|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 13, 2007 15:27:58 GMT -4
I was giving you a straight answer all along. Sorry you didn't like it.
I asked repeatedly for an argument as to why I should believe that the Bible can be seen as evidence of the existence of Jesus. What I was given in return was a bunch of unsubstantiated claims that the New Testament is true (not by you, Jason) because it's just true and a lot of people worked on it and it was COLLECTED TOGETHER MANY YEARS LATER and because of all that of course it is all true -- followed by exclamation points and accusations that I was ignorant.
In the absence of anyone making an actual argument as to why the NT should be seen as true, I suggested we look at some of the difficulties in the genealogies.
That's crappy logic -- or maybe it's just a crappy statement. To prove that Jesus existed would not be to prove that he was the son of God. He could have existed as an ordinary man who swayed many people, but who was not divine.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 13, 2007 16:05:27 GMT -4
That's crappy logic -- or maybe it's just a crappy statement. To prove that Jesus existed would not be to prove that he was the son of God. He could have existed as an ordinary man who swayed many people, but who was not divine. Allow me to explain. You are correct that whether or not God exists is a seperate question from whether or not Jesus was actually His son. But if God doesn't exist then there is not only no possibility that Jesus was His son, but also no possibility that Jesus was an inspired teacher or prophet, as is beileved in Islam and by some Jews (and, presumably, many other people who don't buy the whole "Son of God" idea but feel Jesus was inspired). If Jesus can not have been an inspired teacher or prophet, then his sayings lose any argument of authority ("you should listen to this because it's what God wants"). Without that source of authority it doesn't matter who wrote the sayings ascribed to Jesus in the New Testament. Either they have value in and of themselves, in which case it doesn't matter at all who said them first or when, or they don't actually have value and again, it doesn't matter who wrote them. Therefore whether God exists or not is the keystone of whether Jesus' historical existence matters or not. Christianity has been an important historical factor, but Christ himself, if he was not what he is reported to have said he was in the gospels, is not.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 13, 2007 16:22:08 GMT -4
I asked repeatedly for an argument as to why I should believe that the Bible can be seen as evidence of the existence of Jesus. What I was given in return was a bunch of unsubstantiated claims that the New Testament is true (not by you, Jason) because it's just true and a lot of people worked on it and it was COLLECTED TOGETHER MANY YEARS LATER and because of all that of course it is all true -- followed by exclamation points and accusations that I was ignorant. In the absence of anyone making an actual argument as to why the NT should be seen as true, I suggested we look at some of the difficulties in the genealogies. Yes those were all pretty flimsy arguments. Antiquity alone is no reason to accept anything as true. The belief of large quantities of people is a better indicator that something is a worthy subject for investigation but imperfect at best in determining the factual nature of an issue. As I've said before, one's acceptance of historical events and figures is strictly based off of one's faith in the sources they are reported in. Historical events or figures can only be shown to have existed beyond a reasonable doubt, with "reasonable" being an entirely subjective term. For much of history we simply accept the "official" version of events because there is no serious evidence against it. Did Alexander the Great really exist? Well we see no real reason to doubt that he did, so we accept he did, with the provision that much that was later written about him probably didn't really happen. My own faith in the Bible and other scriptures stems from personal experience gained through study, fasting, and prayer. It's not an argument I can convey beyond inviting others to repeat the same process.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Sept 13, 2007 20:07:25 GMT -4
If Jesus can not have been an inspired teacher or prophet, then his sayings lose any argument of authority ("you should listen to this because it's what God wants"). Without that source of authority it doesn't matter who wrote the sayings ascribed to Jesus in the New Testament. Either they have value in and of themselves, in which case it doesn't matter at all who said them first or when, or they don't actually have value and again, it doesn't matter who wrote them.
Therefore whether God exists or not is the keystone of whether Jesus' historical existence matters or not. Christianity has been an important historical factor, but Christ himself, if he was not what he is reported to have said he was in the gospels, is not. You seem to be saying that unless we believe in the Bible, and the Bible's God, then this thread is irrelevant. Also that unless we beleive Jesus is the Son of God, born of a virgin, that he performed miracles, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven that he is irrelevent. Well, he isn't. Mankind has moments of greatness, whether God exists or not.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 14, 2007 11:06:06 GMT -4
If he wasn't really the son of God and doesn't really have any impact on us except through historical christianity and his teachings then no, he doesn't matter. The teachings ascribed to him and the religious movement based on him might matter to us, but he doesn't. In fact if he wasn't the Son of God then many of his teachings don't matter either, since in that case they're flat wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Sept 14, 2007 19:19:01 GMT -4
If he wasn't really the son of God and doesn't really have any impact on us except through historical christianity and his teachings then no, he doesn't matter. The teachings ascribed to him and the religious movement based on him might matter to us, but he doesn't. In fact if he wasn't the Son of God then many of his teachings don't matter either, since in that case they're flat wrong. Wow, so he needs to be God in order to be valid? I'm actually shocked to read this. And everything he taught about love, compassion, and forgiveness doesn't matter? Sounds like you don't need Jesus at all Jason, you just need miracles and the supernatural.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Sept 14, 2007 22:37:29 GMT -4
DH you said: The Jews ignored their own scriptures when condemning Jesus to death for claiming to be God.
So for thousands of years, thousands of Jewish scholars who spend all their lives reading, studying, teaching and interpreting the Old Testament, have deliberately been misinterpreting their own scriptures so that Jesus cannot be acknowledged as being the Messiah? This conspiracy would be even bigger than the moon hoax, given that it has been occurring for almost two thousand years, across multiple continents, taught by thousands of Jewish rabbi's and scholars and believed by millions of Jews worldwide. Wow! I did not know that.
So there is a "Jesus Conspiracy"!
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 15, 2007 0:00:12 GMT -4
There is as much evidence to show that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus as there is evidence for the existence of Jesus. None.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Sept 15, 2007 0:18:32 GMT -4
So, wdmundt , that is your conclusion about the evidence (or lack of)? I have to differ, but I can see your point. This thread seemed to be heading into th "if you don't believe in God, miracles etc. then you won't find evidence" area anyway... But I was still amazed that people still blame the Jews, I mean as a race/people whatever over thousands of years instead of a few people that may have contributed to the death of Jesus so many years ago.
ha ha . I was reading some early Christian History tonight, and laughed outloud when I came to the Council of Nicene in 325. I knew that the christian church persecuted people throughout the ages of course but didn't realize that the seeds were planted so early. One of the Councils decisions were to burn the books of competing sects (Arianism etc.) but also to apply the death penalty for disobedience to bishops who did not go along with the Councils findings. I don't think the death penalty was ever applied though, I think they were just deposed and banished. What a start. They get their Creed written and right away they have to go after heretics for the next 1400 years or so!
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 15, 2007 12:30:39 GMT -4
Wow, so he needs to be God in order to be valid? I'm actually shocked to read this. And everything he taught about love, compassion, and forgiveness doesn't matter? Sounds like you don't need Jesus at all Jason, you just need miracles and the supernatural. Perhaps I haven't explained my point here adequately yet. Everything that Jesus taught about love, compassion, and forgiveness can have value by itself. If so, then it doesn't matter who spoke them first, and whether Jesus really did come up with them is irrelevent to their value. It's like the wheel. It doesn't really matter who historically came up with the wheel first, because the idea has value in and of itself. So if Jesus was just a man, then his teachings are much more important than he - they are the point of studying Jesus in the first place. But if Jesus was also the Son of God, then the person is more important than his teachings, as Christians around the world maintain, because he can still have a significant effect on people and the world in a way the creator of the wheel cannot. Jesus' existence or non-existence then becomes important.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 15, 2007 12:34:40 GMT -4
DH you said: The Jews ignored their own scriptures when condemning Jesus to death for claiming to be God.So for thousands of years, thousands of Jewish scholars who spend all their lives reading, studying, teaching and interpreting the Old Testament, have deliberately been misinterpreting their own scriptures so that Jesus cannot be acknowledged as being the Messiah? This conspiracy would be even bigger than the moon hoax, given that it has been occurring for almost two thousand years, across multiple continents, taught by thousands of Jewish rabbi's and scholars and believed by millions of Jews worldwide. Wow! I did not know that. So there is a "Jesus Conspiracy"! There was a Jesus Conspiracy in the first century. The priests and leaders of the Jews at the time did ignore their scriptures and refused to accept the promised Messiah when He appeared, chosing to execute him as a threat to their control instead. However, the Rabbis since that time are not deliberately deceiving their followers. They honestly believe Jesus was not the Messiah, and that the New Testament is largely fabrication. So "the Jesus Conspiracy" didn't last very long.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 15, 2007 12:38:18 GMT -4
ha ha . I was reading some early Christian History tonight, and laughed outloud when I came to the Council of Nicene in 325. I knew that the christian church persecuted people throughout the ages of course but didn't realize that the seeds were planted so early. One of the Councils decisions were to burn the books of competing sects (Arianism etc.) but also to apply the death penalty for disobedience to bishops who did not go along with the Councils findings. I don't think the death penalty was ever applied though, I think they were just deposed and banished. What a start. They get their Creed written and right away they have to go after heretics for the next 1400 years or so! Actually my belief is that the Church went apostate within 100 years of Jesus' death. The Creeds and persecution of heretics are signs that the church lost its way very early. With the death of the Apostles, the church essentially turned its back on God and the heavens closed.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Sept 15, 2007 13:01:57 GMT -4
DH you said: The Jews ignored their own scriptures when condemning Jesus to death for claiming to be God.So for thousands of years, thousands of Jewish scholars who spend all their lives reading, studying, teaching and interpreting the Old Testament, have deliberately been misinterpreting their own scriptures so that Jesus cannot be acknowledged as being the Messiah? This conspiracy would be even bigger than the moon hoax, given that it has been occurring for almost two thousand years, across multiple continents, taught by thousands of Jewish rabbi's and scholars and believed by millions of Jews worldwide. Wow! I did not know that. So there is a "Jesus Conspiracy"! Why would it have to be deliberate or misinterpretation? You said it yourself; they study the Torah and the Talmud, not the New Testament. If you ever read the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah, you'll see that He is referred to in two very different ways. He is described as a conquering king in some, and in others He is described as a suffering servant. Unable to reconcile these 2 descriptions in one man, the rabbis of that time simply ignored the suffering servant description and focused on the conquering king prophecies. Even today some Jews believe there are two messiahs, and that is how they reconcile the differences in the prophecies. From what I've read on the subject, the NT is, and has been, virtually ignored. The only conspiracy I know about is the one in the NT where it says that the people were told that Jesus's disciples stole and hid His body.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Sept 15, 2007 13:53:39 GMT -4
ha ha . I was reading some early Christian History tonight, and laughed outloud when I came to the Council of Nicene in 325. I knew that the christian church persecuted people throughout the ages of course but didn't realize that the seeds were planted so early. One of the Councils decisions were to burn the books of competing sects (Arianism etc.) but also to apply the death penalty for disobedience to bishops who did not go along with the Councils findings. I don't think the death penalty was ever applied though, I think they were just deposed and banished. What a start. They get their Creed written and right away they have to go after heretics for the next 1400 years or so! Actually my belief is that the Church went apostate within 100 years of Jesus' death. The Creeds and persecution of heretics are signs that the church lost its way very early. With the death of the Apostles, the church essentially turned its back on God and the heavens closed. There were apostates and heretics cropping up as soon as Paul established the churches, and is the subject of several of his letters. The following rant is not directed specifically to you, ginnie, but also to the many who similarly believe that just because an organization claims to be Christian, it must be true. Before making blanket statements condemning the church, try to find out what the church is. Learn the history of the Roman church. Some of the church "fathers" were heretics. From Constantine on, that "church" was not Christian, as anyone can see from their teachings and actions as contrasted with the teachings of Jesus in the NT. The Roman Catholic Church persecuted and killed the true church (primarily) over the centuries, as well as the Jews and sundry others who either resisted them or were so rich that the "church" claimed their lands and wealth. Millions upon millions were slaughtered by the RCC. Their own writings and many, many historical documents verify this fact. Learn the difference between Roman Catholic doctrine and Christian doctrine. It never ceases to amaze me that people not only believe that the Roman Catholic Church is Christian, but that it is the height of Christianity, even though it denies and perverts the teachings of Christ and the apostles. What really angers me is that all Christianity gets credited for the crimes of this false church. Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against His church. There has always been, at the very least, a remnant of genuine believers throughout the ages. One Lord, one everlasting gospel, and many cults and pretenders. The Lord is able to keep His own and His Word is forever established in heaven. Anybody who teaches differently is a liar.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 15, 2007 14:08:16 GMT -4
By my definition any group that claims to follow the teachings of Christ is Christian, whether I feel they actually do follow those teachings or not. This includes everything from the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons to the Roman Catholics and Methodists. It does not include Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Wiccas, and any other religious group that does not make a claim to be following Jesus' teachings.
Dead Hoosiers and many others want to use Christian as a polarizing term to exclude those they don't feel are completely orthodox. I feel that makes the word rather useless, since it then has variable meanings depending on who's using it and basically amounts to "those I think are better than others".
|
|