Why I Believe
I was going to post this essay of mine on Good Friday, but in uncertain times, I thought I'd fling this tiny exercise in Christian apologetics out now instead. If you want to read my thoughts here, then thank you in advance, and if not, then no hard feelings whatsoever. Your time is your own.
Faith seems to me a sort of mystery. After all, to believe in something without evidence is not logical, is it? Yet in the Bible faith is defined as:
"... the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen...."
And that I can get behind, since hope is a very powerful thing (in its ability to nourish life it may be even mightier than love) and as for the "evidence of things not seen" that is where, a decade ago, I found my reasons for believing in Jesus after a lifetime of agnosticism, since there is not only evidence for Jesus' life and miracles and resurrection, these reasons come circumstantially with the force of logical argument behind them.
Rather than make a case for Jesus' life and works, let me briefly touch on three common critical challenges to the single cornerstone event in Christianity, the resurrection, and note why I find its historicity compelling.
Critics have said:
Jesus did not truly die on the cross.
Jesus' body was stolen by his followers.
Jesus' body was disposed of by the Roman or by his Jewish enemies.
While I did endure thirteen years of Catholic school, I am no theological expert, and others have replied to these charges with more eloquence than me, but here are some thoughts I have had on each of these positions.
Jesus did not die on the cross:
To me this is the weakest of all challenges, since while evidence does exist that at least one person in ancient times appears to have survived crucifixion, there seems no reason to think Jesus did, since having been condemned by no less than a provincial governor of Rome, his executioners knew that the penalty for a failure to carry out this order would have meant their own deaths. That's motivating!
Dying as Jesus did before a gathering that included many enemies, under what circumstances could this man have been removed from his cross while still alive? Wouldn't his enemies have protested? Wouldn't the Roman soldiers undertaking the deed (probably not novices in the art of killing) have been certain of his death, if only for their own self-preservation?
Who could remain still as a spear was thrust into his side, as was done to Jesus' clearly lifeless body?
After having been beaten and crucified across the course of most of a day, just how survivable does a critic of the Gospel account imagine this degree of torture to have been? And had Jesus have come down from the cross alive, in what state would he have been? Probably not lucid, and likely not in a condition to inspire awe among his traumatized followers. Would he have ever been able to walk again? Would a scarred and disfigured person have motivated many who gazed with horror on his ruined physique?
A criminal who endured such punishment would not likely have been one to set aflame the hearts and spirits of man and go on to found the world's greatest religion, based almost solely upon a claim that its central figure rose from the dead.
Actually, after predicting his own death and resurrection, having survived condemnation rather than dying and returning, his followers would have seen Jesus as a liar and not the Messiah, and surely few would have been inspired to follow him after that.
Would you follow a liar to your death?
Jesus' body was stolen by his followers.
Okay, to what end? To fake the fulfillment of Jesus' resurrection? Yes, perhaps, but let me ask a second time, would you die for a fraud? All but one of Jesus' disciples who survived to see his resurrection went on to die violent deaths as martyrs, and was it their participation in some great con that motivated them to do so?
One might perpetuate a fraud about a rebirth for financial gain and for the acquisition of women, as most cult leaders have done, but why would you die for a known lie? And why would you be willing to live out the remainder of your life as a social outcast, shunned by the Jewish community that once nurtured you, where you had family and friends? Why give up your livelihood and exchange it for a wandering life in which you'd be beaten, persecuted, ultimately killed? Can you really see someone doing that for a lie about a resurrection that they helped orchestrate?
So at the very least we might logically assume the disciples of Jesus believed their master rose from the dead on the third day, as he foretold he would, and why else would they believe this were they not convinced it was true?
And how could they be fooled were it not Jesus who came to stand before them post-crucifixion? They recognized him, they saw the holes in his hands and feet, they saw the scars of the crown of thorns, and so to them it was no act of faith to believe, it was the proof of their senses as eye-witnesses, and that is a powerful truth argument there.
Remember, as Jesus stood trial the disciples scattered in fear, at least one openly denied him, yet some mysterious, powerful event changed these men from terrified figures acting on instincts of self-preservation into faithful evangelists willing to die for this man they called Lord....and ultimately in all but one case they did die for him.
Again, if they were lying, why would they do this?
Jesus' body was disposed of by the Romans or by his Jewish enemies.
Some challenge the resurrection story by tossing out a claim that after he was taken down from the cross, the Romans threw Jesus' body into the valley of defilement, as locals termed the garbage heaps outside Jerusalem, and dogs and rats and vultures ate him, so as an unintended side effect the tale of the resurrection couldn't be disproven by the Jewish leaders or the Romans, and that explanation wraps up Jesus' rebirth account right there.
Yes, but there are some things wrong with this. Firstly, as I wrote about above, if he disciples knew Jesus had been thrown among trash and eaten by scavengers, that ending would pretty well have put paid to the idea that Jesus was messiah. He did not keep his promises, he was a fake. They could call the last three years wasted and go home, like the bitter campaign staff of a politician who loses his election. He lied to us! It would have been a disillusioning moment of sobering horror.
But the disciples didn't go home, something occurred to inspire them to become men of resolute devotion to the cause, and likely this was not their lord rotting while dogs ate his corpse.
Plus the scriptural accounts written soon after the crucifixion tell of Jesus being buried in a tomb, and even name the owner of the tomb who donated it so Jesus could be buried there. The location of the tomb was known at the time and remains almost certainly known to us today. Witnesses were listed by name in the Biblical record, witnesses presumably known to contemporaries hearing of the event. The earliest of known written accounts were composed within living memory of Jesus' life and ministry, more recent to the Gospel authors than the assassination of John Kennedy is to us.
And let's think about that time factor. If someone today began claiming Kennedy came back from the dead, or that he was never buried in Arlington, he was tossed into a trash pile, people living so recently to the event would simply discount those claims and know the truth was otherwise, as presumably the residents of Jerusalem would have disbelieved the claims about Jesus if they'd been alive to see things unfold otherwise.
But instead the nascent Christian religion took off like wildfire in and around Jerusalem immediately after Jesus' death and throughout the next thirty years before the Roman sack of the city (which Jesus prophesied) and those people, who would have either been witnesses to Jesus' death or surely known others who were (Jerusalem was not a huge place), did not denounce the claims of the early church or the writers of the Gospels, instead thousands quickly stepped up to join the Christian movement, which was not discredited, only criticized, since even Jesus' foes did not deny his works, only attributed them to the devil.
As I said, others have and can and will take on these objections better than I have done but in essence, I do find that the claims about the crucifixion and resurrection (without which there is no Christianity) made in Gospel account to be credible, and those are some reasons why.
A great summation of the strongest points in defense of the Resurrection!
I rate loyalty higher even than love or hope.
Nonetheless, your good argument is contrived. The argument is obfuscating.
So, where in all that shows proof that Jesus rose from the dead?
I'm not faulting your belief. I'm just curious of how a dead man walks.
And please don't say "Because the Bible tells me so."
I've literally spent my entire adult life researching this. Maybe this will explain it:
There is simply no doubt that the followers of Jesus who wrote the New Testament believed that He rose from the dead.
Paul, writing in 54 AD - only 21 years after the Crucifixion - said that "if Christ is not raise, we are of all men most to be pitied."
He also furnished a lengthy list of people who saw the risen Jesus.
It's almost impossible to account for the rise of Christianity, originating in the very city where Jesus was crucified, UNLESS the disciples believed, 100%, in the Resurrection.
Which posits the question: Where did that belief come from?
These men were certainly in a position to know if it was true or not.
And they risked - and in most cases, gave - their lives for that truth.
So, if Jesus did not come back, where did they get the idea that He did?
Many people believe they witnessed a great many things.
This is not however proof. I could equally posit that they were scam artists and that would be just as legitimate a reason, the L Ron Hubbard's of their day. I am not saying they were, just that it is as equally valid a reason as those given above, but people have risked everything for less than the reasons given.
Equally, when you ask about the rise of Christianity, take a look around. Some people will believe anything, even when it comes to putting their own lives at risk. Alas, it is part of the human condition that people will look for evidence that backs up their own preconceptions and ignore that which challenges it. Other religions have risen up to become major players in the world. Should we then believe their claims too under the same given criteria for Christianity? Did the followers of Muhammad, Gautama or Nanak Dev claim to have witnessed miracles? For myself, I require a higher standard of proof than someone said, no matter how much they put at risk for it.
For what it's worth I believe the Jesus mentioned in the bible was a real person, (or even possibly a composite of several people in much the way as Robin Hood is believed to have been). Wither he was the son of a god, rose from the dead, just another prophet or whatever I leave up to each person to decide for themselves. If your religion gives you strength or comfort, then more power to you.
What's interesting in the cases you mention - Muhammad performed no miracles that are testified to in the Quran, or in the earliest of the Hadith (the stories of his life compiled after his death). Some of the later Hadith, composed 200-400 years after his death, credit him with miracles, but the authors of those stories could not have witnessed them. As for Gautama, the stories about him that we have today were all composed long after his death.
The three Synoptic Gospels - Matthew, Mark, and Luke - were most like completed by 70 AD. Based on the internal evidence, I think you can make a compelling argument that all three were finished in their current form by 60 AD or thereabouts. That puts them within 27 years of the crucifixion and well within the lifetime of the surviving apostles. At the very least, I'd say they have a higher degree of reliability than the miracle stories about Muhammad and Buddha. I'm not familiar with Nanak Dev, so I can't comment there.
People do tend to believe whatever confirms their biases. But - did the disciples act like Jesus was going to triumph over death? They fled like scared rabbits when He was arrested, Peter denied knowing him three times, and on the morning of the Resurrection, by their own testimony, they were cowering behind locked doors "for fear of the Jews."
Six weeks later they were boldly claiming the Resurrection on the steps of the Temple, in the playground of the High Priest who engineered Jesus' crucifixion. Something changed those men from rabbits to lions in a very short time.
I think it was a miracle.
At a conference of policemen, during a speech, a man walks in. He hands the speaker a note and walks out.
After the speech, the attendees are asked to describe the man who walked in. The man who walked in was described thusly. He was black, white, Asian, female, tall, short, underweight, overweight, average, dark-haired, fair-haired, bald, wore glasses and didn't wear glasses... And so on.
The point of that story is that accounts written the same day are not always accurate, never mind those written months, years or decades later. The years change our memories as do our own perceptions and individual people will remember the same thing as happening differently. Accounts from religions are even less trustworthy* are they often colour events to suit their own narrative deliberately. I can accept the gospels as proof that a man existed, but accepting things beyond that gets more and more shakey. Certainly, if I was on trial, I would not like to be in court with this level of evidence to say I was innocent or be a lawyer trying to prosecute someone with an equivalent level of proof, which is where I kind of set my benchmark.
*You should read(or perhaps you already have) some of the accounts of ancient battles where the populations of small nations apparently clashed. Hmm, I wonder if this was monks following on from the Roman tradition of how they reported battles with enemies? Anyway, I digress.
Yeah I don't know. re the last section The whole point of crucifixion was that it was humiliating painful and didn't afford the person a proper burial. so the body being disposed of either by being eaten by dogs or in a mass grave of some sort was PART of he process.
Pontius Pilate wasn't known as being a nice guy, that he would let followers collect the body is not super likely.
the end of Mark is pretty bleak. everyone abandons him. even God himself
Assuming he did though, what about the other guys? the "saints" who were also resurrected? did they just go home?
I think the SPIRIT of Jesus remained alive unexpectedly and the movement continued
"The earliest of known written accounts were composed within living memory of Jesus' life and ministry," Mark , said to be taken from Peters observations, is the only one with an actual direct connection to Jesus and the original ending did not have the resurrection.
Actually, the bones of a crucified man WERE found in an ossuary in Jerusalem in modern times, showing that sometimes the remains could be given a decent burial. Especially if a powerful person intervened to claim them, as Joseph did.
Pilate didn't let followers take the body, he let a member of the Sanhedrin do it. And the Gospel accounts all agree on his reluctance to crucify Jesus; he may well have done so as a sop to his troubled conscience.
Actually, the last words on the agreed text of Mark (not verses 9-16, which were probably added later) include the phrase: "He is not here, He is risen."
Only Matthew records the Resurrection of the righteous at the moment of Jesus' death; given the lack of comment elsewhere, I think they were probably taken up when Jesus was.
Paul and the Gospels make it clear there was more than a SPIRITUAL resurrection. Jesus' own brothers, who had been skeptical and dismissive of His claims and His ministry, suddenly became preachers of His Gospel. What would it take to convince you that your own brother was the Son of God?
Quote from: Alex on March 28, 2020, 10:55:20 AM
At a conference of policemen, during a speech, a man walks in. He hands the speaker a note and walks out.
After the speech, the attendees are asked to describe the man who walked in. The man who walked in was described thusly. He was black, white, Asian, female, tall, short, underweight, overweight, average, dark-haired, fair-haired, bald, wore glasses and didn't wear glasses... And so on.
The point of that story is that accounts written the same day are not always accurate, never mind those written months, years or decades later. The years change our memories as do our own perceptions and individual people will remember the same thing as happening differently. Accounts from religions are even less trustworthy* are they often colour events to suit their own narrative deliberately. I can accept the gospels as proof that a man existed, but accepting things beyond that gets more and more shakey. Certainly, if I was on trial, I would not like to be in court with this level of evidence to say I was innocent or be a lawyer trying to prosecute someone with an equivalent level of proof, which is where I kind of set my benchmark.
*You should read(or perhaps you already have) some of the accounts of ancient battles where the populations of small nations apparently clashed. Hmm, I wonder if this was monks following on from the Roman tradition of how they reported battles with enemies? Anyway, I digress.
People may disagree on the appearance of a total stranger whom they saw for a matter of a few seconds when they were focused on something else.
But on a man whom they KNEW, whom they walked with and talked with daily for three years?
It's not a very apt comparison.
Then there is the matter I pointed out above of Jesus' brothers. They frankly didn't like Him; they tried to shut Him up or drag Him home or even get him arrested on more than one occasion. And yet, suddenly, after His death, they begin preaching the Gospel and proclaiming that He was the Son of God.
So again, I pose a question - what would it take to convince you that your own brother was the Son of God?
"And the Gospel accounts all agree on his reluctance to crucify Jesus; he may well have done so as a sop to his troubled conscience."
the gospel authors could not possibly have known what pilate was thinking. Pilate was a brutal man who frequently had people put to death. He wasn't Jewish and couldn't possibly have understood the dispute
the point of these sections was to demonize Jews, who by 80 AD when the later gospels were written were the main enemy of the Christian sect.
"So again, I pose a question - what would it take to convince you that your own brother was the Son of God"
faith
"Actually, the bones of a crucified man WERE found in an ossuary in Jerusalem in modern times, showing that sometimes the remains could be given a decent burial. Especially if a powerful person intervened to claim them, as Joseph did."
Jesus followers were peasants its fanciful to think any powerful person would support him. If he did how powerful could he be? and the point stands that generally speaking bodies were disposed of indecently
Quote from: indianasmith on March 28, 2020, 12:19:13 PM
Actually, the bones of a crucified man WERE found in an ossuary in Jerusalem in modern times, showing that sometimes the remains could be given a decent burial. Especially if a powerful person intervened to claim them, as Joseph did.
...
The Roman crucifixion nail had been driven through the heel bone, the bones were collected in an ossuary, one ancient Jewish form of respectful "second" burial.
Correct, AHD. I saw the ossuary and a cast of the actual bones in Jerusalem (the remains have been reburied, as Israeli law requires).
Now, Lester, let me give my take on your remarks:
"And the Gospel accounts all agree on his reluctance to crucify Jesus; he may well have done so as a sop to his troubled conscience."
the gospel authors could not possibly have known what pilate was thinking. Pilate was a brutal man who frequently had people put to death. He wasn't Jewish and couldn't possibly have understood the dispute
Maybe not what he was thinking, but they certainly could have known what he SAID. Frankly, I did a ton of research about this man in the course of writing two books about him. The primary sources we have are Josephus, Philo of Alexandria, and the Gospels. Josephus was writing sixty years later; he never knew Pilate and was repeating things he'd heart second and third hand. Frankly, NO Roman governor was going to be popular with the Jews who hated Rome, but Pilate was left in that job for ten years - the longest serving prefect of Judea, so he couldn't have been totally incompetent. As for Philo, he was complaining about Pilate and trying to get him fired on purpose, so of course he's going to exaggerate every negative story he heard about Pilate - even though, being from Alexandria, he didn't witness any of it. Of the Gospel writers, Matthew and John were there in Jerusalem that Passover weekend, and Mark was probably present at Jesus' arrest in the garden. Luke gathered his testimony from "those who were from the beginning eyewitnesses and servants of the Word," so he probably spoke to everyone still alive at the time of his writing who was there. So I put more credence in the Gospel accounts than I do Josephus or Philo.
the point of these sections was to demonize Jews, who by 80 AD when the later gospels were written were the main enemy of the Christian sect.
The only Gospel I would date that late is John. I can make a strong argument from internal evidence that the other three were completed by 60 AD. (And I know Bart Ehrman disagrees, but let's be honest, he's a bitter ex-Christian out to sell books and make a name for himself as America's favorite atheist!) And frankly, by 80 AD the Romans were a far more deadly foe to Christianity than the Jews were. The main opposition from the Jews was early on, during the time of Jesus and Paul, not after the destruction of Jerusalem and the murder and enslavement of the Jewish nation.
"So again, I pose a question - what would it take to convince you that your own brother was the Son of God"
faith And where would that come from? When you opposed Him every step of the way, rejected all His claims and saw Him die? NOW suddenly you're proclaiming Him to be the resurrected Son of God? There had to be a cathartic, transforming experience there.
"Actually, the bones of a crucified man WERE found in an ossuary in Jerusalem in modern times, showing that sometimes the remains could be given a decent burial. Especially if a powerful person intervened to claim them, as Joseph did."
Jesus followers were peasants its fanciful to think any powerful person would support him. If he did how powerful could he be? and the point stands that generally speaking bodies were disposed of indecently Again, all four Gospels, and the Book of Acts, which are the earliest and most reliable writings about Jesus that we have, agree that several members of the Sanhedrin were secret followers of Jesus - as were some members of Herod's household. The man drew crowds into the thousands, and was a guest of wealthy men on more than one occasion. Even Roman soldiers came to him at least once. So you're making a snobbish assumption there that flies in the face of the primary sources.
At any rate, you raise some good points there, even if mine are better! And I do appreciate that this is a place where we can discuss such things without getting mad and flaming each other.
Quote from: indianasmith on March 28, 2020, 12:22:25 PM
Quote from: Alex on March 28, 2020, 10:55:20 AM
At a conference of policemen, during a speech, a man walks in. He hands the speaker a note and walks out.
After the speech, the attendees are asked to describe the man who walked in. The man who walked in was described thusly. He was black, white, Asian, female, tall, short, underweight, overweight, average, dark-haired, fair-haired, bald, wore glasses and didn't wear glasses... And so on.
The point of that story is that accounts written the same day are not always accurate, never mind those written months, years or decades later. The years change our memories as do our own perceptions and individual people will remember the same thing as happening differently. Accounts from religions are even less trustworthy* are they often colour events to suit their own narrative deliberately. I can accept the gospels as proof that a man existed, but accepting things beyond that gets more and more shakey. Certainly, if I was on trial, I would not like to be in court with this level of evidence to say I was innocent or be a lawyer trying to prosecute someone with an equivalent level of proof, which is where I kind of set my benchmark.
*You should read(or perhaps you already have) some of the accounts of ancient battles where the populations of small nations apparently clashed. Hmm, I wonder if this was monks following on from the Roman tradition of how they reported battles with enemies? Anyway, I digress.
People may disagree on the appearance of a total stranger whom they saw for a matter of a few seconds when they were focused on something else.
But on a man whom they KNEW, whom they walked with and talked with daily for three years?
It's not a very apt comparison.
Then there is the matter I pointed out above of Jesus' brothers. They frankly didn't like Him; they tried to shut Him up or drag Him home or even get him arrested on more than one occasion. And yet, suddenly, after His death, they begin preaching the Gospel and proclaiming that He was the Son of God.
So again, I pose a question - what would it take to convince you that your own brother was the Son of God?
Actually the example of the man at the conference is also true for longer exposures. Regardless of the scenario, people will report different things of the same event. Indeed everyone reporting the one thing would be regarded as a sign of collusion. If you were to go ask a bunch of people you'd spent time with 20 years ago, people you knew well you may well be surprised at just how much people's narratives would vary. It's a much more apt comparison than you realise. Have a look at the different versions of events around the deaths of Jimi Hendrix or Bon Scott for good examples of this. All the stories simply can't be true, times don't match up and so on.
To convince me my brother was the son of god would be very simple. The same way we prove parentage on a daily basis. I'd want a DNA test. I am sure that would bring up some unique results that would match no other living human. After that I'd consider evidence of miracles and so on.
History is replete with examples where someone was considered a pain in the butt for whatever reason by people, but when it has suited the needs of a group they have then lionized that person following their death. This is hardly something unique here. Heroes have been made out of villains before and doubtless will again.
EDIT: I'd just like to point out that even if it was proved that Jesus was the son of God, that God existed and so on I would not worship him. I disagree fundamentally too much with several of their tenants including the whole original sin concept.
"Of the Gospel writers, Matthew and John were there in Jerusalem"
mathew and John weren't written by Mathew or John. They were written in a different language, several decades later.
"The main opposition from the Jews was early on, "
anti semetism grew with Christianity's popularity, if the apocrypha is proof of anything its that
" There had to be a cathartic, transforming experience there."
there were predictions of a messiah well back into the OT and particularly toward the end of it. Jesus was the guy who said "it starts now" .
"Even Roman soldiers came to him at least once. So you're making a snobbish assumption there that flies in the face of the primary sources."
read the last section of Mark. in the end they all, including God, abandoned him . thats the point: unrequited heroism. He died for his beliefs
It always warms my heart to see intelligent people that have beliefs. I don't like to discredit anyone's belief system (or lack thereof) so long as it's not hurting anyone. I'm always disappointed when I find that someone I admire or who is known for their intelligence is a fervent atheist, like there's a checklist in order to be an intellectual and atheism is at the top of it. I know there are many great minds that also have faith, but I feel like I hear about so many that don't or don't own up to it for fear of being labeled a fool by their peers.
One of my favorite, I don't know, "faith" stories I guess, is Peter Steele from Type O Negative. For most of his life he claimed to be an atheist until a few years before his untimely passing when he kind of just threw it all and owned up to believing in God. He even said he enjoyed going to church to argue with the clergy about all the things he thought they were getting wrong. He was always a bit of a sleaze which I find even more endearing for some reason.
I am comfortable with not knowing everything. I like mysteries. I'd rather be a fool for believing something than a fool for believing nothing.
Quote from: lester1/2jr on March 28, 2020, 07:12:40 PM
"Of the Gospel writers, Matthew and John were there in Jerusalem"
mathew and John weren't written by Mathew or John. They were written in a different language, several decades later.
First of all, that is an unprovable assertion invented by modern scholars. The evidence for traditional authorship is far more convincing, IMO, than any other. I firmly believe that if the Gospels were not the founding documents of Christianity, NO ONE would dispute their authorship. Yes, they wrote in Greek. Why should that be surprising? There were numerous Greek cities around the Sea of Galilee, Greek was the universal trade language of the Roman Empire, and Jews had lived under Greek rule for two centuries before the Romans took over. If they wanted their message to get out beyond their own people in Judea, it only made sense they wrote in Greek. The language of the NT poses no bar to traditional authorship at all.
"The main opposition from the Jews was early on, "
anti semetism grew with Christianity's popularity, if the apocrypha is proof of anything its that
The New Testament Apocrypha postdates the New Testament documents by over a hundred years, on average.
" There had to be a cathartic, transforming experience there."
there were predictions of a messiah well back into the OT and particularly toward the end of it. Jesus was the guy who said "it starts now" .
Yet His disciples preached His resurrection from Day One, they fervently believed it, and many of them died for it. Either they were consciously lying, or else they genuinely believed in it. Where did that belief come from? "Faith" is simply not an adequate answer.
"Even Roman soldiers came to him at least once. So you're making a snobbish assumption there that flies in the face of the primary sources."
read the last section of Mark. in the end they all, including God, abandoned him . thats the point: unrequited heroism. He died for his beliefs
[/The last verses of Mark tell of an empty tomb and the message of Resurrection. He died for His beliefs, but then He came back!color]
"The New Testament Apocrypha postdates the New Testament documents by over a hundred years, on average. "
exactly. and those documents showing growing anti semetism that was my point.
Revelation calls Jews the synagogue of Satan and that is of course in the NT
"Yet His disciples preached His resurrection from Day One, they fervently believed it, and many of them died for it. "
Justin Martyr
"We who once reveled in impurities now cling to purity; we who devoted ourselves to the arts of magic now consecrate ourselves to the good and unbegotten God; we who loved above all else the ways of acquiring riches and possessions now hand over to a community fund what we possess, and share it with every needy person; we who hated and killed one another and would not share our hearth with those of another tribe because of their [different] customs, now, after the coming of Christ, live together with them, and pray for our enemies, and try to convince those who hate us unjustly. . "
They became Christians. they lived their lives on Earth as it is in Heaven. If they did or didn't believe the resurrection prophecy or one of the man other prophecies good for them. Christians are those who emulate Christ. It was a lifestyle.
it wasn't until centuries later that the church itself even clarified who Christ was in terms of the trinity, a concept most Christians still probably don't understand
edit: re the gospels most scholars assert that they were not written by the people named. the gospels themselves don't say that they are, except for John which ouold easily be a flourish. you are of course aware of this
There we will have to agree to disagree.
I think modern scholarship on the Gospels, in many cases, is sensationalist and sloppy and driven by the desire to sell books and win grants. Traditional authorship was asserted very early on, by people who were only a generation or two removed from the disciples, who had access to sources of information that no longer exist and testimony that is no longer extant. Questioning that authorship really did not come into vogue until the 19th century, with the Tubingen "form critics" whose anti-supernaturalist bias drove them to question every aspect of Scripture which described miraculous events or divine intervention of any sort. In essence, their naturalist philosophy shaped their conclusions far more than the actual evidence did.
I firmly believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written by the men whose names they bear, that Paul wrote the letters attributed to him, and so on. And there are a LOT of reputable scholars - men like Donald Guthrie, F.F. Bruce, and Michael Licona - who agree with me on that.
you don't offer any proof though, just ad hominems about the alleged motives of the critics, as if that had any significance.
" Oral traditions – stories and sayings passed on largely as separate self-contained units, not in any order;
Written collections of miracle stories, parables, sayings, etc., with oral tradition continuing alongside these;
Written proto-gospels preceding and serving as sources for the gospels;
Canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John composed from these sources."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels
Luke says "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word."
I don't see how that could be interpreted another way.
Luke was not an eyewitness to the life of Christ, admits as much, and used the accounts of Matthew and Mark in composing his narrative. I certainly don't dispute that, but he most certainly was an eyewitness to many of the events in the Book of Acts, hence his use of "we" and "us" in several passages.
But the fact that he used Matthew and Mark is a solid and very early attestation that those authors WERE "eyewitnesses and servants of the Word."
QuoteTacitus connects Jesus to his execution by Pontius Pilate.
Another account of Jesus appears in Annals of Imperial Rome, a first-century history of the Roman Empire written around 116 A.D. by the Roman senator and historian Tacitus. In chronicling the burning of Rome in 64 A.D., Tacitus mentions that Emperor Nero falsely blamed "the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius."
As a Roman historian, Tacitus did not have any Christian biases in his discussion of the persecution of Christians by Nero, says Ehrman. "Just about everything he says coincides—from a completely different point of view, by a Roman author disdainful of Christians and their superstition—with what the New Testament itself says: Jesus was executed by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, for crimes against the state, and a religious movement of his followers sprang up in his wake."
"When Tacitus wrote history, if he considered the information not entirely reliable, he normally wrote some indication of that for his readers," Mykytiuk says in vouching for the historical value of the passage. "There is no such indication of potential error in the passage that mentions Christus."
https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence (https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence)
Quote from: ER on March 27, 2020, 11:43:30 AM
"... the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen...."
This is where I find many similarities between science and religion. Both have followers devoted to their own respective belief systems. Both have their own ideological agendas. Religion is based in absolutism in regards to faith, whereas science is based in absolutism in regards to its interpretation of facts, which are subject to change over time (see the Flat Earth theory and Earth as the Center of the Universe as a couple of examples.)
Science bases a lot of its studies on evidence of things not seen, like ultraviolet rays, radio waves, infrared light, gravity, etc. All things that cannot be seen by the naked eye without some form of man-made tool. Yet scientists that created those inventions were moved by the theories and observations of others, a lot of which could not be seen by the naked eye, instead relying on analyzations, deductions, and probability dissertations and thesis of others. Yet was it "certainty" that brought mankind to walk on the moon, or was it faith in the science, engineering, and mathematical equations of others that brought us there? True, numbers don't lie, but human mathematical error does. That was a big leap of faith to depend on the work of others to get us to the moon, after all, and if it was based on science being right all of the time, then the struggles of Apollo 13 would never have happened.
indiana - have you ever seen this https://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Christ-Testament-Reverend/dp/1578840058 (https://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Christ-Testament-Reverend/dp/1578840058)
zelmo - yeah the idea that Jesus never existed is usually explained with a bunch of stuff about Zorastrians or something. even if one doesn't believe the gospels were written by the ascribed names, Paul clearly knew Peter and Peter knew Jesus.
The idea that Jesus is some kind of Robin Hood/ Ned Ludd type figure doesn't hold water
One problem with all this stuff is there is very little proof of ANYTHING outside of like Roman Emperors from this era and part of the world.
There is some leger with Pilates name on it and that Tacitus statement. relatively recently they found a coin or something with Pilates name on it. thats it, thats all history has to prove he existed outside of Christianity
What are yall thoughts on Megachurches? Personally I think they're a breeding ground for cults to start over smaller community churches.
I've been a small church guy my whole life. I've pastored small churches and attended small churches and been very happy there. I know some large churches that are doctrinally sound and conduct very effective ministries; others that are doctrinally questionable and seem to exist to enrich their pastors . . . but I've seen personality cults develop in small churches, too.
My standard line is that big churches can do some things small churches can't and vice versa. So worship where you are spiritually fed.
Here in the Northeast the churches are very socially liberal, in the south they have megachurches. This is what the respective peoples like. In Europe the government runs the churches and no one goes to them
Sad, really. All those magnificent church buildings used as concert venues and tourist traps because folks don't worship anymore.
What countries in Europe do that? I know in the UK churches are pretty much left to their own devices and most seem to get sold off by the various churches before being converted to pubs or (surprisingly a popular choice) furniture stores. If they can't afford the upkeep on them, they either get sold off or allowed to fall to ruin.
Asking out of curiosity on which countries have stepped in to maintain their buildings.
indiana have you ever heard gothic voices? they sing Hildegaard von bingen (11th or so century Nun) music in some of those old churches
http://youtu.be/_NGTsdL2YzE (http://youtu.be/_NGTsdL2YzE)
Quote from: Alex on March 31, 2020, 11:52:05 AM
What countries in Europe do that? I know in the UK churches are pretty much left to their own devices and most seem to get sold off by the various churches before being converted to pubs or (surprisingly a popular choice) furniture stores. If they can't afford the upkeep on them, they either get sold off or allowed to fall to ruin.
Asking out of curiosity on which countries have stepped in to maintain their buildings.
One of my former students visited Denmark and the Netherlands and described all these beautiful, ancient houses of worship being used as concert venues, clubs, and music studios. how widespread the practice is, I'm not sure - it just made a deep impression on her.
okay, i haven't spoken here yet, but i think i should. i'm NOT a christian, a jew, an atheist ,a hindu,a buddhist or a muslem. i'm a witch. i use the word wiccan simply because most people don't know anything about old school witchcraft , and the wiccan credo is mostly the same.
i have no belief in " gods/goddesses" ,per se, what i revere( and no indie, i REFUSE to use the word "worship", it's degrading) is the powers that ARE, I.E> natural powers. yes, i CALL them by a name. mother nature. father sky. sister water. brother air. mistress talent, mister psyche,etc....
but i DON'T worship them, i use them as tools to learn more about my own innate talents, and to try to help others learn theirs. IF they are open to it. the names are just that, names. it simplifies concentration, that's all. when i say" i thank my higher powers" , THAT is what i mean, that i'm grateful to the power out there that helped me with MY concentration so i could help myself, or help others , or so someone could help who has more power than i do now.
i do believe that christ was a real man, and that he did good things with HIS power and talent, and he TAUGHT good things. and that he died because of it. and MAYBE he had the talent of suspended animation and woke himself up after 3 days in a cave. i DO NOT believe that he"ascended to heaven" though. fly away, sure, teleportation does exist, and it CAN be visible and watchable, i've seen it. i can't DO it, unfortunately, not even at my most powerful years ago.
but the main thing for me is my respect for anyone else's religion/belief system or lack of it. as long as you show me respect, and i show you the same, we can argue all day, and still be friends.
i should have said " teleportation/levitation". :cheers:
remember when people used to see Elvis? I mean after he was dead
Did anyone who knew him closely beforehand see him, though?
Will Elvis replace Jesus in 2000 years? :question:
Quote from: RCMerchant on April 04, 2020, 08:50:23 AM
Will Elvis replace Jesus in 2000 years? :question:
If he keeps saving us from mummies, he will.
(https://www.gstatic.com/tv/thumb/v22vodart/80441/p80441_v_v8_aa.jpg)