Thoughts on society.....

[CanadianSteve]

Nor do all Christians. I was just trying to point out that Rasputin has set an unrealistic standard of "proof".

 

[imported_Rasputin]

Also, I'll repeat from my last post: The rest of the disagreements in your post are just quibbling over dates, and don't affect the basic truth.
Steve, I have told you many times throughout this thread that it IS only the historical dates and authorship I amdebating. I have not once, nor will I, deal with the theological aspects of Godor thevalidity or otherwise of the "truth" of what is contained within the gospels.Noram Iattacking your faith, I am merely debatingthe historical accuracy of the books, not their content or doctrine.

No originals of course because paper deteriorates
They didn't use paper in those times

Julius Caesar's writingsare about 1000 years after his time, and far fewer in number, yet no one doubts his existence or authenticity.
Because we aren't debating who wrote Ceaser's war chronicles, nor does any faith hinge on what he wrote. As I said Steve, I haven't disputed a single wordwritten in the gospels, nor the existence of Christ and the Apostles, just the dates the gospels were written and who wrote them.

All the scientists and evolutionists don't agree on everything, do they?
No they don't, and you readily use that disagreement to discredit their findings don't you. Can't have it both ways Steve

And be honest, you don't really want to believe anyway, do you?
Well I have no idea what to make of that. It's not a matter of what I want to believe. I absolutely do believe the gospels were written somewhere around that time and that they were even written by good men in good faith,andthat they were written by men who honestly believed in what they wrote. I have never disputed that and I also totally accept and support, as does most of society, many of the values and principles contained within those writings. Do I believe in God? No, but that has absolutely nothing to do with who and when the gospels were written nor about wanting to believe or not. You believeandI don't,I don't understand why you believe any more/less than you understand why I don't believe, that's just the way of it.

I blame Moffo for dragging me into all this, I'm gonna have to find a way to extract vengeance on that boy

 

[imported_Rasputin]

I was just trying to point out that Rasputin has set an unrealistic standard of "proof".
I was just tryin to point out that there is no proof, nor for that matter do you need any

 

[Cronulla_Mania]

"I blame Moffo for dragging me into all this, I'm gonna have to find a way to extract vengeance on that boy "

Im sure your loving it!

Moffo

 

This message has been deleted due to termination of membership.

 

This message has been deleted due to termination of membership.

 

[Cronulla_Mania]

gday God

i wonder if rasp, willow etc believe in any of the miracles that the bible says Jesus did? I guess what im asking is what is your ideas on Jesus, what did you think he did whilst on Earth etc etc

Moffo

 

This message has been deleted due to termination of membership.

 

[Willow]

MFC: " wonder if rasp, willow etc believe in any of the miracles that the bible says Jesus did?"
What do you think I'll sayMoffo? I'll give you one guess.

 

[Willow]

Moffo: " I guess what im asking is what is your ideas on Jesus..."

Well... I have already given my opinion - you might recall my 'shagging' post (# 497)which caused so much distress to one (or two) forummers.

They seemed outraged by the notion that Jesus may have had'relations' with another consenting adult. This was apparently very offensive... even moreoffensivethan the idea thatJesus was a mere mortal.... which was obviously my view in the subject.
To be honest, I still think it was one of my better posts.

Based on my interpretation of the history of Jesus, Ihold theopinionthathe was a charismatic personality whogained quite a reputation amongst his followers who adored him.He may have claimed to be the son of God and others believed it but imo,he was mortal.

He became a thorn in the side of the establishment and they eventually executed him... thus creating a martyr.

 

[Cronulla_Mania]

OK, fair enough. But lets take out of the equation that he was a religious figurehead for a second..

So your saying that all the stories of him healing the blind, turning water into wine and walking on waterare false? Well, the only other question i have is the turning bread into fish into enough to feed 5,000 people. I mean naturally, this would've been a very public and large display. And i find it a bit hard to believe that all these people would've 'been in on the gig'

"To be honest, I still think it was one of my better posts." Oh for sure willow!

Moffo

 

[Willow]

It was one of my better posts! This is based on the fact that most of my posts are crap.

 

[Willow]

Moffo: "So your saying that all the stories of him healing the blind, turning water into wine and walking on waterare false?"
Its in the eye of the beholder Moff.
US Evangelists claim that they can heal cripples and give sight to the blind. It may be a set up or maybe the power of suggestion... or maybe it really is a magic. Its up to you which you want to believe.

I find it hard to accept that someone can walk on water but I can accept that is how someone else saw it on the day. Perhaps it was embellished as stories spread across the land. Remember, people wanted a Messiah and were probably ready take anything on board.

"...turning bread into fish into enough to feed 5,000 people. I mean naturally, this would've been a very public and large display."
Same thing really. I know you say there were 5000 people there but the truth is, we only have the writings to collaborate this. Who really knows what happened? For all we know, the food was donated in exchange for bread by people sympathetic to Jesus'scommunistcause... and this may have been the later interpreted as turning bread into fish etc.
We are also told that America won WWII - its becoming accepted as fact. The reality is that the Russians turned the tide of the war and occupied Berlin first.
Perhaps in 100 years from now the history books would have forgotten the facts.

What I'm saying is interpretation of the facts can be embellished over time. Its happened before. Thats not to say that the people who told these stories were lying. Indeed,they believed or wanted to believethe 'miracles'as being fact.

Nevertheless, whether Jesus performed miracles or not isn't the issue. To many, he willstill bethe Son of God regardless of the validity of these claims.

Easy question Moffo:
Ifit was proven thatJesus did not perform miracles, would it shake your faith?

 

[Cronulla_Mania]

Easy question Moffo:
Ifit was proven thatJesus did not perform miracles, would it shake your faith?

I might question the otherelements of the bible a bit more, but apart from that, not really, as 'performing miracles' is only one dimension of Jesus. If that were the case, than perhaps i would think that it was just written by some people who wanted to 'spice' up the story of Jesus and make him look more like the son of God

Cheers,
Moffo

 

[Willow]

Moffo: "... 'performing miracles' is only one dimension of Jesus. If that were the case, than perhaps i would think that it was just written by some people who wanted to 'spice' up the story of Jesus and make him look more like the son of God."

Exactly and well put. Its only one component of Jesus - you're not going to stop believing just because you question the bible.

The basic tenet of Christians is that they have faith and therefore don't need proof.

 

[CanadianSteve]

Willow. - Re: your post #633. The following may serve to partly answer Rasputin as well:

In the book <u>History and Christianity</u>,by Dr. John Warwick Montgomery, he makes several points about the validity of the 4 Gospels. He quotes Dr. Frederic G Kenyon, former director and librarian of the British Museum: "In no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest extant manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament. The books of the NT were were written in the latter part of the first century; the earliest manuscripts are of the 4th century, say from 250 to 300 years later. This may sound a considerable interval, but it is nothing to that of... the great classical authors." He goes on to give examples: Sophocles 1400 year gap, Euripides 1600, Plato 1300 - yet all these and others are considered to have complete copies of their writings. In a later book, after even more recent discoveries of NT manuscripts, Kenyon wrote: "The interval between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to to be negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and general integrity of the books of the NT may be regarded as finally established."

Given this - I have read elsewhere that historians say it takes something like 400-500 years for "legends" to be built up, such as King Arthur. Since there is no such gap with the NT, then the accounts therein should be considered authentic.

 

[CanadianSteve]

I see my link to John Montgomery didn't work. I'll try this:
http://id-www.ucsb.edu/FSCF/LIBRARY/MONTGOMERY/bio.html

 

[Willow]

Now without bringing faith, interpretations or beliefs into consideration, hows this for a hypothetical....

In a stroke of luck and what can only be described as a great leap forward, a group of students unlock the secret of time travel. Their machine enables matter, including humans to be transferred through time to any given destination. They even have safety devices locked in place so their machine cannot contaminate the timeline.

Theirfirst journeytakes themto the time of Christ and after three months, they return with some sensational news and a travelling companion... Jesus Christ himself. There is no doubt that he is indeedwho he says he is.

The sensational news? Take your choice and describe how you think society would react:

1.) Jesusinforms everyone that he is not the son of God. He is a fraud and gives the world detailed information as to how he collaborated with others to make him look like the Messiah. Futhermore, he is quite concerned because he has apparently upset too many people in powerand expects to be arrested on his return to his own timeline.

How does world society react? Would there be chaos or harmony?

2.) Jesus performs miracles for the cameras and is truly the son of God. He says that God gave Humans the will to invent this wonderful time machine so that one day, the world would finally have its proof. He sets the record straight on a few minor issues and then proceeds to bless everyone.
He thenhops on a plane to meet with western and middle eastern leaders who he says 'need a good talking to'... especially those rowdy Muslims.

How does world society react? Would there be chaos or harmony?

 

[CanadianSteve]

From C.S. Lewis:

<h2>Are The Gospel Accounts Reliable?</h2>
Another point is that on that view you would have to regard the accounts of the Man as being legends. Now, as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing. They are not artistic enough to be legends. From an imaginative point of view they are clumsy, they don't work up to things properly. Most of the life of Jesus is totally unknown to us, as is the life of anyone else who lived at that time, and no people building up a legend would allow that to be so. Apart from bits of the Platonic dialogues, there are no conversations that I know of in ancient literature like the Fourth Gospel. There is nothing, even in modern literature, until about a hundred years ago when the realistic novel came into existence. In the story of the woman taken in adultery we are told Christ bent down and scribbled in the dust with His finger. Nothing comes of this. No one has ever based any doctrine on it. And the art of inventing little irrelevant details to make an imaginary scene more convincing is a purely modern art. Surely the only explanation of this passage is that the thing really happened. The author put it in simply because he had seen it.

 

[CanadianSteve]

Steve, I have told you many times throughout this thread that it IS only the historical dates and authorship I amdebating...
I am merely debatingthe historical accuracy of the books,
If we're only talking about historical accuracy and dating, why did you say the following?

Because we aren't debating who wrote Ceaser's war chronicles, nor does any faith hinge on what he wrote Why bring faith into it? I was giving an example only of another historical written account.

Steve, I haven't disputed a single wordwritten in the gospels, nor the existence of Christ and the Apostles, just the dates the gospels were written and who wrote them. I think I have addressed this further in #636, as well as my earlier posts.I know your Catholic sources disagree.
By that I would even accept just one theologians opinion on the condition it is not contradicted by no more than 5 other theologians. Rasputin #617 I think you are saying, if all the theologians/historians don't agree exactly on dates, then how can you believe any of it. I look at it differently; I look at the different ideas and say, I think this one is right.