagine how lost I would be without my knowledge and faith.

No I'm sorry you do not understand, but I do know it is not just a belief. Once upon a time it was just a belief, it is no longer something I just believe it is something I know without question. My reasons that I know are mine and are extremely personal, but I do know.

Your view is interesting to me. I cannot imagine being so lost; or rather I should say I can't imagine how lost I would be without my knowledge and faith.Save your pity. I do understand. I have dealt with delusional folks of your kind who confuse faith and fact quite a lot. :rolleyes:

No, you don't. You believe. And in believing you only say something about yourself, but not about the higher power.

Just like you don't know there is no higher power. And you're correct, it very much says something about you that you claim to know.

...Christianity without christ is "ianity!"

...Christianity is "insanity!"

fixed ;):p

fixed ;):p:D

:D

I figured you'd like that UB.

I figured you'd like that UB.
too easy, huh? :)

Of course it would hurt my faith. The whole basis of the New Testament is based on Jesus coming and dying and rising again and what happened after such as the many letters. If Jesus was proven to not have existed I would probably abandon my faith altogether.

But, how can we prove that someone did not exist? We can prove that someone did exist if we can find their remains but even if it is physically impossible to find the remains it still doesn't prove that someone or something didn't exist.

Just like it is physically impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God. It is illogical not to wonder if there is a higher being. To conclude that because you have no proof he doesn't exist is turning a blind eye to religion and saying, "Nope, I don't want to take part."

This reminds me of an interesting argument I had with a friend of mine as to what the most important part of the Christian faith was. He said that accepting Christ as one's lord and savior. I said it was the message of Christ in the Bible, that we should love one another as we would love ourselves was what mattered. I'm no scholar on the matter, but I am pretty sure that there was a historical Jesus Christ, but the thing about the virgin birth and the resurrection and the ascension are coming into question lately.

Of course it would hurt my faith. The whole basis of the New Testament is based on Jesus coming and dying and rising again and what happened after such as the many letters. If Jesus was proven to not have existed I would probably abandon my faith altogether.

But, how can we prove that someone did not exist? We can prove that someone did exist if we can find their remains but even if it is physically impossible to find the remains it still doesn't prove that someone or something didn't exist.

Just like it is physically impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God. It is illogical not to wonder if there is a higher being. To conclude that because you have no proof he doesn't exist is turning a blind eye to religion and saying, "Nope, I don't want to take part."

It isn't possible, this was just a what if?

too easy, huh? :)

Yup :p

the four mainstream ones were probably written in the late first century (120 is the last sensible date for John, Mark and Matthew are almost certainly first century and I don't think Luke could be placed anywhere after 105AD; please note that these are the latest possible dates, they were probably all earlier).
It does not make sense to speak of a single date-of-composition for these works. Mark is the only one likely to have been largely composed at one sitting, sometime in the 60's; but even there, some think there are traces of a first draft (largely the passion narrative) and a second draft, and of course the ending was tacked on sometime in the 2nd century.

"Matthew" consisted only of the "Quotations of Jesus" material as late as the turn of the 2nd century (when Papias describes it); I do not believe that the canonical Matthew, combining a version of the Markan narrative plus the Quotations plus new material (largely Old Testament citations with little stories that "fulfil" them, particularly the nativity and temptation stories), was assembled until the 110's, and the ending was still being reworked until late in the 2nd century (the "guards at the tomb" addendum is later than 150).

"Luke" was first published by Marcion in the 130's in a version that did not contain the first few chapters or the present ending, and was not yet attached to the book of "Acts" or ascribed to Luke (it was just the "Evangelion", anonymous); the editor of the final version must be in the 150's (the cover-letter is to "Theophilus", bishop of Antioch in the middle of the 2nd century).

"John" had an even longer development: while the Passion narrative contains what looks like some genuine 1st-century material, the long Discourses by Jesus are early 2nd-century, the final chapter is late 2nd-century, and further material kept being added as late as the 5th century (when the "woman taken in adultery" first appears).

It does not make sense to speak of a single date-of-composition for these works. Mark is the only one likely to have been largely composed at one sitting, sometime in the 60's; but even there, some think there are traces of a first draft (largely the passion narrative) and a second draft, and of course the ending was tacked on sometime in the 2nd century.

"Matthew" consisted only of the "Quotations of Jesus" material as late as the turn of the 2nd century (when Papias describes it); I do not believe that the canonical Matthew, combining a version of the Markan narrative plus the Quotations plus new material (largely Old Testament citations with little stories that "fulfil" them, particularly the nativity and temptation stories), was assembled until the 110's, and the ending was still being reworked until late in the 2nd century (the "guards at the tomb" addendum is later than 150).

"Luke" was first published by Marcion in the 130's in a version that did not contain the first few chapters or the present ending, and was not yet attached to the book of "Acts" or ascribed to Luke (it was just the "Evangelion", anonymous); the editor of the final version must be in the 150's (the cover-letter is to "Theophilus", bishop of Antioch in the middle of the 2nd century).

"John" had an even longer development: while the Passion narrative contains what looks like some genuine 1st-century material, the long Discourses by Jesus are early 2nd-century, the final chapter is late 2nd-century, and further material kept being added as late as the 5th century (when the "woman taken in adultery" first appears).


thats an interesting analysis. where did you get your info? is there some place online that i can read more about it?

thats an interesting analysis. where did you get your info? is there some place online that i can read more about it?

Yeah, I noticed that all of that is completely unsourced and seems to be pretty standard apologist stuff.

Your mama sucks cocks in hell.

This was part of my question in Did Jesus really exist? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545783) but it got ignored, so I figured I'd try it out in its own thread.

If it was somehow proven that Jesus did not exist, would that hurt your faith?

(And this isn't about whether or not it can be proven either way)

If there was no Jesus, and even if there was, but there was no death and resurrection, then as Paul said it, our faith would be in vain. The entire faith is that we are saved from sin, by his sacrifice, and when we accept that sacrifice, we come back into communion with el Shaddai, our Almighty God. And when we are in that communion we are lead to do things that we never would have imagined doing before. So everything in our faith rests on Jesus Christ being real, being the God in flesh, dying upon a cross, and rising again.

I seem to agree with most of Zilam's posts... and as a Christian who takes the Bible and the historicity of Christ seriously i must say most definitely yes. Paul puts it well in his first letter to the Corinthian church...
And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is worthless and you are still guilty of your sins. In that case, all who have died believing in Christ are perished! And if our hope in Christ is for this life only, then we are more to be pitied than anyone ever.
But in fact, Christ has been raised from the dead. To make clear, just as death came into the world through a man, now the resurrection from the dead has begun through another man. Just as everyone dies because we all belong to Adam, everyone who belongs to Christ will be given new life. But there is an order to this resurrection: Christ was raised as the first of the harvest; then all who belong to Christ will be raised when he comes back.
The message and the man cannot be separated. If there was no Christ there would be no message. John makes it clear in the 1st chapter that He is the Message/the Reason/the Logos incarnate.

If there were no Christ, history would continue to be one cycle of evil empire arising after evil empire continually trampling the rights and dignity of man in a never ending cycle.

I seem to agree with most of Zilam's posts... and as a Christian who takes the Bible and the historicity of Christ seriously i must say most definitely yes. Paul puts it well in his first letter to the Corinthian church...
And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is worthless and you are still guilty of your sins. In that case, all who have died believing in Christ are perished! And if our hope in Christ is for this life only, then we are more to be pitied than anyone ever.
But in fact, Christ has been raised from the dead. To make clear, just as death came into the world through a man, now the resurrection from the dead has begun through another man. Just as everyone dies because we all belong to Adam, everyone who belongs to Christ will be given new life. But there is an order to this resurrection: Christ was raised as the first of the harvest; then all who belong to Christ will be raised when he comes back.
The message and the man cannot be separated. If there was no Christ there would be no message. John makes it clear in the 1st chapter that He is the Message/the Reason/the Logos incarnate.

If there were no Christ, history would continue to be one cycle of evil empire arising after evil empire continually trampling the rights and dignity of man in a never ending cycle.

how "real" does jesus have to have been in order to qualify as having existed?

is it ok that the (rather few) stories of his personal life are obviously made up?

do the miracles have to all be true?

how about...if there is a spiritual entity that is the son of god in some mystical way but he never lived as a man on earth but only inspired the writers of the gospels and the early believers in coming up with a correct theology?

This was part of my question in Did Jesus really exist? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545783) but it got ignored, so I figured I'd try it out in its own thread.

If it was somehow proven that Jesus did not exist, would that hurt your faith?

(And this isn't about whether or not it can be proven either way)

Yes and no. It would certainly shake the foundations of my faith as a Christian, since it would call into question the doctrinal specifics of my faith that even I still cling to: that there was a historical figure named Jesus, and that he was at the least a divinely-inspired human who articulates a moral framework that we all should live by. That being said, the moral framework is what I look to the New Testament for more than anything else, and even if there were no Jesus to do the articulating, the moral framework articulated is still quite brilliant in its simplicity, applicabilibility, and approachability.

how "real" does jesus have to have been in order to qualify as having existed?

is it ok that the (rather few) stories of his personal life are obviously made up?

do the miracles have to all be true?

how about...if there is a spiritual entity that is the son of god in some mystical way but he never lived as a man on earth but only inspired the writers of the gospels and the early believers in coming up with a correct theology?

it has to be real, true, and correct because that is what it purports to be. Either one trusts the testimony that Jesus was everything that he said, or he does not. It is an all or nothing proposition. If Jesus never existed, there would be no good news (that someone proved that he could escape death, entropy, evil and sin; and invited to take all of us with him) and no Christianity.

The pertinent credo about Jesus as recorded by the 1st century church and summed up was that:
Jesus Christ is God's only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. The third day He arose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

That puts him squarely into real space-time as a faithful and true witness to what is really real. If he or his message are false or unreal, nothing about it can be true. Jesus deliberately worded his message this way, and the Bible is a testimony to that record, so that there is no alternative. One either believes the message and person are faithful and true, or one does not.

Most of the early witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, gladly died testifying to the fact that they saw Him resurrected and put their faith in Him that He would resurrect them some day regardless of what was done to them in this life to persuade them otherwise. All of the first apostles and evangelists were martyred, except for John. None of them recanted and said that it wasn't real. Millions have died testifying to their trusting in Him and His message. They are either really right, or really really wrong...

Save your pity. I do understand. I have dealt with delusional folks of your kind who confuse faith and fact quite a lot. :rolleyes:

Nah, that wasn't pity at all. There was no expectation that you would or could understand. Why would there be, or better how could there be?

...Christianity without christ is "ianity!"

I like you. You need to post more.

Like what people? Horus, mithras, dionysus and all that jazz? :rolleyes:
.

Or my personal favourite; Zeus incarnate the followers of one particular legend calling the form "the son of Zeus". A few hundred years later, this would prove convenient for Eastern pagans to later affix to the newly popular Cult of Christ.

Or my personal favourite; Zeus incarnate the followers of one particular legend calling the form "the son of Zeus". A few hundred years later, this would prove convenient for Eastern pagans to later affix to the newly popular Cult of Christ.

Ayup.

Which one of us is being intellectually dishonest?


You appear to be.

What I SAID was "It's a little intellectually dishonest to claim that one fragment of one text in AD 125 gives us ANY real idea of what would "accurately represent first century teachings and writings""... and I stand by it.

And your 'riposte' failed to deal with that, I notice. It's still true - we know next to nothing about the first century situation, and even the source you present helps us not a great deal - since it isn't concurrent with the events we are discussing.

I stand by it - at BEST we MIGHT have an idea of what MIGHT have been the understanding of SOME people, in the leadup to 125AD.


I don't even need to say anything new, just point out what I've already said, and you pretend that I didn't say them or my argument didn't address them. P66 is dated seventy five years later in my chart, that is correct, but the p66 artifact is nearly the entire gospel of John and P4 is nearly 6 chapters long of Luke.



A couple of points. P66 is 200 AD (ish). P4 is 125 AD (ish). Thus - all our evidence is later than 124 AD. Fir5st, and maybe most important.

Second - it's funny that you say P66 is 'nearly the entire gospel of John'... when we are discussing a FRAGMENT. And you seem to believe that this means the scripture is largely as it was. One only has to suggest that P66 matches what we NOW call 'John', to see the possible implication that what we NOW call 'John' would have been considered something else, then... a compilation of different texts, perhaps... or a tiny fraction of a much greater text... or an 'abstract' from a whole text.. none of which are currently recorded.



And between them all and the many I didn't put in the chart but linked to a list of them, shows how the continuous existence of the gospels predates the S, A, and B manuscripts that were accused of being inaccurate representations of what came before them. The charge was and remains a false one. The newest discoveries have verified the unchanging character of the NT works, not refutes it. Whether you as a singular person is convinced or not is irrelevant to the fact that the evidence supports the view that the NT works went through the first three centuries unmolested.


I don't have to claim anything as 'inaccurate' representations of anything - we really don't know what the scripture looked like before 125 AD... that's the earliest information we have. We really don't have MUCH for the first three hundred years.

The evidence certainly doesn't do what you say it does. We have almost no texts earlier than 300AD, and we really don't know how REPRESENTATIVE what we DO have, was.

The problem for your 'argument' is - the skeptic doesn't have to provide any evidence, all he has to do is doubt.

You say the 3rd-4th century scriptures are validated by the earlier fragments... I say - well, how do we KNOW that what we have now, and what our fragments mark... are the actual scriptures used by proto-christians?

For all we know, the reason we HAVE documents like P4 and P66 could be that they were offcasts - unused texts, considered heretical by the nascent church.

Like I said - your argument here is wishful thinking. You WANT to believe that the text is unchanging, so you shape your perception of the evidence to it. And it's pretty scant evidence.


All the evidence that exists supports the interpretation of the first century church being accurately portrayed in the book of Acts,


Utter wank.

If your only evidence IS the book of acts, then it's not too hard to believe the evidence supports... itself.


...whereas no evidence has been found that is contrary to understanding that there was early existence of the NT works and the Christian movement of the first century. Nice try at a red herring argument though, your charge is nothing but a misdirection from the real evidence to a fantasy list of what you want to be produced...


So, asking for independent, contemporary evidence should be considered "a fantasy list of what you want to be produced"? Personally, I really don't think some independent, contemporary corroboration is too much to ask.


You also seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that I have to somehow PROVE that you version of the first century scenario is flawed, because otherwise it is somehow true. Truth is - it's a best guess either way - and on almost no evidence.


If you don't want to talk about it why did you bring it up?


I didn't say I didn't want to talk about it - I said "let's try to avoid the whole historicity trap before it starts". And everything else I said in that paragraph was absolutely true.


But if you want to rehash the same old debunked accusations that used to say: "(we have no evidence) literally nothing - until about THREE centuries after the events are supposed to have taken place," and now, because new evidence has been brought to light of the last ten decades, we've shaved two hundred years off of that complaint and have it whittled down to a mere single century*...


No we haven't. We have a couple of fragments from earlier - which is far from conclusive. Yes - it is no longer ABSOLUTELY nothing from before 300 AD.. but it's not far from it.


The date of the NT works is moving earlier and earlier as science and research progresses and you can drag your heels kicking and screaming all you want but it doesn't change a thing.


The field progresses, yes. But there is STILL almost nothing earlier than 300 AD, and what we DO have is fragmentary.

There's no dragging heels, or "kicking and screaming" - I'm not sure who you think you are talking to.

I don't have any strong feeling against evidence being found, much less against earlier evidence being found. I'd be as happy as anyone else.

My complaint has never been not WANTING evidence found... it has been that the EVIDENCE is found wanting.


(*A single century only, that is, IF the evidence hasn't already been found that takes into the first century itself. I already cited a source that argues that the Magdalen Papyrus of St. Matthew’s Gospel IS a first century work, but I didn't put it there in my chart to recognize the controversial nature of that dating, but we very well may already have first century works in our possession)

Or not. Controversy is important. Next you'll be trying to palm off Josephus as a hand written text entirely pumped out by one person at one time, and you'll follow it up by showing that the Shroud of Turin really IS Jesus, and prove it by showing how it matches the material of the St james ossuary...

to answer the question initially posted, hypothetically speaking, if God / Jesus / Holy Ghost (triune God) a.k.a. 'entity' did not exist, and this could be proven: #1. I wouldn't be arguing the point. #2. nothing about this discussion would make any sense. #3. why bother, imbeciles.:tongue:

to answer the question initially posted, hypothetically speaking, if God / Jesus / Holy Ghost (triune God) a.k.a. 'entity' did not exist, and this could be proven: #1. I wouldn't be arguing the point. #2. nothing about this discussion would make any sense. #3. why bother, imbeciles.:tongue:

Wow... talk about grave digging...

Wow... talk about grave digging...

ha.
hypothetical you understand, because as far as I know, and believe, Jesus Exists. and My heart belongs to him. So nothing to faer, though that does bring a good point.....

gonna need a bigger shovel.... lol

Good friend, for Jesus' sake forbear
To digge the dust enclosed here.
Blest be he who spares these stones
And curs'd be he who moves these bones.