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.
I'd love to see whether BF answers that problem with the whole 'Faith, not works' doctrine. Which was incidentally rebutted in the James epistle, (1) as I recall.
Not so far, but an earlier post gave the Dogma, if not any excuse for this disgusting teaching. Yes. We all deserve to burn and only attending the correct church will save us. (Though maybe he only excludes cheats and not honest believers, of any denomination).
#324 "Yes. That's right. That's the scandal of it. God saves not based on what we do, but based on faith. Your mistake is you seem to think a person can somehow be righteous without Jesus."
Is Christianity fair, Hell no, it ain't fair and that's why so many (including Mystic it seems) reject ET and embrace UR, though it means..we don't need religion. And though that (like a lot of cafeteria Christianity) it bins a lot of the problem, it also bins the stick, carrot, foundations, pillars and props, selling point and 'you need it' advertising brochure of the religion.
(1) Jas 2:14
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
Jas 2:17
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Jas 2:18
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Jas 2:20
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
I got the impression (when any True Believer or Bible apologists even mentioned this letter) that they took it as being from Paul to James, but I am diverted by the idea that it may be an actual real letter from Jesus' brother, head of the Jesus' party after the crucifixion, writing to Paul about his 'Faith not works' doctrine.
We DO need God but we do NOT need a religion, Arq. Humans screw things up too badly to pretend that they know the details about what God expects from us. Knowing that a loving God is our Father is sufficient to provide the foundation for our love of God and each other. The Jesus narrative (and other avatars) have provided worldly examples of how to do that. I believe Jesus achieved perfectly what no one before or since has achieved and that His perfection (Grace) connected us to God permanently. I have FAITH that He did that perfectly and thereby saved us all the trouble of perfection. It is enough for me to have faith that He did and to follow His instructions to love God and each other every day and repent when we don't.
The thing is your brand of Christianity is made up by you. You do not read any specific bible or are not part of any denomination of Christianity. You just make things up as you go.
This is totally unwarranted and based on complete ignorance. You do NOT know me or what I have studied or what I know. Your shameful disparagement of someone you have no clue about is pure arrogance and disrespect - which seems to be a prevalent attitude here in the forum. My Christianity is a legitimate understanding of what Christ was all about and has the added support of my personal experiences of a consciousness that exactly matches the one described and demonstrated unambiguously by Jesus. Why do you defend the authenticity of the very dogma you disparage and find disgusting and unfair????
I think I addressed the flood story on my thread also. Geological evidence proves there was no global flood. And actually, by the late 19th century most theologians realized that the flood story was not historical. Since that time, many Christians again started to accept it as historical, but that's a display of scientific ignorance.
Regarding Jonah and the fish, if historical, and if Jesus' analogy is to have a more or less one on one correlation then Jonah would have had to die inside the fish and then be restored to life after 'three days,' though in his case it would have not been a resurrection in the manner of Jesus since Jonah would have died again.
Everything is open to critical analysis. Regarding Jesus' resurrection, historians recognize that Jesus' disciples believed that they saw the risen Jesus even if those same historians can't say what it was the disciples actually saw. I don't believe that any of the naturalistic explanations can explain the disciples belief that they saw Jesus alive again after having been crucified and so accept the supernatural explanation that they actually did see the risen Jesus. I'm not hampered by a bias against miracles or the supernatural. So we will not agree on the resurrection story.
Yes, EVERYTHING should be open to critical analysis. That's only fair.
Christian historians do indeed recognize that Jesus' disciples believed that they saw the risen Jesus. But when this claim is subjected to critical analysis we immediately run into the problem that we do not have the testimonies of the disciples concerning what they did, or didn't, believe that they saw. In fact the claims of resurrection and the subsequent "ascension" of Jesus are taken from only five sources, attributed to four anonymous authors named, according to tradition, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and the letters attributed to the apostle Paul. Critical analysis immediately reveals that three of these five reputed sources, Mark, Luke and Paul, were clearly not personal witness to events which they seek to report on. The remaining two sources, Matthew and John, are, again, anonymously authored works whose authorship is simply a matter of Christian tradition. We can both agree that there were Christian believers making claims for their beliefs in the first century AD. The five sources I named represent the state of the stories about Jesus that were being circulated at the time they were written.
So, where do these facts leave the story of hoards of dead people returning life and wandering the streets, or a corpse returning to life and flying away, when subjected to critical analysis?
What naturally should occur when we think critically about the claims we are being presented with here is that we immediately recognize a cause for raising the red flag of skepticism. Which is EXACTLY why the necessity to simply believe on faith is so strongly praised as a virtue by committed believers.
Because believing on faith is the antithesis of critical thinking, and critical thinking can lead to thoughts.
Moderator cut: Video removed due to profanity in the title.
Last edited by mensaguy; 12-08-2020 at 04:16 PM..
Reason: Video removed.
Yes, EVERYTHING should be open to critical analysis. That's only fair.
Christian historians do indeed recognize that Jesus' disciples believed that they saw the risen Jesus. But when this claim is subjected to critical analysis we immediately run into the problem that we do not have the testimonies of the disciples concerning what they did, or didn't, believe that they saw.
Only if you deny that Matthew and John wrote the Gospels attributed to them. I do not, and a very good argument can made made that the four Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Both Matthew and Mark were eye witnesses. Mark and Luke of course were not eye witnesses.
Quote:
In fact the claims of resurrection and the subsequent "ascension" of Jesus are taken from only five sources, attributed to four anonymous authors named, according to tradition, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and the letters attributed to the apostle Paul. Critical analysis immediately reveals that three of these five reputed sources, Mark, Luke and Paul, were clearly not personal witness to events which they seek to report on. The remaining two sources, Matthew and John, are, again, anonymously authored works whose authorship is simply a matter of Christian tradition. We can both agree that there were Christian believers making claims for their beliefs in the first century AD. The five sources I named represent the state of the stories about Jesus that were being circulated at the time they were written.
No one saw the actual resurrection event itself. What they saw was the appearances of Jesus afterward.
Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is recognized by scholars, both apologetic and skeptical, to be a pre-Pauline creed going back to the beginning of Christianity. In other words, what Paul said wasn't his own words but rather a creed or tradition which he probably received from Peter when he met with him about three years after his encounter with the risen Jesus on the Damascus road.
Quote:
So, where do these facts leave the story of hoards of dead people returning life and wandering the streets, or a corpse returning to life and flying away, when subjected to critical analysis?
What naturally should occur when we think critically about the claims we are being presented with here is that we immediately recognize a cause for raising the red flag of skepticism. Which is EXACTLY why the necessity to simply believe on faith is so strongly praised as a virtue by committed believers.
Because believing on faith is the antithesis of critical thinking, and critical thinking can lead to thoughts.
Moderator cut: Video removed due to profanity in the title.
The Gospels contain both history and theology. Matthew's comment about many of the dead coming out of their graves after the resurrection of Jesus may have had some theological point and not necessarily be historical. On the other hand, I don't discount the possibilty of it being an historical event.
And no, one does not have to believe simply on faith. The testimony of the eyewitnesses of Jesus' resurrection is strong. And the fact that Christianity took off within weeks of Jesus' crucifixion in the very city where he had been crucified, rather than in some distant time and place further strengthens the evidence. If the Jews could have produced the body of Jesus that would have put an end to the claims of any resurrection. But they didn't. The apostles were real people and we know that Peter and Paul were both martyred around the mid 60's during the Neronian Persecutions. Both saw the risen Jesus and both went to their deaths proclaiming it.
Now of course you may not believe that church history can be believed because it's . . .church history, but that's based on a hermeneutic of suspicion.
Again, we are not going to agree on this and I don't intend to spend time debating it. I regard the evidence for Jesus' resurrection to be sufficient. You don't, so I prefer to just leave it at that.
Last edited by mensaguy; 12-08-2020 at 04:19 PM..
Reason: Quoted post edited to remove video
Only if you deny that Matthew and John wrote the Gospels attributed to them. I do not, and a very good argument can made made that the four Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Both Matthew and Mark were eye witnesses. Mark and Luke of course were not eye witnesses.
No one saw the actual resurrection event itself. What they saw was the appearances of Jesus afterward.
Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is recognized by scholars, both apologetic and skeptical, to be a pre-Pauline creed going back to the beginning of Christianity. In other words, what Paul said wasn't his own words but rather a creed or tradition which he probably received from Peter when he met with him about three years after his encounter with the risen Jesus on the Damascus road.
The Gospels contain both history and theology. Matthew's comment about many of the dead coming out of their graves after the resurrection of Jesus may have had some theological point and not necessarily be historical. On the other hand, I don't discount the possibilty of it being an historical event.
And no, one does not have to believe simply on faith. The testimony of the eyewitnesses of Jesus' resurrection is strong. And the fact that Christianity took off within weeks of Jesus' crucifixion in the very city where he had been crucified, rather than in some distant time and place further strengthens the evidence. If the Jews could have produced the body of Jesus that would have put an end to the claims of any resurrection. But they didn't. The apostles were real people and we know that Peter and Paul were both martyred around the mid 60's during the Neronian Persecutions. Both saw the risen Jesus and both went to their deaths proclaiming it.
Now of course you may not believe that church history can be believed because it's . . .church history, but that's based on a hermeneutic of suspicion.
Again, we are not going to agree on this and I don't intend to spend time debating it. I regard the evidence for Jesus' resurrection to be sufficient. You don't, so I prefer to just leave it at that.
The Gospels attributed to Matthew and John were, as I have already indicated, written anonymously. They are attributed to the apostles Matthew and John according to Christian tradition. What does the historical evidence indicate?
The Gospel according to John makes reference to the apostle John, but only in the third person. Nowhere does the Gospel indicate or reveal hat the apostle John is the author. Papias, writing in the second century, indicated that there were two different apostolic individuals named John. One was John the apostle, known as the Evangelist. The second was an individual Papias knew personally, whom he referred to as John the presbyter, or elder.
Writings of Papias:
"I received with care at any time from the elders, and stored up with care in my memory, assuring you at the same time of their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in those who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange commandments, but in those who rehearsed the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and proceeding from truth itself. If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice." Papias (Roberts-Donaldson)
This second John, John the Presbyter, can be identified as the author of the Gospel According to John. But John the Presbyter was not a direct witness to the events attributed to Jesus.
Who wrote Gospel Matthew? Gospel Matthew has been given the place of being first among the Gospels, and indeed, first among all of the books of the NT. Because Papais, his good friend and fellow Christian historian Polycarp, and Eusebius writing in the 4th century, indicated that the apostle Matthew had undertaken to write a gospel during the period when Peter and Paul were traditionally believed to have been attempting to establish a church in Rome. This time period, again traditionally, is believed to have been the years between 60 and the great fire in 64. Since Gospel Mark and the other two were clearly written after 70 AD, Gospel Matthew was given the first position as the first Gospel written.
But, as invariably happens with Christian doctrine, a more detailed examination of the facts reveals problems. Because Papais also wrote:
"For Matthew composed the logia [sayings] in Hebrew style; but each recorded them as he was able."`
And in fact both Polycarp and Eusebius also confirmed in their writings that the apostle Matthew wrote his gospel "in the language of the Jews." In other words in the Hebrew language, Aramaic. And that's a serious problem for determining the authorship of the canonical Gospel of Matthew, which was written in pure KOINE GREEK. All FOUR canonical Gospels are in fact written in pure Koine Greek, the common language of that time, and show no signs of translation. Pure unaltered Greek in pure Greek verse and idiom, with no indication of adjustments or translations from the vastly more difficult and complicated Aramaic language. There WAS however a book written in Aramaic which was known to have existed from the early times of Christianity known as The Gospel of the Hebrews. But this book disappeared from history about the 4th century. Only some few fragments of it exist today. So who wrote the Gospel According to Matthew contained in your Bible? NO ONE KNOWS! What is clear today is that it was written AFTER Gospel Mark instead of before Gospel Mark as the Catholic church once believed. Gospel Matthew essentially IS Gospel Mark, with some material original to Matthew woven in. Gospel Luke contains elements of both Gospels Mark and Matthew, and was clearly written third. Which is why Gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke are known as the synoptic Gospels. Bottom line, all of the Gospels were written anonymously decades after the fact, and NONE of them can be shown to have been first hand accounts for what they are describing.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
The Gospel According to Matthew
"The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mt 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories." http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/0
So who is the actual author of Gospel Matthew? No one knows! Gospel Matthew is in fact largely a reworking of the Gospel According to Mark. Which, as you have acknowledged, was not an eyewitness account.
So, should the historical facts ACTUALLY lead us to overcome our reasonable skepticism concerning stories of various resurrections from the dead, and of resurrected corpses that subsequently fly away? That depends on the degree to which one has been indoctrinated to accept particular unrealistic claims on faith rather than reason.
The Gospels attributed to Matthew and John were, as I have already indicated, written anonymously. They are attributed to the apostles Matthew and John according to Christian tradition. What does the historical evidence indicate?
As I said, despite the views of most of modern scholarship, a very good argument can be made that the four Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. If the authorship of the Gospels were truly unknown there would have been different opinions in the early church regarding the authorship as is the case with the epistle of Hebrews. But with the Gospels there is agreement in the early church that the writers were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
If the early church had wanted to just put names in the title in order to lend authority to the Gospels they had better choices then Luke and Mark, or even Matthew.
Matthew was a tax collector. The Jews hated tax collectors and regarded them as traitors. So the church would have done better to choose a different name unless Matthew was indeed the writer of the Gospel attributed to him.
Neither Mark or Luke had been eye witnesses so why use their names instead of someone who had been an eyewitness. And it's said that Mark received his information from Peter, so why not use Peter's name instead of Mark unless Mark actually did write the Gospel?
While I respect modern scholarship, sometimes modern scholarship goes off the rails. And I think that the view of the majority of modern scholarship in disregarding church tradition concerning the authorship of the Gospels is misguided. But not all modern scholars do disregard it.
So long as I give money to a charity I can slaughter Millions and I'm a righteous dude and I'm saved.
Got it.
You're right....there were actually some men who were more enlightened than the Jesus-thing.
Perhaps you should hunt them down and worship them.
Jesus never challenged religious leaders.
When does Jesus appear before the Pharisees or Sadducees after he supposedly died and was resurrected?
Never.
Jesus didn't have the stones to show his face to the Pharisees or the Sadducees, because he wasn't really dead and if he did show his face, they would have killed him for real.
I'm a Slave and my Master loves me.
Gosh, I feel all better now.
It was a "natural way of life" because the Yahweh-Jesus-Ghoul-thing said so.
Are you saying he's real?
He was green?
Or had he ripened a bit?
Yes, and be glad it isn't.
The question: "Is Christianity Fair?"
Apparently you think it is, but only because you're not on the receiving end.
If I were to time-warp you back 250-300 years and you were spewing the nonsense you spew, x-tians would torture and maim you.
Then you can tell us how fair christianity is.
Mircea,
I am talking nicely and respectfully to you.
You brought up a lot of points, but that makes it scattered and I don't want to play chase with all of these points...it doesn't lead to a productive discussion...so how about I just pick a couple and we can move on to the other ones later if you wish.
Once again, I find that generalizing isn't a fair way of discussing to lump an entire group as doing one thing. 'All white men.' For example this time, Christians I know don't think that you can simply atone for "slaughtering millions" of lives by donating some money here and there.
You also say "Jesus never challenged religious leaders." He did and they saw him as a threat to their established order. I in fact once taught a lesson on this in VBS to young children.
Great. Too bad it will not suffice here. The atheists in general WANT to refute (even mock or ridicule) the implausible largely because it is easy and they can pretend that they are thereby refuting the generic existence of God as implausible and ridiculous.
Once again you misrepresent what we are doing.
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 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.
