U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Celebrating Memorial Day!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 04-15-2016, 07:45 PM
 
8,608 posts, read 11,894,715 times
Reputation: 3135

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak80 View Post
I tend to agree. Liberal Christianity has little or no value beyond creating a community. It's most important function, in my view, is to oppose (and inoculate people against) fundamentalist Christianity.
I have no problem with liberal Christian communities that aren't hell-bent on conquering the world.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-15-2016, 07:49 PM
 
8,608 posts, read 11,894,715 times
Reputation: 3135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Anyone who believes that Jesus was just a man, and just a spiritual guide, just a teacher, one of many, is sadly mistaken. Jesus claimed to be God, and the Son of God. He claimed to be the only way to the Father. He claimed that only through Him can anyone have eternal life.

Either He is who He claimed to be, or He was the biggest liar, the biggest deceiver who has ever lived. But He is indeed who He claimed to be. And He came into the world as a member of the human race for the primary purpose of going to the cross to die for us, in our place, as our substitute, paying the penalty for our sins so that anyone who believes on Him, has eternal life.
Your belief might be true if his words had been recorded accurately. Most of his words were taken from Jewish rabbis from around the 1st century and 1st century BC. The sermon on the mount is one of the only original statements, and even IT has common statements with earlier Jewish teachings.

So it's wrong and deceptive to suggest that Jesus was a liar. No, all we have are what OTHER people wrote about Jesus. You know that is true, so you know that what you are saying is not very likely.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2016, 07:51 PM
 
8,608 posts, read 11,894,715 times
Reputation: 3135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio View Post
No. Not at all.

Completely different. Christianity does not teach magic. It's funny how much atheists seem to talk about it, though. It's like they're obsessed with it.
Semantics. You still believe that Jesus is all-powerful and can perform supernatural miracle, don't you?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2016, 09:01 PM
 
20,306 posts, read 15,661,748 times
Reputation: 7423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Jesus wasn't denying that He was God. He was simply trying to get the man who had asked Him what he needed to do to inherit eternal life, to understand who it was he was talking to. He was in effect asking the man if he knew that He (Jesus) was God. (Matthew 19:16-17; Mark 10:17-18).

Jesus knew that He was God, and in His high priestly prayer He recognized that before the world was (in eternity past) He had the same glory that the Father had (John 17:5). Jesus existed in eternity past and had the same glory as the Father. It cannot be said of any angel that they had the glory that God the Father had.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules View Post
Your belief might be true if his words had been recorded accurately. Most of his words were taken from Jewish rabbis from around the 1st century and 1st century BC. The sermon on the mount is one of the only original statements, and even IT has common statements with earlier Jewish teachings.

So it's wrong and deceptive to suggest that Jesus was a liar. No, all we have are what OTHER people wrote about Jesus. You know that is true, so you know that what you are saying is not very likely.
What Jesus said has been accurately recorded by the Gospel writers. Luke states in the prologue of his Gospel account that he carefully investigated everything. His account was compiled from what was said by those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning. John 21:24 which seems to have been writen by someone other than John, or for the skeptic, someone other than the writer of John, states that the author of John - the disciple whom Jesus loved, was the author of that Gospel account, meaning that he was an eyewitness.

Before the Gospels were written, what Jesus said was passed down orally, and perhaps much of what he said was even written down, as for example in the hypothetical ''Q'' document. Then again, ''Q'' might have been oral tradition, or a combination of oral and written tradition passed down during the time that the eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry were still alive to ensure that what was passed down was accurate. And again, the disciple whom Jesus loved is stated at the end of that Gospel account to have been the author. He therefore knew firsthand what Jesus said.

Now, that doesn't mean that the Gospel writers didn't at times paraphrase what Jesus said, but it does mean that the Gospel writers didn't invent words that Jesus never spoke and put them in His mouth.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2016, 05:06 AM
 
Location: GOVERNMENT of TRAITORS & NAZIS
20,594 posts, read 22,750,207 times
Reputation: 7630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
What Jesus said has been accurately recorded by the Gospel writers. Luke states in the prologue of his Gospel account that he carefully investigated everything. His account was compiled from what was said by those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning. John 21:24 which seems to have been writen by someone other than John, or for the skeptic, someone other than the writer of John, states that the author of John - the disciple whom Jesus loved, was the author of that Gospel account, meaning that he was an eyewitness.

Before the Gospels were written, what Jesus said was passed down orally, and perhaps much of what he said was even written down, as for example in the hypothetical ''Q'' document. Then again, ''Q'' might have been oral tradition, or a combination of oral and written tradition passed down during the time that the eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry were still alive to ensure that what was passed down was accurate. And again, the disciple whom Jesus loved is stated at the end of that Gospel account to have been the author. He therefore knew firsthand what Jesus said.

Now, that doesn't mean that the Gospel writers didn't at times paraphrase what Jesus said, but it does mean that the Gospel writers didn't invent words that Jesus never spoke and put them in His mouth.
Extremely doubtful. Would be like me writing about Plato and saying the words are DIRECT QUOTES of a person I have never met.

Might be possible IF there were originals written at that time, but since gittb did not have the foresight to do so, skepticism rages...
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2016, 05:29 AM
 
10,520 posts, read 4,149,112 times
Reputation: 1193
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules View Post
What do you think of this idea?

I say it as a bold statement. Barely even a question. But yet I am still asking what you (non-fundamentalists) think about this statement.

We often try to justify some kind of spirituality from following Christ and his teachings. But I am saying that there is really no value in doing so. Unless we truly believe that he was/is the magical superhero that he is portrayed to be by religious people, then why even focus on one man and his supposed teachings?

There could be tons and tons of new books written from a non-fundamentalist viewpoint, but they just don't work. Not a single one of them has any value. Once a person accepts that Jesus was just a man, or possibly didn't exist, then what does it even matter anymore?
I get your point and in a perfect world its probably correct. But we have real world limits and those limits need to be overcome with "logistics". And I dont think we can rip a band aid as big as this one without pulling off the scab.

The bible and Jesus make good central themes (minus the magic) and a human makes a good focal point for now. Yeah, we can do better. But we have "literal" people ozzy and most people are "sleepers". So what do we do? The Hindu religion lessens religious power by blurring the central image. I knda like that idea myself. It seems to work of us Humans. Like the "dragon" in Excalibur.

I used to worry, but I really believe we will make the next life form in 200years or less. I say that because we are proteins and that's what proteins do.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2016, 05:35 AM
 
10,520 posts, read 4,149,112 times
Reputation: 1193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
What Jesus said has been accurately recorded by the Gospel writers. Luke states in the prologue of his Gospel account that he carefully investigated everything. His account was compiled from what was said by those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning. John 21:24 which seems to have been writen by someone other than John, or for the skeptic, someone other than the writer of John, states that the author of John - the disciple whom Jesus loved, was the author of that Gospel account, meaning that he was an eyewitness.

Before the Gospels were written, what Jesus said was passed down orally, and perhaps much of what he said was even written down, as for example in the hypothetical ''Q'' document. Then again, ''Q'' might have been oral tradition, or a combination of oral and written tradition passed down during the time that the eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry were still alive to ensure that what was passed down was accurate. And again, the disciple whom Jesus loved is stated at the end of that Gospel account to have been the author. He therefore knew firsthand what Jesus said.

Now, that doesn't mean that the Gospel writers didn't at times paraphrase what Jesus said, but it does mean that the Gospel writers didn't invent words that Jesus never spoke and put them in His mouth.
Thats Fine, juses was a good dude. And your stance is non-literal and I am ok with that.

why, do you believe we have to accept that he "rose from the dead". And how did he do it?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2016, 08:52 AM
 
20,306 posts, read 15,661,748 times
Reputation: 7423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
What Jesus said has been accurately recorded by the Gospel writers. Luke states in the prologue of his Gospel account that he carefully investigated everything. His account was compiled from what was said by those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning. John 21:24 which seems to have been writen by someone other than John, or for the skeptic, someone other than the writer of John, states that the author of John - the disciple whom Jesus loved, was the author of that Gospel account, meaning that he was an eyewitness.

Before the Gospels were written, what Jesus said was passed down orally, and perhaps much of what he said was even written down, as for example in the hypothetical ''Q'' document. Then again, ''Q'' might have been oral tradition, or a combination of oral and written tradition passed down during the time that the eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry were still alive to ensure that what was passed down was accurate. And again, the disciple whom Jesus loved is stated at the end of that Gospel account to have been the author. He therefore knew firsthand what Jesus said.

Now, that doesn't mean that the Gospel writers didn't at times paraphrase what Jesus said, but it does mean that the Gospel writers didn't invent words that Jesus never spoke and put them in His mouth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zthatzmanz28 View Post
Extremely doubtful. Would be like me writing about Plato and saying the words are DIRECT QUOTES of a person I have never met.

Might be possible IF there were originals written at that time, but since gittb did not have the foresight to do so, skepticism rages...
As I said, Luke states that he interviewed those who were eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry, and it is stated in John 21:24 by someone other than the writer of the rest of the Gospel that the writer of the Gospel of John was a witness to what he wrote. And so the claim that there were no eyewitnesses is simply not true.

The Gospel accounts (the originals) which were all written during the first century, during which time eyewitnesses to Jesus were still alive. As I further said, what Jesus spoke and did was passed down orally and accurately during the time in which the original apostles were still alive and able to ensure the accuracy of those oral traditions.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2016, 09:09 AM
 
8,608 posts, read 11,894,715 times
Reputation: 3135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
As I said, Luke states that he interviewed those who were eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry, and it is stated in John 21:24 by someone other than the writer of the rest of the Gospel that the writer of the Gospel of John was a witness to what he wrote. And so the claim that there were no eyewitnesses is simply not true.

The Gospel accounts (the originals) which were all written during the first century, during which time eyewitnesses to Jesus were still alive. As I further said, what Jesus spoke and did was passed down orally and accurately during the time in which the original apostles were still alive and able to ensure the accuracy of those oral traditions.
What do you think of fictional novels that are written the same way? For example, the novel Dracula was written in the form of letters from various people. Yet, no one today would thinks that the form of storytelling means that it was a historical account.

What makes the stories in the Bible any different from fictional stories?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2016, 09:17 AM
 
20,306 posts, read 15,661,748 times
Reputation: 7423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
Thats Fine, juses was a good dude. And your stance is non-literal and I am ok with that.

why, do you believe we have to accept that he "rose from the dead". And how did he do it?
No, my stance is not non-literal. Proper interpretation demands taking as literal that which a plain sense reading obviously is to be understood as literal, and taking as symbolic or allegorical those things which obviously are not to be understood as literal.

The fact that Jesus rose from the dead, and for which there is historical evidence which can be examined, is a part of the Gospel message as stated in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7. That passage is recognized by scholars as what is known as a pre-Pauline tradition which means that it didn't originate with Paul but was a creed or tradition which goes back to the beginning of the church.
1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered to you in the foremost what also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4] and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5] and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6] After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7] then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles;
Excerpt:
''1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is widely recognized by New Testament scholars as a statement of belief (creed) that was systematized long before Paul quoted it. If so, it represents the earliest historical account of Jesusí resurrection, and goes back to the eyewitnesses themselves. Gary Habermas comments on the very early date of this creed, which even skeptical scholars acknowledge.''

Read more: https://greatcloud.wordpress.com/201...d-of-1-cor-15/
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top