The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits."
And you think this statement "describes global air currents accurately, and in detail"?
It's neither accurate or detailed.
According to the text, this was a "layman's terms" version of Solomon's more thorough description.
What? Ecclesiastes 1:1 begins by saying that this is all "the words of the Teacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem." Are you just making stuff up now?
You had claimed the Bible describes global air currents "accurately and in detail." You are unable to support your claim and now you're inventing reasons out of thin air why the Bible does not say what you claimed it did.
The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits."
And you think this statement "describes global air currents accurately, and in detail"?
It's neither accurate or detailed.
According to the text, this was a "layman's terms" version of Solomon's more thorough description.
What? Ecclesiastes 1:1 begins by saying that this is all "the words of the Teacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem." Are you just making stuff up now?
You had claimed the Bible describes global air currents "accurately and in detail." You are unable to support your claim and now you're inventing reasons out of thin air why the Bible does not say what you claimed it did.
Also, such inconsistencies that could now be interpreted as metaphors (the pillars of the earth and so on), or about minor details (the number of angels) - while they are definitely evidence for the silliness of biblical belief - are not the best arguments that can be brought forth.
Also, Black Ice is very silly. Admitting you believe something out of blind faith and then trying to rationalize it is silly.
By the way, never read the NT, but what amazingly insightful things did Jesus say? I mean, from my very shallow understand of both the NT and Buddhism, Buddha seems like a much cooler guy.
See, yeah, this. Buddha's cooler, and he doesn't have all the baggage that Jesus has, what with the Crusades and the OT and Paul and stuff. Dharmic traditions are very fond of loose, philosophical interpretations of their stuff, and it's lead to a much less dogmatic faith than the Abrahamic religions.
The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits."
And you think this statement "describes global air currents accurately, and in detail"?
It's neither accurate or detailed.
According to the text, this was a "layman's terms" version of Solomon's more thorough description.
What? Ecclesiastes 1:1 begins by saying that this is all "the words of the Teacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem." Are you just making stuff up now?
You had claimed the Bible describes global air currents "accurately and in detail." You are unable to support your claim and now you're inventing reasons out of thin air why the Bible does not say what you claimed it did.
If that's the way you'll have it.
What the hell? Are you actually satisfied with your shoddy defense here? You basically made a bold claim, got called out to provide some sort of support, and flat-out couldn't. I don't want to put words in Qingu's mouth, but "the way he'll have it" involves you swallowing your pride and admitting that the passage you originally described as "accurate and in detail" to be c) none of the above, or finding something that reasonably describes this passage as being in "layman's terms" and still admitting you misspoke earlier, because hell, your own description of the verse's accuracy before you looked at it and after are pretty much polar opposites.
Also, Black Ice is very silly. Admitting you believe something out of blind faith and then trying to rationalize it is silly.
Yeah. I have at least some respect for people who believe things blindly in the face of overwhelming evidence, but just find people who try and rationalize it confusing. It's religion, it's not supposed to make sense surely? If you wanted to follow something (bordering on) rational you'd go off and become a theoretical physicist or something.
See, yeah, this. Buddha's cooler, and he doesn't have all the baggage that Jesus has, what with the Crusades and the OT and Paul and stuff. Dharmic traditions are very fond of loose, philosophical interpretations of their stuff, and it's lead to a much less dogmatic faith than the Abrahamic religions.
Some people maintain that during those "lost" years of Jesus's life, 12-30, he actually went to the East and that Buddhism influenced most of his teachings.
Which kinda explains why they may be "lost". Divine Inspiration sounds a whole lot better then, "learned it from asian dude with a big belly".
Aibyn on
"Over the centuries, mankind has tried many ways of combating the forces of evil...prayer, fasting, good works and so on. Up until Doom, no one seemed to have thought about the double-barrel shotgun. Eat leaden death, demon..."
Which comes back to my question of what Jesus actually said that was so smart? Because, really, I don't consider "violence is bad" as incredibly insightful.
Also, the asian guy with a fat belly isn't Buddha but a mythical Japanese monk.
Which comes back to my question of what Jesus actually said that was so smart? Because, really, I don't consider "violence is bad" as incredibly insightful.
He managed to convince a number of Jews that he was the "Messiah". At that time, they believed that everyone would go to Hell. Everyone. I imagine the idea of your god deigning to your level to tell you that he's decided to judge you on your own actions, rather than your ancestors' actions, would be a really frickin' big relief.
See, yeah, this. Buddha's cooler, and he doesn't have all the baggage that Jesus has, what with the Crusades and the OT and Paul and stuff. Dharmic traditions are very fond of loose, philosophical interpretations of their stuff, and it's lead to a much less dogmatic faith than the Abrahamic religions.
Some people maintain that during those "lost" years of Jesus's life, 12-30, he actually went to the East and that Buddhism influenced most of his teachings.
Which kinda explains why they may be "lost". Divine Inspiration sounds a whole lot better then, "learned it from asian dude with a big belly".
There was a massively entertaining program on BBC 4 on just such a topic several years ago. The punch line was that there's a village in Kazikstahn? some -stahn anyways that claims they have the tomb of Jesus and have the foot castings to prove it.
EDIT: Which would be awesome if we could advance gentic cloning technology far enough.
See, yeah, this. Buddha's cooler, and he doesn't have all the baggage that Jesus has, what with the Crusades and the OT and Paul and stuff. Dharmic traditions are very fond of loose, philosophical interpretations of their stuff, and it's lead to a much less dogmatic faith than the Abrahamic religions.
Some people maintain that during those "lost" years of Jesus's life, 12-30, he actually went to the East and that Buddhism influenced most of his teachings.
Which kinda explains why they may be "lost". Divine Inspiration sounds a whole lot better then, "learned it from asian dude with a big belly".
I've heard this theory before, and have always been rather fond of it. Unfortunately, the only evidence I've ever heard for it has been exceedingly tenuous, amounting to a scroll that basically said "Arab man was here," and assumptions from there on.
Which comes back to my question of what Jesus actually said that was so smart? Because, really, I don't consider "violence is bad" as incredibly insightful.
He managed to convince a number of Jews that he was the "Messiah". At that time, they believed that everyone would go to Hell. Everyone. I imagine the idea of your god deigning to your level to tell you that he's decided to judge you on your own actions, rather than your ancestors' actions, would be a really frickin' big relief.
A) Judaism doesn't have a "Hell" as such, to the best of my understanding. They might have been hooked to an idea of "heaven", though, which also didn't really exist, but I'm no sure that Jesus himself ever mentioned "chilling out in God's back yard" as a reward to all cool people. He fully might have, though.
Individual punishment/reward doesn't seem very incredible to me. It might have been back then and there - I don't know - but is rather old hat now.
Which comes back to my question of what Jesus actually said that was so smart? Because, really, I don't consider "violence is bad" as incredibly insightful.
He managed to convince a number of Jews that he was the "Messiah". At that time, they believed that everyone would go to Hell. Everyone. I imagine the idea of your god deigning to your level to tell you that he's decided to judge you on your own actions, rather than your ancestors' actions, would be a really frickin' big relief.
Nooooooooooooooooooo....The Messiah that the Jews were looking for was not a namby-pamby "love your neighbor" type of Messiah, a la Jesus. They were looking for a rallying point where they could attempt to kick out the Roman conquerers.
Also, Jews dont have a concept of Hell, or a Heaven that humans can get to that would be the Christians. What the afterlife for Jews is a place called Sheol where:
In the Hebrew Bible, it is a place beneath the earth, beyond gates, where both the bad and the good, slave and king, pious and wicked must go at the point of death.[2] Sheol is the common destination of both the righteous and the unrighteous dead, as recounted in Ecclesiastes and Job.
By the second century BC, Jews had come to believe that those in sheol awaited the resurrection either in comfort (in the bosom of Abraham) or in torment. This belief is reflected in Jesus' story of Lazarus and Dives.
As for why Jesus died, it wasnt so God would start judging people individually, it was to open the Gates of Heaven to his followers. People were still judged by what their ancestors did, does Original Sin ring a bell?
Aibyn on
"Over the centuries, mankind has tried many ways of combating the forces of evil...prayer, fasting, good works and so on. Up until Doom, no one seemed to have thought about the double-barrel shotgun. Eat leaden death, demon..."
I'd like to add that the concept of afterlife isn't very important in (modern) Judaism. Most people who call themselves Jews won't really know what to tell you about it. I know several (believing, scripture-reading) Jews who wouldn't agree with the Wikipedia definition of Sheol.
Considering Jesus’ claims, he was one of three things: a lunatic, a liar, or the Lord [aka the trilemma].
Lewis' trilemma assumes that we know what Jesus actually claimed about himself in the first place.
This is really the crux of the issue, Black Ice. The only documents we have about Jesus are the four gospels and the writings of Paul. Paul mentions literally nothing about Jesus' life and next to nothing about his teachings and philosophy. The gospels are all unsigned, undated, and simultaneously highly derivitive of each other and self-contradictory, and clearly written by sectarian followers.
The question is not "is Jesus a liar, lunatic, or lord?" The question you have to answer before that is "to what extent should I trust these historical documents?"
Actually, there are several "authentic" historical scripts that talk about Jesus. They simply don't call Jesus a prophet. The following he incited is also noted by other sources, and generations of people told the Gospels verbatim before they could not read and write centuries later.
The fact that these events occurred never seems to surface in any historical documents I have read. Whether or not Jesus' miracles actually occurred are the only events which are not supported by other historical texts.
The documents can be entrusted with sources on Christianity and Jesus Christ as focal points for the argument. However, I don't see any documents saying anything other than "Jesus claimed to be God," which has just as much reliability to me as saying "Jesus is God."
If you are willing to believe that Jesus was who he said he was, then I don't see why looking at the Gospels as historical texts is hard. Although I have no proof as to why they weren't signed, I do know that the authors were killed for transcribing about Jesus, so it is wholly possible they were trying to conceal their identies by not signing them. If you are unwilling to believe that God's son has visited Earth, then there isn't much to argue.
What is undeniably believed by mainstream Christianity, Judaism, and even Islam is that Jesus was a real man that had wise teachings. The only difference in the three religions is whether or not he was the son of God. Judaism claims he was not, and is still waiting for God's son to come (as the Old Testament foretold), and Islam believes that Jesus was a prophet.
I'd like to add that the concept of afterlife isn't very important in (modern) Judaism. Most people who call themselves Jews won't really know what to tell you about it. I know several (believing, scripture-reading) Jews who wouldn't agree with the Wikipedia definition of Sheol.
True enough. More power to them. Way I figure it, you are better off not believing in an afterlife then otherwise.
Aibyn on
"Over the centuries, mankind has tried many ways of combating the forces of evil...prayer, fasting, good works and so on. Up until Doom, no one seemed to have thought about the double-barrel shotgun. Eat leaden death, demon..."
If you are willing to believe that Jesus was who he said he was...
Wait, let me see if I have this straight. You're willing to believe that Jesus was a god, and so you view the gospels as accurate, and you believe Jesus was a god because those documents say he was. Did I get that right? If so, do you not see an immense problem with this?
If you are willing to believe that Jesus was who he said he was...
Wait, let me see if I have this straight. You're willing to believe that Jesus was a god, and so you view the gospels as accurate, and you believe Jesus was a god because those documents say he was. Did I get that right? If so, do you not see an immense problem with this?
Isn't the point of his admittedly "blind faith" not seeing?
Also, such inconsistencies that could now be interpreted as metaphors (the pillars of the earth and so on), or about minor details (the number of angels) - while they are definitely evidence for the silliness of biblical belief - are not the best arguments that can be brought forth.
Also, Black Ice is very silly. Admitting you believe something out of blind faith and then trying to rationalize it is silly.
By the way, never read the NT, but what amazingly insightful things did Jesus say? I mean, from my very shallow understand of both the NT and Buddhism, Buddha seems like a much cooler guy.
And I say you are "silly" for saying that religious people are "silly." Over a third of the world is Christian, and the majority of the world's population affiliates itself with a religion. Don't bash something when you haven't even read about it, as you so clearly pointed out. ;-)
As for your question, I find many of Jesus' parables good even for people that are not Christian. If you can wrap your head around the idea that Jesus was God and believe it, you get the warm fuzzy feeling that you will go to heaven and live in eternal bliss. Additionally, Christianity (and Judaism and virtually any other religion) has a strong sense of spirituality, and I find more spirituality in Jesus' sayings than in anything in the New Testament.
Otherwise, you can still find good in some of Jesus' parables. They do not require you to believe Jesus was God to be used. If they were, then Judaism and Islam wouldn't revere Jesus as a wise man. His words of advice for what to do in morally difficult situations is good stuff.
Here is a long list if you become interested (the context puts the sometimes puzzling passages into perspective), but here's a couple that I picked out:
While this story may seem only applicable to Christians, there is sound advice in it: take care of yourself first, and don't give away what you have to others when you need it. It doesn't mean don't share, but rather provide for yourself before providing for someone that didn't take care of himself to begin with.
Then the Kingdom of Heaven will be like ten virgins, who took their lamps, and went out to meet the bridegroom. Five of them were foolish, and five were wise. Those who were foolish, when they took their lamps, took no oil with them, but the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. Now while the bridegroom delayed, they all slumbered and slept. But at midnight there was a cry, ‘Behold! The bridegroom is coming! Come out to meet him!’ Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. The foolish said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’ But the wise answered, saying, ‘What if there isn’t enough for us and you? You go rather to those who sell, and buy for yourselves.’ While they went away to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the marriage feast, and the door was shut. Afterward the other virgins also came, saying, ‘Lord, Lord, open to us.’ But he answered, ‘Most assuredly I tell you, I don’t know you.’ Watch therefore, for you don’t know the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming.
Another one that made me frustrated the first time I read it, but has become one of my favorites:
For the Kingdom of Heaven is like a man who was the master of a household, who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. When he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. He went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace. To them he said, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.’ So they went their way. Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did likewise. About the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle. He said to them, ‘Why do you stand here all day idle?’ "They said to him, ‘Because no one has hired us.’ "He said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and you will receive whatever is right.’ When evening had come, the lord of the vineyard said to his steward, ‘Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning from the last to the first.’ "When those who were hired at about the eleventh hour came, they each received a denarius. When the first came, they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise each received a denarius. When they received it, they murmured against the master of the household, saying, ‘These last have spent one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat!’ "But he answered one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Didn’t you agree with me for a denarius? Take that which is yours, and go your way. It is my desire to give to this last just as much as to you. Isn’t it lawful for me to do what I want to with what I own? Or is your eye evil, because I am good?’ So the last will be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few are chosen.
If you are willing to believe that Jesus was who he said he was...
Wait, let me see if I have this straight. You're willing to believe that Jesus was a god, and so you view the gospels as accurate, and you believe Jesus was a god because those documents say he was. Did I get that right? If so, do you not see an immense problem with this?
Isn't the point of his admittedly "blind faith" not seeing?
Maybe I'm just an optimist, but I've always wanted to believe that if somebody sees entirely reasonable reasons not to believe bullshit, they'll stop.
If you are willing to believe that Jesus was who he said he was...
Wait, let me see if I have this straight. You're willing to believe that Jesus was a god, and so you view the gospels as accurate, and you believe Jesus was a god because those documents say he was. Did I get that right? If so, do you not see an immense problem with this?
Isn't the point of his admittedly "blind faith" not seeing?
Exactly. It can seem illogical to believe, so I do not hold any grudges against someone who doesn't believe in Jesus.. unlike some people do.
However, if you read documents other than the Gospels written in the same time period, you can find evidence that supports the fact that Jesus was, undeniably, a good man with sound advice.
Jews believe that God will come again. Christians believe he has already come. Those two religions account for a few billion people of the world that believe in a son of God. The idea isn't new; it's whether or not you believe it's happened yet. The validity of the Gospels is only questioned as to whether or not Jesus was who he said he was, and that is where you have to come up with your own conclusions and decide whether or not to believe. Choosing to believe is indeed blind faith, as you have no proof that Jesus was who he said he was. There is also no proof that God exists, yet virtually very culture that has ever existed has believed in a god or multiple gods.
If you believe in Jesus, what is there to lose?? If the real son of God were to come down in 10 years from now, then does it seem logical that he would damn people to hell or something? A huge revolution took place a couple thousand years ago and is still spreading today - if you were God, would you be angry that someone was given false information and led to believe it, or would you be angry at the person who fabricated the false information?
If you are willing to believe that Jesus was who he said he was...
Wait, let me see if I have this straight. You're willing to believe that Jesus was a god, and so you view the gospels as accurate, and you believe Jesus was a god because those documents say he was. Did I get that right? If so, do you not see an immense problem with this?
Isn't the point of his admittedly "blind faith" not seeing?
Maybe I'm just an optimist, but I've always wanted to believe that if somebody sees entirely reasonable reasons not to believe bullshit, they'll stop.
It would be ridiculous to say that people raised with beliefs and have never experienced another belief as a consequence will be punished for what their parents/guardians raised them with. It's what I believe, and I don't have a problem saying I can't prove it. I have yet to see an argument that can completely disprove it, though.
If you can prove to me all of the Gospels were a sham and that the information in them is false, then there would be no Christians. There is undeniably truth in them; the amount of truth is the only question that exists, as there are clearly some contradictory statements in it, but they are all trivial contradictions.
And I say you are "silly" for saying that religious people are "silly." Over a third of the world is Christian, and the majority of the world's population affiliates itself with a religion. Don't bash something when you haven't even read about it, as you so clearly pointed out. ;-)
Oh, I read about it. Lots. Just haven't read it. Don't intend to. Yes most of humanity is religious. Most of humanity is far worse than just silly.
As for your question, I find many of Jesus' parables good even for people that are not Christian. If you can wrap your head around the idea that Jesus was God and believe it, you get the warm fuzzy feeling that you will go to heaven and live in eternal bliss. Additionally, Christianity (and Judaism and virtually any other religion) has a strong sense of spirituality, and I find more spirituality in Jesus' sayings than in anything in the New Testament.
No I can't get my head around it. See no reason to, and I don't see what I has to do with whatever wise things he has said. You also get a warm and fuzzy feeling from hypothermia, I hear. And some drugs.
And aren't Jesus' saying in the New Testament? Isn't it the point of the whole thing?
Also, saying that a religious belief system "has a strong sense of spirituality" is utterly meaningless.
Otherwise, you can still find good in some of Jesus' parables. They do not require you to believe Jesus was God to be used. If they were, then Judaism and Islam wouldn't revere Jesus as a wise man. His words of advice for what to do in morally difficult situations is good stuff.
Actually Judaism does not in any way recognize the individual Jesus, that I know of. Islam does consider him to be prophet, but seeing as Islam was designed to entice all "people of book", it isn't in any way surprising. You know, just like Christianity has all these Pagan-friendly festivals, and the entire idea of saints (which is more a Catholic idea, I know).
About the quotes: The first is a rather strange metaphor designed to explain an immediately obvious idea, and the second I'm not sure I get. Isn't the "Kingdom of Heaven" Palestine/Israel/Judea? Whatever it is, isn't Jesus saying that it's like a workplace with a Boss that you (or at least I) would very much want to punch in the face?
At that time, they believed that everyone would go to Hell. Everyone.
You appear to be making stuff up again. Can you please provide evidence that the Jews of the time believed everyone would go to hell?
As far as I can tell, neither the Jews nor the Christians even had a well-developed conception of hell at the time. In the Old Testament, there is no such thing as hell, only "Sheol," which is not a place of punishment or judgment in any sense.
In the Prophets and late antiquity, Jews (like the later Christians) often talked about a future time of judgment where God would return and smite all the people who pissed off the Jews, but again, there is no conception here of hell as a place of judgment or torment.
Even in the New Testament you don't find much about hell in the sense that we use the word today. Jesus does threaten unbelievers with hellfire and compares it to "Gehenna." In Revelation, there is talk of a "second death" awaiting the unbelievers after the end of the world. Catholics would later elaborate on these ideas to a great extent, giving us the wonderful hell imagery we have today.
I imagine the idea of your god deigning to your level to tell you that he's decided to judge you on your own actions, rather than your ancestors' actions, would be a really frickin' big relief.
It's amazing how incorrect this statement is and how unfamiliar you are with both the history and theology of your own religion.
The God of Christianity does not judge you on your actions. Paul makes this point repeatedly through his letters. You are not saved by the law, but rather through faith, or grace.
Also, the God of Christianity very much judge you on your ancestors' actions. We are born into sin because of Adam's transgressions. Amazingly—in terms of your decision to trot this out as evidence of Christianity > Judaism—this is idea is found only in Christianity. Jews do not have a doctrine of original sin. Paul invented it.
You can't disprove that there are tiny gnomes in my computer powering it right now. There's no way you can disprove that. That's not the point. The point is, look at the gospels with an eye for credibility. Do we have any reason whatsoever to think that they speak with any accuracy at all? No, we don't. In fact, and it seems that you ignored Apo's post to this effect, we have every reason to call their credibility into question.
I don't care how cool you think the mythical character of Jesus was, that's not the point. The point is that we have no reason to pray to a character in a story.
If you can prove to me all of the Gospels were a sham and that the information in them is false, then there would be no Christians. There is undeniably truth in them; the amount of truth is the only question that exists, as there are clearly some contradictory statements in it, but they are all trivial contradictions.
But if your faith is, in fact, blind - what kind of evidence would you accept? God descending from the heaven in hale and thunderstorms, proclaiming loudly "this is all bullshit", and then proceeding to play a bitchin' rendition of Sympathy for the Devil? Would that be enough for you?
Also, Jews do not believe that God is going to come anywhere. God is everywhere. The Messiah is supposed to come around and bring about the end-times, yes. But the Messiah would just be a servant of God.
Pointing out that three sets of religions that all stem from the same source share some beliefs is rather pointless, by the way.
Actually, there are several "authentic" historical scripts that talk about Jesus. They simply don't call Jesus a prophet.
They were also written, at minimum, 50 years after Jesus lived. Josephus wrote in 80 AD. Tacitus a few decades later.
And Tacitus went further than not calling Jesus a prophet. He called the resurrection a "mischevious superstition." It's always funny when Christians put Tacitus up as a source in support of their religion and ignore that little tidbit in his testimony.
The following he incited is also noted by other sources, and generations of people told the Gospels verbatim before they could not read and write centuries later.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you claiming that the gospels are orally transmitted reports of what happened from reliable eyewitnesses?
Then why are the synoptic gospels clearly derivative of each other? Why are they unsigned and undated? Furthermore, what "reliable eyewitnesses" do you think were lurking in Pontius Pilate's bedchamber to give the gospel writers the description of his wife's dreams?
And why would you assume at the outset that the gospels are accurate records of what happened? Why not read them and evaluate them on their own merits?
The fact that these events occurred never seems to surface in any historical documents I have read. Whether or not Jesus' miracles actually occurred are the only events which are not supported by other historical texts.
No events in the gospels are corroborated by any other texts. Places and people are, but not events.
To wit: no contemporary sources corroborate the emergence of zombie saints who rose from their graves and marched into Jerusalem and "appeared to many," as reported in Matthew 28:50. In fact, no gosepls corroborate this, except the gospel of Matthew. (I guess the other historians and gospel writers at the time must have missed the zombie army).
The documents can be entrusted with sources on Christianity and Jesus Christ as focal points for the argument. However, I don't see any documents saying anything other than "Jesus claimed to be God," which has just as much reliability to me as saying "Jesus is God."
What an absurd statement.
Tell me you don't see a difference in reliability between the two statements:
"George W. Bush claims to be talking to God."
"George W. Bush is talking to God."
If you are willing to believe that Jesus was who he said he was, then I don't see why looking at the Gospels as historical texts is hard.
First of all, I do believe we should look at the gospels as historical texts.
What you need to realize is not everything you read in historical texts is true.
That goes especially for historical texts written 2,000 years ago, and even more especially for historical texts written by authors who were not willing to sign their name.
To wit: do you believe Josephus when he writes about a floating army in the clouds, in his book The War of the Jews? Or how about the cow that gave birth to a lamb? And Josephus, unlike the mysterious gospel writers, was a respected historian willing to sign his name to his writings.
Although I have no proof as to why they weren't signed, I do know that the authors were killed for transcribing about Jesus, so it is wholly possible they were trying to conceal their identies by not signing them.
How in the world do you know the authors were killed for transcribing about Jesus? I understand this would be a convenient explanation, but please support your assertion.
If you are unwilling to believe that God's son has visited Earth, then there isn't much to argue.
I'm no more unwilling to believe that God's son visited earth than I'm unwilling to believe that Athena burst out of Zeus's forehead in battle-armor. I don't see what this has to do with anything.
Once again: this isn't about whether or not Jesus is who he said he is. This is about trusting sources. All we know about Jesus comes from the gospels. If you can't trust the gospels, then how on earth can you claim to know anything about Jesus?
However, if you read documents other than the Gospels written in the same time period, you can find evidence that supports the fact that Jesus was, undeniably, a good man with sound advice.
Why do you continue to invent falsehoods? What sources? There are no sources of the period that say anything about Jesus. Again, the earliest non-Christian source was Josephus, who wrote 50 years after the man did and said nothing about Jesus aside from that Christians believed he was the messiah.
Jews believe that God will come again. Christians believe he has already come. Those two religions account for a few billion people of the world that believe in a son of God.
I see you're fond of making this kind of argument: "my religion can't be that crazy because so many people believe in it!" More people believe in astrology than your religion.
The validity of the Gospels is only questioned as to whether or not Jesus was who he said he was, and that is where you have to come up with your own conclusions and decide whether or not to believe.
NO, NO, NO.
You have the cart before the horse, Black Ice. Please at least try to understand.
We don't know anything about Jesus apart from what the gospels say. So before we even make any statements about who Jesus is, we first have to determine to what extent we can trust the gospels.
An honest reading of the gospels determines that we cannot trust them very far, since they are rife with internal inconsistencies, obvious legends and exaggerations, and sectarian contradictions. They also have zero credibility even as for the time they were written, since they are unsigned and undated.
There is also no proof that God exists, yet virtually very culture that has ever existed has believed in a god or multiple gods.
Every culture that has ever existed has believed in astrology.
If you believe in Jesus, what is there to lose??
A lot, if Islam, Zoroastrianism, Scientology or any one of the myriad non-Christian religions turns out to be true. Look up the Pascal's Wager fallacy.
If you can prove to me all of the Gospels were a sham and that the information in them is false, then there would be no Christians.
There are 800 million Hindus and 1.4 billion Muslims. What do you think about the Mahabharata and the Quran?
There is undeniably truth in them; the amount of truth is the only question that exists, as there are clearly some contradictory statements in it, but they are all trivial contradictions.
Really?
How did Judas die? Matthew says he throws the silver on the ground and hangs himself; Acts says he uses the silver to buy a plot of land and trips headlong, splitting his guts open.
Should we still try to follow the law? In Matthew, Jesus says he has not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it, and that any man who says otherwise will be called "least" in the kingdom of heaven. But Paul repeatedly says that not only do we not have to follow the laws but anyone who does follow them is wrong—in Galatians he says this about circumcision.
Then there are thematic contradictions, such as faith vs. works, that have led to schisms, heresies, inquisitions. Honestly, Black Ice, I've read a lot of religious texts and the New Testament is one of the least coherent.
Pretty much everyone is tearing apart my argument with the same points over and over, and I really don't have the ability to respond to each and every thing when I honestly don't have an answer myself.
To be totally honest, I'm trying to explain this from a Christianity viewpoint, not necessarily my own viewpoint. Of course, most of these views from Christianity reflect my own, but as I said I have trouble coming to terms with some of these beliefs.
All of what has been brought up are good points.
I've read some historical scripts (which I might type up later this week if I get time) from the Romans and Jews about Jesus that talk about everything except the validity of his miracles. I've also heard about the Gospel writers all being killed for writing about Jesus, but I haven't seen any physical proof beyond what I've heard from a teacher - which I assumed to be fact (you know what they say about you assume)
Everyone made good points and I honestly don't have any responses to them right now.
Pretty much everyone is tearing apart my argument with the same points over and over, and I really don't have the ability to respond to each and every thing when I honestly don't have an answer myself.
To be totally honest, I'm trying to explain this from a Christianity viewpoint, not necessarily my own viewpoint. Of course, most of these views from Christianity reflect my own, but as I said I have trouble coming to terms with some of these beliefs.
All of what has been brought up are good points.
I've read some historical scripts (which I might type up later this week if I get time) from the Romans and Jews about Jesus that talk about everything except the validity of his miracles. I've also heard about the Gospel writers all being killed for writing about Jesus, but I haven't seen any physical proof beyond what I've heard from a teacher - which I assumed to be fact (you know what they say about you assume)
Everyone made good points and I honestly don't have any responses to them right now.
I apologize if I came off as a doochebag, rereading your post you did make it clear that you were presenting arguments without necessarily believing them, which I can respect.
To respond to the points you brought up here: the only sources that are even vaguely contemporary with Jesus are Josephus, Tacitus, and (iirc) one of the Pliny's. Again, these people were all writing at least 50 years after he died, and Tacitus says outright that the resurrection is bullshit.
As for gospel authors being martyred:
1. we have absolutely no idea who the gospel writers were—they didn't leave their names and their identities has always been pure speculation
2. there are stories about early Christian heroes being martyred, but it is impossible to tell if these are based on fact or if they are simply later Catholic legends.
It's a "Traditional" story that Peter was crucified, but didn't want to die in the same way Christ did, so was crucified upside-down.
As well it's thought that Paul was beheaded on the same day of the year as Peter was crucified, and also possibly the same year (so the exact same day).
I will say that we don't know with 100% accuracy who the authors were of the Gospels, but we've got some good leads.
Matthew - thought to be authored Matthew the Evangelist, who was a Tax Collector
Mark - Mark, Peter's interpreter
Luke - Luke, a Companion of Paul
John - John is the most controversial, as some thing he's the actual Apostle John, others think he's just some dude who wasn't an eyewitness to the original events that are written in the book.
All of the gospels' authors were really researched and investigated around 200AD, and in some cases the author was determined by word of mouth (I was told by some guy who hung out with the apostles, for example), so take that with a grain of salt. Also keep in mind that two of the believed authors were chums of Peter and Paul who got around quite a bit, so they would be well known.
So while it's not 100%, i'd also hesitate to say "we have no idea" or that the authors were decided by "pure speculation".
So while it's not 100%, i'd also hesitate to say "we have no idea" or that the authors were decided by "pure speculation".
You're right. We do have some idea: they appear to have all been written after 70 A.D., since they make reference to the destruction of the Temple at that date.
Of course, this pretty much rules out their traditional authorship of Matthew, Luke, Mark and John.
Lacking any records of how the church determined their authorship, I see no reason to believe that highly sectarian church officials knew any better 200 years after the event than we know today. Going by their track record (for example, attributing several letters to Paul that obviously were not written by him) I'd say we know better than they did.
The bottom line, from everything I've seen, is that the Abrahamic texts do nothing but discredit the rationality of accepting their contents. This makes choosing to accept said texts as having any sort of factual basis arbitrary at best, and more honestly, wholly irrational.
It's not even a matter of "faith," in the common sense, because there is no actual single concept to have faith IN. It's acceptance of a title, and a few choice ideas which, while associated with, are not neccissarily realistically derived from, the source documents.
It's not just something like "I choose to believe that pigs fly." It's more like "I choose to believe that pigs fly, but that no mammals can fly, bats are actually fish, but they are also mammals. Mammals are anything with four legs. Pigs are actually a kind of dolphin, which are also fish. Bats and pigs aren't even in the same kingdom. Pigs are actually minerals. Flight is impossible. Unless you are a mushroom. Which is a plant."
And you have based this idea on a book about Geology.
Incenjucar on
0
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
edited October 2007
Hey Black Ice, Qingu haspretty much addressed most of what I'd want to say. So I'll just s tick to a few specific points.
First of all, your arguments (or those you are sharing, at least) haven't addressed the true genealogy problem - the divergent names and different number of generations are interesting, but pale in comparison to the question of what the genealogies actually imply - Jesus was Joseph's son, not a divine miracle baby.
Second of all, the Synoptic Gospels are Mark, Luke and Matthew, not Mark, Matthew and John. However, it isn't just the derivative Synoptics that are unreliable, Mark is itself unreliable, written long after Jesus' death, by someone who knew nothing of Palestine, and it shows. So, that bumps things down to 1 Gospel in the running.
John, is also believed to be a derivative text, aspects of its internal structure indicating it be in part taken from the Hypothetical Signs Gospel. It was compiled in 110 CE, which makes means that if "John" were 10 at the time Jesus died, he'd be 90 now - ancient for ancient times, ancient NOW. Which, of course ignores the question as to why an eyewitness would use another source at all... In addition to which, John 21 is known to be a late addition to the text (which is also, coincidentally the Chapter which contains the verse which allegedly demonstrates John's authorship).
Lastly, the miracles of Jesus are largely replicated by other characters in the Bible, nothing in particular seems unique, a number of characters are resurrected, a number heal the blind/sick/frail, a bunch do magic conjuring tricks. Jesus' miracles are not unqiue even within the Bible. However, more importantly, Jesus' miracles are not unique, full stop, according to the texts you couldn't throw a brick in the timeof Jesus without hitting 14 alleged miracle workers and a magic donkey. Theer are testimonies with regard to all manner of miracle workers and Messiahs. And beyond that again, there is the fact that contemporary mythology spoke about all manner of deities and godsmen whose stories almost exactly reproduce the "high notes" of Jesus' miracle working career.
EDIT: Also, I don't think the passage you quote about the lamp oil means what you think it means. It is almost certainly NOT a teaching with regard to preparedness orlooking after others. It's a threat - "Be careful, get your theological ducks in a row, because when the day comes you'll be out on your ear, sucker."
So while it's not 100%, i'd also hesitate to say "we have no idea" or that the authors were decided by "pure speculation".
You're right. We do have some idea: they appear to have all been written after 70 A.D., since they make reference to the destruction of the Temple at that date.
Of course, this pretty much rules out their traditional authorship of Matthew, Luke, Mark and John.
I've seen people say this before, but I'm not sure how this rules out the authorship based on when the gospels were written. Perhaps you can elaborate?
Lacking any records of how the church determined their authorship, I see no reason to believe that highly sectarian church officials knew any better 200 years after the event than we know today. Going by their track record (for example, attributing several letters to Paul that obviously were not written by him) I'd say we know better than they did.
You're right, doing research into an event ~200 years after the fact is no more accurate than ~2000 years.
Maybe WW2 is too well documented an event though. Something smaller and less relevant to anyone who would bother recording it? There's probably thousands of very small events that happened 200 years ago, and for whatever reason are just myths now (but people still talk about them).
and you guys were doing so well sticking on topic for the first 3 pages.
One of the main reasons I bowed out of the conversations. Well that and the continual strawman'ing that was being done to ignore a single track of discussion.
Posts
You had claimed the Bible describes global air currents "accurately and in detail." You are unable to support your claim and now you're inventing reasons out of thin air why the Bible does not say what you claimed it did.
If that's the way you'll have it.
Also, such inconsistencies that could now be interpreted as metaphors (the pillars of the earth and so on), or about minor details (the number of angels) - while they are definitely evidence for the silliness of biblical belief - are not the best arguments that can be brought forth.
Also, Black Ice is very silly. Admitting you believe something out of blind faith and then trying to rationalize it is silly.
By the way, never read the NT, but what amazingly insightful things did Jesus say? I mean, from my very shallow understand of both the NT and Buddhism, Buddha seems like a much cooler guy.
See, yeah, this. Buddha's cooler, and he doesn't have all the baggage that Jesus has, what with the Crusades and the OT and Paul and stuff. Dharmic traditions are very fond of loose, philosophical interpretations of their stuff, and it's lead to a much less dogmatic faith than the Abrahamic religions.
Yeah. I have at least some respect for people who believe things blindly in the face of overwhelming evidence, but just find people who try and rationalize it confusing. It's religion, it's not supposed to make sense surely? If you wanted to follow something (bordering on) rational you'd go off and become a theoretical physicist or something.
Some people maintain that during those "lost" years of Jesus's life, 12-30, he actually went to the East and that Buddhism influenced most of his teachings.
Which kinda explains why they may be "lost". Divine Inspiration sounds a whole lot better then, "learned it from asian dude with a big belly".
-- (Terry Pratchett, alt.fan.pratchett)
Also, the asian guy with a fat belly isn't Buddha but a mythical Japanese monk.
He managed to convince a number of Jews that he was the "Messiah". At that time, they believed that everyone would go to Hell. Everyone. I imagine the idea of your god deigning to your level to tell you that he's decided to judge you on your own actions, rather than your ancestors' actions, would be a really frickin' big relief.
There was a massively entertaining program on BBC 4 on just such a topic several years ago. The punch line was that there's a village in Kazikstahn? some -stahn anyways that claims they have the tomb of Jesus and have the foot castings to prove it.
EDIT: Which would be awesome if we could advance gentic cloning technology far enough.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
I've heard this theory before, and have always been rather fond of it. Unfortunately, the only evidence I've ever heard for it has been exceedingly tenuous, amounting to a scroll that basically said "Arab man was here," and assumptions from there on.
A) Judaism doesn't have a "Hell" as such, to the best of my understanding. They might have been hooked to an idea of "heaven", though, which also didn't really exist, but I'm no sure that Jesus himself ever mentioned "chilling out in God's back yard" as a reward to all cool people. He fully might have, though.
Nooooooooooooooooooo....The Messiah that the Jews were looking for was not a namby-pamby "love your neighbor" type of Messiah, a la Jesus. They were looking for a rallying point where they could attempt to kick out the Roman conquerers.
Also, Jews dont have a concept of Hell, or a Heaven that humans can get to that would be the Christians. What the afterlife for Jews is a place called Sheol where:
--Sheol Wiki
As for why Jesus died, it wasnt so God would start judging people individually, it was to open the Gates of Heaven to his followers. People were still judged by what their ancestors did, does Original Sin ring a bell?
-- (Terry Pratchett, alt.fan.pratchett)
Actually, there are several "authentic" historical scripts that talk about Jesus. They simply don't call Jesus a prophet. The following he incited is also noted by other sources, and generations of people told the Gospels verbatim before they could not read and write centuries later.
The fact that these events occurred never seems to surface in any historical documents I have read. Whether or not Jesus' miracles actually occurred are the only events which are not supported by other historical texts.
The documents can be entrusted with sources on Christianity and Jesus Christ as focal points for the argument. However, I don't see any documents saying anything other than "Jesus claimed to be God," which has just as much reliability to me as saying "Jesus is God."
If you are willing to believe that Jesus was who he said he was, then I don't see why looking at the Gospels as historical texts is hard. Although I have no proof as to why they weren't signed, I do know that the authors were killed for transcribing about Jesus, so it is wholly possible they were trying to conceal their identies by not signing them. If you are unwilling to believe that God's son has visited Earth, then there isn't much to argue.
What is undeniably believed by mainstream Christianity, Judaism, and even Islam is that Jesus was a real man that had wise teachings. The only difference in the three religions is whether or not he was the son of God. Judaism claims he was not, and is still waiting for God's son to come (as the Old Testament foretold), and Islam believes that Jesus was a prophet.
True enough. More power to them. Way I figure it, you are better off not believing in an afterlife then otherwise.
-- (Terry Pratchett, alt.fan.pratchett)
Wait, let me see if I have this straight. You're willing to believe that Jesus was a god, and so you view the gospels as accurate, and you believe Jesus was a god because those documents say he was. Did I get that right? If so, do you not see an immense problem with this?
Isn't the point of his admittedly "blind faith" not seeing?
And I say you are "silly" for saying that religious people are "silly." Over a third of the world is Christian, and the majority of the world's population affiliates itself with a religion. Don't bash something when you haven't even read about it, as you so clearly pointed out. ;-)
As for your question, I find many of Jesus' parables good even for people that are not Christian. If you can wrap your head around the idea that Jesus was God and believe it, you get the warm fuzzy feeling that you will go to heaven and live in eternal bliss. Additionally, Christianity (and Judaism and virtually any other religion) has a strong sense of spirituality, and I find more spirituality in Jesus' sayings than in anything in the New Testament.
Otherwise, you can still find good in some of Jesus' parables. They do not require you to believe Jesus was God to be used. If they were, then Judaism and Islam wouldn't revere Jesus as a wise man. His words of advice for what to do in morally difficult situations is good stuff.
Here is a long list if you become interested (the context puts the sometimes puzzling passages into perspective), but here's a couple that I picked out:
Another one that made me frustrated the first time I read it, but has become one of my favorites:
Maybe I'm just an optimist, but I've always wanted to believe that if somebody sees entirely reasonable reasons not to believe bullshit, they'll stop.
Exactly. It can seem illogical to believe, so I do not hold any grudges against someone who doesn't believe in Jesus.. unlike some people do.
However, if you read documents other than the Gospels written in the same time period, you can find evidence that supports the fact that Jesus was, undeniably, a good man with sound advice.
Jews believe that God will come again. Christians believe he has already come. Those two religions account for a few billion people of the world that believe in a son of God. The idea isn't new; it's whether or not you believe it's happened yet. The validity of the Gospels is only questioned as to whether or not Jesus was who he said he was, and that is where you have to come up with your own conclusions and decide whether or not to believe. Choosing to believe is indeed blind faith, as you have no proof that Jesus was who he said he was. There is also no proof that God exists, yet virtually very culture that has ever existed has believed in a god or multiple gods.
If you believe in Jesus, what is there to lose?? If the real son of God were to come down in 10 years from now, then does it seem logical that he would damn people to hell or something? A huge revolution took place a couple thousand years ago and is still spreading today - if you were God, would you be angry that someone was given false information and led to believe it, or would you be angry at the person who fabricated the false information?
It would be ridiculous to say that people raised with beliefs and have never experienced another belief as a consequence will be punished for what their parents/guardians raised them with. It's what I believe, and I don't have a problem saying I can't prove it. I have yet to see an argument that can completely disprove it, though.
If you can prove to me all of the Gospels were a sham and that the information in them is false, then there would be no Christians. There is undeniably truth in them; the amount of truth is the only question that exists, as there are clearly some contradictory statements in it, but they are all trivial contradictions.
Oh, I read about it. Lots. Just haven't read it. Don't intend to. Yes most of humanity is religious. Most of humanity is far worse than just silly.
No I can't get my head around it. See no reason to, and I don't see what I has to do with whatever wise things he has said. You also get a warm and fuzzy feeling from hypothermia, I hear. And some drugs.
And aren't Jesus' saying in the New Testament? Isn't it the point of the whole thing?
Also, saying that a religious belief system "has a strong sense of spirituality" is utterly meaningless.
Actually Judaism does not in any way recognize the individual Jesus, that I know of. Islam does consider him to be prophet, but seeing as Islam was designed to entice all "people of book", it isn't in any way surprising. You know, just like Christianity has all these Pagan-friendly festivals, and the entire idea of saints (which is more a Catholic idea, I know).
About the quotes: The first is a rather strange metaphor designed to explain an immediately obvious idea, and the second I'm not sure I get. Isn't the "Kingdom of Heaven" Palestine/Israel/Judea? Whatever it is, isn't Jesus saying that it's like a workplace with a Boss that you (or at least I) would very much want to punch in the face?
As far as I can tell, neither the Jews nor the Christians even had a well-developed conception of hell at the time. In the Old Testament, there is no such thing as hell, only "Sheol," which is not a place of punishment or judgment in any sense.
In the Prophets and late antiquity, Jews (like the later Christians) often talked about a future time of judgment where God would return and smite all the people who pissed off the Jews, but again, there is no conception here of hell as a place of judgment or torment.
Even in the New Testament you don't find much about hell in the sense that we use the word today. Jesus does threaten unbelievers with hellfire and compares it to "Gehenna." In Revelation, there is talk of a "second death" awaiting the unbelievers after the end of the world. Catholics would later elaborate on these ideas to a great extent, giving us the wonderful hell imagery we have today.
It's amazing how incorrect this statement is and how unfamiliar you are with both the history and theology of your own religion.
The God of Christianity does not judge you on your actions. Paul makes this point repeatedly through his letters. You are not saved by the law, but rather through faith, or grace.
Also, the God of Christianity very much judge you on your ancestors' actions. We are born into sin because of Adam's transgressions. Amazingly—in terms of your decision to trot this out as evidence of Christianity > Judaism—this is idea is found only in Christianity. Jews do not have a doctrine of original sin. Paul invented it.
I don't care how cool you think the mythical character of Jesus was, that's not the point. The point is that we have no reason to pray to a character in a story.
But if your faith is, in fact, blind - what kind of evidence would you accept? God descending from the heaven in hale and thunderstorms, proclaiming loudly "this is all bullshit", and then proceeding to play a bitchin' rendition of Sympathy for the Devil? Would that be enough for you?
Also, Jews do not believe that God is going to come anywhere. God is everywhere. The Messiah is supposed to come around and bring about the end-times, yes. But the Messiah would just be a servant of God.
Pointing out that three sets of religions that all stem from the same source share some beliefs is rather pointless, by the way.
And Tacitus went further than not calling Jesus a prophet. He called the resurrection a "mischevious superstition." It's always funny when Christians put Tacitus up as a source in support of their religion and ignore that little tidbit in his testimony.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you claiming that the gospels are orally transmitted reports of what happened from reliable eyewitnesses?
Then why are the synoptic gospels clearly derivative of each other? Why are they unsigned and undated? Furthermore, what "reliable eyewitnesses" do you think were lurking in Pontius Pilate's bedchamber to give the gospel writers the description of his wife's dreams?
And why would you assume at the outset that the gospels are accurate records of what happened? Why not read them and evaluate them on their own merits?
No events in the gospels are corroborated by any other texts. Places and people are, but not events.
To wit: no contemporary sources corroborate the emergence of zombie saints who rose from their graves and marched into Jerusalem and "appeared to many," as reported in Matthew 28:50. In fact, no gosepls corroborate this, except the gospel of Matthew. (I guess the other historians and gospel writers at the time must have missed the zombie army).
What an absurd statement.
Tell me you don't see a difference in reliability between the two statements:
"George W. Bush claims to be talking to God."
"George W. Bush is talking to God."
First of all, I do believe we should look at the gospels as historical texts.
What you need to realize is not everything you read in historical texts is true.
That goes especially for historical texts written 2,000 years ago, and even more especially for historical texts written by authors who were not willing to sign their name.
To wit: do you believe Josephus when he writes about a floating army in the clouds, in his book The War of the Jews? Or how about the cow that gave birth to a lamb? And Josephus, unlike the mysterious gospel writers, was a respected historian willing to sign his name to his writings.
How in the world do you know the authors were killed for transcribing about Jesus? I understand this would be a convenient explanation, but please support your assertion.
I'm no more unwilling to believe that God's son visited earth than I'm unwilling to believe that Athena burst out of Zeus's forehead in battle-armor. I don't see what this has to do with anything.
Once again: this isn't about whether or not Jesus is who he said he is. This is about trusting sources. All we know about Jesus comes from the gospels. If you can't trust the gospels, then how on earth can you claim to know anything about Jesus?
I see you're fond of making this kind of argument: "my religion can't be that crazy because so many people believe in it!" More people believe in astrology than your religion.
NO, NO, NO.
You have the cart before the horse, Black Ice. Please at least try to understand.
We don't know anything about Jesus apart from what the gospels say. So before we even make any statements about who Jesus is, we first have to determine to what extent we can trust the gospels.
An honest reading of the gospels determines that we cannot trust them very far, since they are rife with internal inconsistencies, obvious legends and exaggerations, and sectarian contradictions. They also have zero credibility even as for the time they were written, since they are unsigned and undated.
Every culture that has ever existed has believed in astrology.
A lot, if Islam, Zoroastrianism, Scientology or any one of the myriad non-Christian religions turns out to be true. Look up the Pascal's Wager fallacy.
There are 800 million Hindus and 1.4 billion Muslims. What do you think about the Mahabharata and the Quran?
Really?
How did Judas die? Matthew says he throws the silver on the ground and hangs himself; Acts says he uses the silver to buy a plot of land and trips headlong, splitting his guts open.
Should we still try to follow the law? In Matthew, Jesus says he has not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it, and that any man who says otherwise will be called "least" in the kingdom of heaven. But Paul repeatedly says that not only do we not have to follow the laws but anyone who does follow them is wrong—in Galatians he says this about circumcision.
Then there are thematic contradictions, such as faith vs. works, that have led to schisms, heresies, inquisitions. Honestly, Black Ice, I've read a lot of religious texts and the New Testament is one of the least coherent.
To be totally honest, I'm trying to explain this from a Christianity viewpoint, not necessarily my own viewpoint. Of course, most of these views from Christianity reflect my own, but as I said I have trouble coming to terms with some of these beliefs.
All of what has been brought up are good points.
I've read some historical scripts (which I might type up later this week if I get time) from the Romans and Jews about Jesus that talk about everything except the validity of his miracles. I've also heard about the Gospel writers all being killed for writing about Jesus, but I haven't seen any physical proof beyond what I've heard from a teacher - which I assumed to be fact (you know what they say about you assume)
Everyone made good points and I honestly don't have any responses to them right now.
To respond to the points you brought up here: the only sources that are even vaguely contemporary with Jesus are Josephus, Tacitus, and (iirc) one of the Pliny's. Again, these people were all writing at least 50 years after he died, and Tacitus says outright that the resurrection is bullshit.
As for gospel authors being martyred:
1. we have absolutely no idea who the gospel writers were—they didn't leave their names and their identities has always been pure speculation
2. there are stories about early Christian heroes being martyred, but it is impossible to tell if these are based on fact or if they are simply later Catholic legends.
As well it's thought that Paul was beheaded on the same day of the year as Peter was crucified, and also possibly the same year (so the exact same day).
I will say that we don't know with 100% accuracy who the authors were of the Gospels, but we've got some good leads.
Matthew - thought to be authored Matthew the Evangelist, who was a Tax Collector
Mark - Mark, Peter's interpreter
Luke - Luke, a Companion of Paul
John - John is the most controversial, as some thing he's the actual Apostle John, others think he's just some dude who wasn't an eyewitness to the original events that are written in the book.
All of the gospels' authors were really researched and investigated around 200AD, and in some cases the author was determined by word of mouth (I was told by some guy who hung out with the apostles, for example), so take that with a grain of salt. Also keep in mind that two of the believed authors were chums of Peter and Paul who got around quite a bit, so they would be well known.
So while it's not 100%, i'd also hesitate to say "we have no idea" or that the authors were decided by "pure speculation".
Of course, this pretty much rules out their traditional authorship of Matthew, Luke, Mark and John.
Lacking any records of how the church determined their authorship, I see no reason to believe that highly sectarian church officials knew any better 200 years after the event than we know today. Going by their track record (for example, attributing several letters to Paul that obviously were not written by him) I'd say we know better than they did.
It's not even a matter of "faith," in the common sense, because there is no actual single concept to have faith IN. It's acceptance of a title, and a few choice ideas which, while associated with, are not neccissarily realistically derived from, the source documents.
It's not just something like "I choose to believe that pigs fly." It's more like "I choose to believe that pigs fly, but that no mammals can fly, bats are actually fish, but they are also mammals. Mammals are anything with four legs. Pigs are actually a kind of dolphin, which are also fish. Bats and pigs aren't even in the same kingdom. Pigs are actually minerals. Flight is impossible. Unless you are a mushroom. Which is a plant."
And you have based this idea on a book about Geology.
First of all, your arguments (or those you are sharing, at least) haven't addressed the true genealogy problem - the divergent names and different number of generations are interesting, but pale in comparison to the question of what the genealogies actually imply - Jesus was Joseph's son, not a divine miracle baby.
Second of all, the Synoptic Gospels are Mark, Luke and Matthew, not Mark, Matthew and John. However, it isn't just the derivative Synoptics that are unreliable, Mark is itself unreliable, written long after Jesus' death, by someone who knew nothing of Palestine, and it shows. So, that bumps things down to 1 Gospel in the running.
John, is also believed to be a derivative text, aspects of its internal structure indicating it be in part taken from the Hypothetical Signs Gospel. It was compiled in 110 CE, which makes means that if "John" were 10 at the time Jesus died, he'd be 90 now - ancient for ancient times, ancient NOW. Which, of course ignores the question as to why an eyewitness would use another source at all... In addition to which, John 21 is known to be a late addition to the text (which is also, coincidentally the Chapter which contains the verse which allegedly demonstrates John's authorship).
Lastly, the miracles of Jesus are largely replicated by other characters in the Bible, nothing in particular seems unique, a number of characters are resurrected, a number heal the blind/sick/frail, a bunch do magic conjuring tricks. Jesus' miracles are not unqiue even within the Bible. However, more importantly, Jesus' miracles are not unique, full stop, according to the texts you couldn't throw a brick in the timeof Jesus without hitting 14 alleged miracle workers and a magic donkey. Theer are testimonies with regard to all manner of miracle workers and Messiahs. And beyond that again, there is the fact that contemporary mythology spoke about all manner of deities and godsmen whose stories almost exactly reproduce the "high notes" of Jesus' miracle working career.
EDIT: Also, I don't think the passage you quote about the lamp oil means what you think it means. It is almost certainly NOT a teaching with regard to preparedness orlooking after others. It's a threat - "Be careful, get your theological ducks in a row, because when the day comes you'll be out on your ear, sucker."
I've seen people say this before, but I'm not sure how this rules out the authorship based on when the gospels were written. Perhaps you can elaborate?
You're right, doing research into an event ~200 years after the fact is no more accurate than ~2000 years.
Maybe WW2 is too well documented an event though. Something smaller and less relevant to anyone who would bother recording it? There's probably thousands of very small events that happened 200 years ago, and for whatever reason are just myths now (but people still talk about them).
One of the main reasons I bowed out of the conversations. Well that and the continual strawman'ing that was being done to ignore a single track of discussion.