Call for ecumenical throwdown!

[beingofone]

Pekka,
I respect your questions and I have asked the very same.
If we use logic and reason we can come to some conclusions.

The first thing is there are not just four Gospels, only four made the cut because of the huge debate at Constantinople. We have in fact 21 Gospels.
So if we have in our posession 21 Gospels from ancient records, there were more then likely many more.

Charles W. Hendrick, professor who discovered the lost Gospel of the Savior tells us

Mirecki and I are not the first scholars to find a new ancient gospel. In fact scholars now have copies of 19 gospels (either complete, in fragments or in quotations), written in the first and second centuries A.D— nine of which were discovered in the 20th century. Two more are preserved, in part, in other andent writings, and we know the names of several others, but do not have copies of them. Clearly, Luke was not exaggerating when he wrote in his opening verse: "Many undertook to compile narratives [aboutJesus]" (Luke 1:1). Every one of these gospels was deemed true and sacred by at least some early Christians

http://www.geocities.com/metacrock20...ergospels.html

First of all, why don't we have any of his writings?

He made it clear others would do that. If he had written about himself the record would be in question more than what it is.

I find it weird that there is no mention of the dinosauruses in the bible even if some dufus claims there is.

Uh - actually there is - but I will admit it can be taken different ways. These are not the only references in scripture to 'great beasts of old'.
Job 41:12. For God is my King of old, working salvation in the midst of the earth.
13. Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters.
14. Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.

it also lacks as a religion when we talk about modern days

I disagree - the teachings of Jesus are timeless and transcend changing perceptions.
Love thy neighbor as thyself - is good for any generation.

But some fundamentals of the whole thing has been lost, and between all the arguing if we should walk backward every other Saturday, I mean who cares? Is that REALLY important? Christianity in different countries differ.

I agree with you here. It has become a social event when Jesus said "he that follows me, let him take up his cross".
That is like saying "pick up your electric chair and follow me".
A Christian will be willing to endure the fires of Hell to save another. If they are not willing, they are not a follower just a mere 'believer'.

And why does the churches carry the ultimate power of saying how things oughta be done so you do it right?

1 John 2: 27. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

And if you want to do like Jesus, I think you should and remember that, and not throw rocks at people who criticize organized ways of sometimes even crime and corruption. Outright hypocricy that is.

And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them.

But remember - meekness is not weakness as some think I am very arrogant. If someone gets unreasonable with me I tolerate that as much as Jesus did.

why do we need different interpretations, because we choose what sounds the best personally for different folks

Read the scripture as a letter and not as some legalistic rulebook. I do not read the scripture to compare notes with other theologians, I read it to compare my life experience with others who walked the path before me.
I am going to blaze my own trail not mimic others.


Last point - think about what it would take to pull off the resurrection if it were just a 'myth'. To me this is the most convincing evidence of all.
First there a over four hundred early Christian texts that we have and they all speak of Jesus. In ancient times it required more than one person to write a text. It was also very expensive and was usually limited because of the cost involved.
To write and distribute just the four hundred writings that we have would have involved a conspiracy of literally thousands of people all risking their lives. It was a capital offense to be a Christian during the time of the lions share of these writings.

The claim that Jesus resurrected was not propagated amongst ignorant club wielding cave mean as the critics would have you believe. These are people who are familiar with Aristotle, Socrates, Pythagoras etc.
The NT is written in Greek, in the language of some of the most brilliant thinkers in history. Think about it - they would actually try to fool this kind of society with a fairy tail of a man coming back to life with eyewitnesses ?

The apostles all gave up their life for what they said they saw. They said they had seen him with their own eyes. Now a person might die for what he believes to be true and it turns out to be false. This is not the same thing at all. The critics almost never get this point first time around.

If someone has you dunked in a barrel of gasoline and says "Just tell me you are not Superman and I will not light you on fire". Get the idea? They said "we saw him and will not deny seeing him with our own eyes".


It is not just faith - the evidence has been suppressed or just not considered. Its actually overwhelming when you look at all the facts.

[beingofone]

An Oxford University professor has on the basis of logic and mathematics claimed that Jesus Christ was resurrected by God.

Professor Richard Swinburne has said that it was 97 percent certain that God had raised Christ from the dead.

http://www.dhaliwal.in/fullstory2005...sID-22130.html

Dr. Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, was one of the greatest legal minds that ever lived. He wrote the famous legal volume entitled, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, considered by many the greatest legal volume ever written. Dr. Simon Greenleaf believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. And he determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. After thoroughly examining the evidence for the resurrection — Dr. Greenleaf came to the exact opposite conclusion! He wrote a book entitled, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In which he emphatically stated:

"it was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . ."
(Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, p.29).

http://www.drreevesonline.com/resurrection.htm

[Ben Kenobi]

Sorry for the delay I have the answer to the second question:

2) Jesus wanted us to worship him, rather than just embrace his ideals?

Jesus accepted worship throughout the Gospels. If Jesus were not God, then it would be improper for him to accept the worship of others. Rather then discouraging their worship, he allowed many to come and bow to him.

Just one example is in the Gospel of Matthew:

Matthew 14:25-33

During the fourth watch of the night Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. "It's a ghost," they said, and cried out in fear.

But Jesus immediately said to them: "Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid."

"Lord, if it's you," Peter replied, "tell me to come to you on the water."

"Come," he said.

Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, "Lord, save me!"

Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. "You of little faith," he said, "why did you doubt?"

And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."

[Ben Kenobi]

Right right.. but this is a problem to me also, because I probably WOULD try to steal the body if I was there, believing he was the son of God. Would I claim afterwards he rose from the dead, probably not.

There you go. The disciples whom were accused of stealing the body of Christ, not only proclaimed that Christ died, and rose again, but also, they suffered and died for those very words.

I would prolly expect there would be guards, so there's two ways. Either convince the guards that he is son of God and they should step aside, or just overwhelm them with a group. The guards would try to save their own butts for sure, being afraid what happens to them if their boss finds out they fled. Other possibility is that they were symphatetic guards, kind of believing it's possible it was the son of God and they did it willingly.

First of all, consider this. You are the pharisees. Are you going to put guards on the tomb of Christ whom you suspect of being Christians? Hardly. You have far more men available then you need to guard the tomb, so you are going to select the very best ones.

Secondly, the guards themselves are told to protect the tomb. If the Christians show up trying to steal the body, why are they just going to let them pass by saying, Jesus is the Son of God, let us pass? It's foolish, and contradictory, because if Christ truly is the Son of God, then why would the disciples need to intervene? I'd be surprised if the guards didn't fall over laughing.

Yes, he claimed that himself. So, that's kind of like the ultimate catch. This is why it makes no sense to me, what about other people? Even though Jesus said this, many people don't know this, even today, many people don't know this. Is it their fault, their fate? Even many Christians don't know this. That the salvation happens through Jesus.

Pekka, read Romans. I can cite it for you here if you don't have a copy or you can look at the same site that I use for these citations, though I will have to apologise to the Catholics for straying away. Apostle Paul rebuts your argument by saying that everyone has a conscience given to them by God, and that they will be gaged on whether they obey this conscience, even if they have no other knowledge of God.

http://www.ibs.org/niv/index.php

This is why it's troublesome. It's basically "because I say so". IF he is the son of God, then it's right. But if he is just a mortal man, then it's not right, and that's why the issue him being a mortal man is the most vital cornerstone. Yes, through the gospels it says he was son of God, but there were many other gospels not making that statement.

Couple of claims here. Christ does claim to be God, but he provides several ways in which he proves to be God. The foremost is the resurrection, according to the Gospels, Christ died, and rose from the dead.

Secondly, what gospels are you talking about that claim something different?

Thirdly, even if they say something different, you still need to answer the question of the empty tomb. The Jews acknowledged the empty tomb in arguing that the disciples stole the body. Therefore, if that explaination doesn't work, you have to find another that shows how they could bury Christ and how the tomb could end up empty, if the account in all 4 Gospels is wrong.

Then you say that well, you don't have to know Christ to be saved if you other ways can compensate. Well, so.. then it isn't true that the salvation happens through Jesus, it's ONE way, but not the only way, yes? But this would make more sense to me.

Read Romans, read what Apostle Paul has to say about this statement.

We should research this more, and not get stuck in word games and old interpretations. I'm sure everyone is researching this and always has, but it is our duty I feel like, that we get more better proof about it and not jus give up and think it's just something we have to believe. If we believe this to be true, it would be our duty to find otu the truth so others can see it too so they can be saved. There's no reason why this shouldn't be the biggest effort made by Christians. And not from a standpoint of 'supporting statements, must find them'. That's like writing new ID theory. No.. do it properly.

Oh, most certainly. For why should we believe for any other reason then that we believe this to be true? Please, feel free to ask me questions here or by pm, and I'll reply to them as best I can.

[Ben Kenobi]

if it is purely about a choice, then why do children need to be brainwashed into believing religion?

how strong a following would religion have if children were not allowed to be exposed to religion until age 18?

I don't know sava, after all I'm just a convert, myself.

if it is a choice to be made, why not let people make it when they are intelligent enough to do so?

let's educate people in secular schools, and then at age 18, we can expose them to religion... all religions... at the same time...

If you sincerely believe that religion is an essential part of your life, then why wait until 18 to teach the children? Surely, if we believe that reading and math are essential, we teach them to children, therefore, we also ought to teach them religion at the same age.

[Pekka]

beingofone, thanks for the answers.

" If he had written about himself the record would be in question more than what it is."

I don't necessarily mean that he would have written teachings down. Anything. A diary, just.. anything at all.

And to some things, such as the church having the ultimate power on things, I don't take it as the reasoning why from one or two passages, that are derived from writings of man when my own logic fights against the very idea. Not to say that church shouldn't have any power, just saying it has too much power. I feel it should provide a place for people to pray, offer guidance to anyone who asks to be guided, help people in trouble, and that's it. Period. Nothing else.

"I disagree - the teachings of Jesus are timeless and transcend changing perceptions."

Yeah I wasn't disagreeing the main teachings of him are too old, certainly the main points apply now and forever. This would point more to organized religion again rather than Jesus and what he said.

"
Last point - think about what it would take to pull off the resurrection if it were just a 'myth'. To me this is the most convincing evidence of all."

At first it would take some, but later on, not really, since the snowball effect started happening.

"First there a over four hundred early Christian texts that we have and they all speak of Jesus. In ancient times it required more than one person to write a text. It was also very expensive and was usually limited because of the cost involved."

I don't think the existence of Jesus is so much of a question, I think many agree that Jesus was around then, and was very important and influental. Was he immortal? Most think not. You say so many believe the 'myth' so how could it be myth, well, most actually believes it is in fact a myth that Jesus was immortal. We are minority.

"Think about it - they would actually try to fool this kind of society with a fairy tail of a man coming back to life with eyewitnesses ?"

You question their motives? There's plenty of motives to do it. To spice up the real story. They didn't have to make it all up after all. Then again, it's possible they were believers, like their writings suggest, and well, then they'd be biased to write some stories that didn't go exactly as they did.

Basically, I don't bite the 'but why would have they...' arguments. I think they are not good arguments.

"If someone has you dunked in a barrel of gasoline and says "Just tell me you are not Superman and I will not light you on fire". Get the idea? They said "we saw him and will not deny seeing him with our own eyes"."

This one is a better argument, however not rock solid. Even today we have cults with mass suicides, who believe their leader is a person of greater power. It's not that they lied and participated in mass suicide, it's that they believed, and were ready to die for it. Lots of people are ready, well not eager but if it has to be done, then ready to die for their beliefs.

You are presenting evidence that is mostly questioning motives. They are arguments to be added for, but they are not solid and could be even used against.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Odin


This is impossible, kids absorb the culture (and thus the religion) around them, you can't keep kids from religion unless every adult around them is not religious, which is impossible.

Sava knows this; it is his way of debunking Jon's assertion that "It is just a matter of choice".

It is NOT just a matter of choice!

[Pekka]

"There you go. The disciples whom were accused of stealing the body of Christ, not only proclaimed that Christ died, and rose again, but also, they suffered and died for those very words. "

I don't understand. They believed he was the son of God, stole the body, were feeling the heat since they knew who stole it, and had to come up with a statement. At this point 1) return the body and face the consequences 2) don't return the body, because you either believe he is the son of God regardless the body is still there or not. Option 2 is chosen, to protect the body of Christ, and to protect yourself, claim the body is gone, he resurrected, thus he must be son of God, thus we did the right thing, no reason to harm us. Of course they were killed but I'm saying, this is the motive game and there's plenty to go around and IU don't think these are solid evidences for or against.

"Are you going to put guards on the tomb of Christ whom you suspect of being Christians? Hardly."

Why not? I actually said first 'absolutely'.

"If the Christians show up trying to steal the body, why are they just going to let them pass by saying, Jesus is the Son of God, let us pass? It's foolish, and contradictory, because if Christ truly is the Son of God, then why would the disciples need to intervene? "

Easy. Some the soldiers must have suspected that maybe Jesus was for real. Just like many other people thought. Now, are you going to stand in the way and go against what when his friends come and claim the body, in the name of Jesus, even if they are told not ot let anyone in? That's a powerful thing, many Christians today stay Christians because they are afraid they might go to Hell if they didn't. That alone keeps people on their toes.

Would they be laughing? Maybe, but maybe not. They might have been terrified to the maximum. Standing aside would be perfectly possible, or the other option, where the Christians just overwhelm the guards with force, and the guards just saved their butts with excuses later on, not being able to do their job.



Well I didn't read the Romans as of yet, but what you say, are you saying he means that if you believe in God and follow that feeling your own way, try to do good things, then you are saved?

Isn't that like saying that salvation goes through Jesus, but not necessarily, and actually most religions in the world that have God in it the way we do, they'll be saved too?

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Odin
The expulsion of Adam and Eve from Eden seems to me to be a legend stemming from the desertification of the ME and Sahara (desertification = the flaming sword that kept them from going back into Eden)

Or perhaps an end to living as a "noble savage", i.e., hunter gatherer, and the start of living in a agricultural community, necessitating rules and rulers for survival.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by beingofone


http://www.dhaliwal.in/fullstory2005...sID-22130.html

Later, in the very same article, clearly refuted:

Colin Sutherland, a professor of mathematics at the University of New South Wales and an agnostic, said that he suspected the resurrection was something mathematics could not prove.

"In general, mathematics is able to tell you that if one thing is true, that something else is true. But you have to make your assumptions very clear. The conclusions you reach in this kind of discussion often simply reflect the assumptions that you put in at the beginning," said Professor Sutherland.

Look, if you want to believe, then believe. But don't start in with the science/math proves the existence of God sh!t. It really demeans you.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't understand. They believed he was the son of God, stole the body, were feeling the heat since they knew who stole it, and had to come up with a statement.

It's rather simple, Pekka. Would you die defending something that you knew was a lie?

Easy. Some the soldiers must have suspected that maybe Jesus was for real.

True, but then you run up against my earlier counterargument. The pharisees would pick their best guards that they could count on to stand firm against the Christians. There were lots of folks who hated the Christians, and who thought nothing of Christ.

You are right that many Christians stay Christian because of the fear of hell, but the question I am asking, is why would someone who thinks Christ is just a rabblerouser and a troublemaker have any respect for the Christians, or for Christ?

[Ben Kenobi]

Well I didn't read the Romans as of yet, but what you say, are you saying he means that if you believe in God and follow that feeling your own way, try to do good things, then you are saved?

Pretty much so.

Paul starts by addressing your question concerning those born before the coming of Christ. How could they be saved if they did not know Christ as the disciples had? The answer Paul argues, is that everyone has a conscience, and a law written on their heart. People who do not have the law, or knowledge of God, still have a conscience to guide their moral actions. This is why Paul also refers to Abraham, to say that Abraham was saved by the grace of God through his faith in him.

Isn't that like saying that salvation goes through Jesus, but not necessarily, and actually most religions in the world that have God in it the way we do, they'll be saved too?

Salvation is through Christ, Christ will decide whom will be saved. Those who have not known scripture will be judged based on the law within their heart. As for those who do know scripture, and have rejected Jesus, this means that they will not be saved. I cannot say that all who are muslims will not be saved by Christ, just as I cannot say all those who claim to be Christians will also be saved. All we can do is follow the commandments of Christ, to love the Lord God with all our heart and mind and soul and strength, and to love our neighbour as ourself.

[Pekka]

"Would you die defending something that you knew was a lie?"

This is the wrong question to ask. Like said, they believed. However this is not a good argument to answer this question. They believed, but they might have been wrong as well, besides, like I explained the possible scenario, them stealing the body, then the resurrection didn't happen, it would make the best of sense to claim it did. To save their own butt. It didn't at the end, but that's a moot point.

"The pharisees would pick their best guards that they could count on to stand firm against the Christians. There were lots of folks who hated the Christians, and who thought nothing of Christ."

So what? They could still be turned over, or overwhelmed.

And why would someoen have respect, well, troublemaker or not, he was influental. Even if I was put in the same room with Saddam, I'd have hate for him, I'd loath him, but at the same time there would be some sense of respect for his past power, adn that this person is not my league.

Respect for their followers is more likely to not exists, but to the person directly, there are many kinds of levels of respect. Jesus was an important man, like him or not, you can still respect him for it.

As to what you say about Paul, well what he says makes a lot of sense to me. This was one of the biggest problems I had with the whole thing, but this would make sense. I mean this would be what I thought about it, I mean if I had to interpret it without anyone else influencing me, that would be what I'd think. It would answer the fairness of things. Thanks, I never knew what Paul had to say about it.

[Pekka]

Oh and that 'proven by math' was horrible. As a scientist and mathematician, I find that so horrible, it has nothing right. It has everything wrong. It doesn't even .. this 'theory' has no merits what so ever, it is not mathematics, it's not science, it's bunch of wild assumptions, random odds pulled out of a hat, and the conclusion of weird.

Believe me, that has absolutely 0 merit and in fact don't use it ever when debating, it's that horrible and will make you look bad. This is not an attack against you, please, this is a good advice.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I don't know sava, after all I'm just a convert, myself.

well, you are just... well... something entirely different... a unique case... scary... yikes...

but I still love you

If you sincerely believe that religion is an essential part of your life, then why wait until 18 to teach the children? Surely, if we believe that reading and math are essential, we teach them to children, therefore, we also ought to teach them religion at the same age.

I don't believe religion is an essential part of life at all... in fact I think I think it is a terrible burden upon society. Superstition and myth has no place in civilized society. Any possible good that comes from religion can happen without religion. Humanity is better off without it.

We should embrace reason, critical thinking, tolerance, and science... not blind faith, ignorance, and superstition.

Worshipping mythical figures is what primitive cultures do. We should strive to move ahead... to use the intelligence we have (whether it be God given or whether it be the product of evolution, or a combination of the two) to find answers...

but one thing is for sure... if we rely on superstition and myth... ignorance and blind faith, we will never have answers...

that is why we need to stop believing in nonsense...

nobody is saying not to live a moral life... you can still live by the teachings of Jesus... In fact, Jesus says a lot of very good things. But you can be a good person AND still be an intelligent person.

The two are not mutually exclusive.