Rhea

I think what you may not expect (although others have touched on it) is that your behavior does not so much tell me anything about the truth of christianity, but it _does_ tell me a lot about whether _you_ believe it is the truth.

In other words, if a Christian is kind and loving, etc, then I don't believe it makes any proof about christianity, but I am more certain that _they_ believe it. If someone is preachy & arrogant, well, I feel pretty certain that deep down _they_ don't believe it, either.

HelenM

Tom in KC

Originally posted by Muad'Dib:

"Thanks for your reply, Tom; it's refreshing to find someone who's courteous and willing to discuss things, even with so many people to respond to. I hope I don't come across as sounding harsh in my responses above, but the bases of my Christian belief for many years were the very things you enumerated, but slowly, as I examined myself and the world, they began to fall apart; as such the subject is a touchy one for me."

You're welcome, and my complements on an incredibly well thought out post. Also, I understand about this being touchy (it is for me too!).

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tom in KC:
I’ll attempt to respond to these comments as a group. I understand the desire to “see facts” and your suspicions that Christians came to faith “for acceptance” or other non-rational reasons. First, I believe that – if God provided the level of proof that you appear to be asking for - he would in effect force you to believe in Him (rather than faith being an act of free will). That feels more like an insecure God rather than an omnipotent one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"How so? What can be more secure than not hiding the truth, however painful it might be? Or comforting people who try to believe but find themselves unable to?"


This appears to be a difference in perspective, since I don't feel that he's hiding the truth. I agree with Paul's take in Romans 1, but that belief is based on reasons that don't work for everyone.

Love,
Tom

KweschunThEAnserz

I apologize HelenSL,

I was in kind of a hurry and I neglected the thread (hey I'm a newbie) I wrote my reply in response to my first reaction. I think I was simply saying that Love vs facts is a lost cause here. But people have already said that so the redundant input is my fault. I'm here at work, so I can't take the time to read everything (guess I shouldn't post at work anymore) Gotta go, I'll be back when I can read everything so I can post something else that won't make sense

And nice to meet you too

HelenM

Apology accepted. I'm sorry I assumed you'd read more than you had.

I do that too, all the time...not reading entire threads and missing stuff, I mean...

love
Helen

-DM-

Tom from KC:

Although I am not one of those who believes that no historical Jesus existed as the foundation for the legends that have grown up around "Jesus," the fact is that there is no reliable historical evidence that he did actually exist other than what we have in the Bible (and that only if we grant that the biblical "evidence" is or could be historical).

---------

Regarding the alleged testimony from Josephus, for a number of reasons -- not the least of which being that it would make Josephus essentially a Christian (and he was not) -- the testimony is generally considered to be spurious, and I would be surprised if you didn't already know that.

Flavius Josephus (c. 37-101 AD), was a Jewish, pharasaic priest chosen by the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem to be commander-in-chief in Galilee. He was in command at the time of the failed Jewish Revolt. After being taken captive, he retired to Rome and wrote a history of the war in Aramaic, of which we have the Greek translation: "The Jewish War" (75-79). His next work, "Antiquities," is a history of the Jews. He remained a faithful, devout Jew throughout his life.

The passage in question from Josephus was allegedly unknown to Origen and the earlier patristic writers. Origen knew a Josephan text about Jesus, but was not acquainted with the passage in question (the implication is that, had the passage existed, Origen would most likely have known about it and used it). According to Origen, Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Messias ("In Matth.", xiii, 55; "Contra Cels.", I, 47).

---------

The testimony of Tacitus is evidence for nothing other than the existence of "Christians who derive their name and origin from Christ ...." It is not first-hand testimony to the existence of Jesus.

Further, "Christ" is a title, not a name. "Jesus" (transliterated from something like Yeshua) was the man's name, not "Christ," and there were plenty of people around with the same name sans title.

---------

The writings of the apostolic fathers say nothing necessarily about the existence of Jesus or even about the details of his life, rather they say what they believed about Jesus and about the details of his life -- and they sometimes disagreed about those. Papias and Irenaeus, for example, disputed that Jesus had died at a relatively young age after a ministry of only a few years.

Irenaeus [Adversus_Haereses, I.22.6] establishes a claim for Jesus' age late in his ministry as a little shy of 50. The chapter head for I.22 states "The thirty aeons are not typified by the fact that Christ was baptized in his thirtieth year: he did not suffer in the twelfth month after his baptism, but was more than fifty years old when he died."

"Papias, however, notwithstanding his intimacy with the
Evangelist St. John, and the value of his testimony to the
Gospels of Matthew and Mark, fell into the *slight error* of
believing that no such event as the crucifixion ever happened,
but that Jesus Christ lived to be a very old man, and died in
peace in the bosom of his own family." [*indicates italics in
the original*]
- p. 306, "The Diegesis; Being a Discovery of the Origin,
Evidences, and Early History of Christianity," by the Rev.
Robert Taylor, A.B. & M.R.C.S.

---------

Given the credulousness of the people of those times and given some of what the apostolic fathers believed and said, I wouldn't be comfortable putting much stock in what they had to say about anything.

"To attain the truth in all things, we ought always to believe that what seems white is black if the Hierachical Church so defines it."
- Ignatius Loyola, "Spiritual Exercises," 1548

"On some occasions the bodies of the martyrs who had been devoured by wild beasts, upon the beasts being strangled, were found alive in their stomachs."
- Eusebius (4th century) Bishop, Christian ecclesiastical historian

The gravest of all the ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius himself, ... confesses that he has related whatever might redound to the glory, and ... has suppressed all that would ... disgrace ... religion.
- Edward Gibbon (1737-1794) English historian

---------

--Don--

HelenM

I think Christians often fail to comprehend how differently we see the world, than people saw it when the Bible was written.

I was reading some extra-Biblical Christian writings (that were over 1000 years old) almost a year ago and I suddenly realized, as you said, Don, how credulous the people of those days were - evidently. And it was people from this era - before it, actually - who wrote the Bible. I know that there is always going to be variation between individuals, in how much they will believe without question. I'm not saying everyone was as credulous as the authors of what I was reading. However, it was somewhat of a wake-up call, seeing how nonsensical some supposedly biographical writings could be and yet be accepted by enough people in their day, to survive until 2002.

Christians today assure one another that it is 'obvious' why some writings were accepted as part of the Bible and others were rejected.

They cite examples which implicitly draw on our current understanding of what is ridiculous and what is not.

But almost 2000 years ago, the people would not have had that same response because their worldview was so different. It is probably at least somewhat coincidental, that the books today's Christians see as 'ridiculous' also were rejected by the major players in the early church.

It seems that there were two main tests to determine whether to include a given piece of writing in the NT canon - did an apostle write it? and: has the church always regarded it as authentic?

That has little to do with how 'credible' the content is by today's standards.

And it presupposes the answer when Christians today assure themselves of the reasonability of the decisions about the canon, with "my theology of Jesus tells me that this book is apocryphal". Well, duh...if you see what I mean

love
Helen

-DM-

Helen:

Most of what you said, above, is right on the money. I do have a couple of comments, comments which I consider to be rather minor corrections.

Keep in mind that, insofar as the Gospels are concerned, they are pseudepigraphal works; the documents do not actually carry the names of their authors and, in fact, the current names were assigned to those documents after the fact. Part of the impetus was to give the Gospels an air of authenticity or authority so as to make them more useful in combating heresies that were cropping up. We know today, of course -- or at least we think we know -- that not a one of the Gospels was actually written by a disciple of Jesus or even an eyewitness to his so-called ministry.

The determination of the official canon was a long-term process and although the Church is fond of promoting the idea that what is now considered canonical was always the case, the facts are a bit different.

It was not until the 2nd half of the 2nd century that clear evidence of a canon appears, but not all of the books which are now part of the canon had then been decided upon in any one church.

By the 3rd century, the majority of the books which make up the present canon were known and given canonical status although there still remained some uncertainty with regard to some books and some which are now considered apocryphal were then included.

The 4th century saw the fixation of canon as we now know it in the West, specifically, the Council of Carthage, AD 397.

It was not until the Council of Trent (1563) the official Roman Catholic canon was fixed nor until the Westminster Assembly (1647) that the official Protestant canon was fixed. It was at the Council of Jerusalem (1672) that the Greek Orthodox Church finally accepted Revelation.

There were several books used in various of the very early churches which are not now part of the official canon. For example, Irenaeus accepted Hermas as scripture. Eusebius acknowledged four "Gospels": Acts, the Epistles of Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John -- but disputed James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John and questioned the authenticity of Revelation. Tertullian affirmed Enoch. The writings of the Early Church Fathers reflected very little of the so-called synoptic Gospels.

Some books (e.g. James, 2nd Peter, etc.) remained in dispute even as late as Martin Luther.
Regards,
--Don--

Triple Six

Sinead O'Connor

I'm sorry but I can't resist. The only god she worships is the one of cheap publicity stunts for has beens.

And if this Rachel Scott predicted the killings at Columbine why didn't she alert the authorities? A call to the police 30 minutes before it was going to happen would have had the cops catch the killers red handed. Nice work god for telling it to a mean spirited bitch who let it all go ahead

Vorkosigan

Also, the experiences of certain believers that are hard for me to attribute to anyone else but God, are (for me) compelling proof. Good examples are: Saul of Tarsus, who set out to stone Christians and suddenly began to lead people to faith;

Tom, such stories can be found in many faiths around the world. Does that make them all true?

Sinead O’Connor (I know this will generate some sarcasm!), and her story about being comforted by God after being locked up alone in a room by her mother as a child;

Yes, it reminds me forcibly of my friends in India, comforted by their belief in the loving Krishna, or my friends in Taiwan, who are comforted by their belief in the merciful Kuan-yin. No doubt all these religions are equally true.

and Rachel Scott, the victim at Columbine High School who predicted the event in her poetry and drawings to God.

A good urban legend never dies.

Michael