Biblical experts seek to make ancient texts widely available

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Also, remember the gospels were written during the lifespan of people who had witnessed Jesus alive and crucified (this is not true with the Gospel of Thomas). If there were glaring inaccuracies there would be documentation in history of people countering what was written about Jesus in the first century, especially the Jewish leaders. However, we don't have anything of that sort.

The gospel of Q is more likely older than all of the gospels, in fact it was used as a template for the first 3. Also, there are a lot of discrepancies in both time and order of the events of Jesus' life in the gospels. As to the gospels being written during the lives of the apostles I really doubt that. Especially since events are referenced that happened after the time of Jesus. I know you might think that this is proof of him being the son of god (seeing into the future and all) but I don't.

"It's rather clear from the way that the stories develop in the gospels that the Christians who are writing the gospels a generation after the death of Jesus are doing so from a stock of oral memory, that is, stories that had been passed down to probably by followers. But if we think about the death of Jesus and remember a group of people who would have still been attached to him and to his memory after his death, it must have been a rather stark and traumatic period of time. Many of their initial hopes and expectations had been dashed. All of this talk of the kingdom of God arriving soon seemed to be disconfirmed with his death."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/oral.html

The cornerstone of Christianity is the supernatural resurrection of Jesus Christ. If that is not true than Jesus did not conquer death, conquer sin, and ultimately give us life. If that is not true than Christianity is a lie.

I couldn't disagree with you more, in fact that's just sad. If you only believe that being humble unto others, helping others is only a good thing to do because a dude rose from the dead then you need to take a hard look at your life. If you look at the life and teachings of Jesus and hang the validity of those teachings on a miracle that happened 2K years ago then you are a doing good for the wrong reasons. Anyways, why do people always forget that miracles were not uncommon during this age. There are a lot of accounts of people other than Jesus performing miracles even raising the dead.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: azazyel
Anyways, why do people always forget that miracles were not uncommon during this age. There are a lot of accounts of people other than Jesus performing miracles even raising the dead.

Which raises the question: Why is it that these wonderful religious miracles all occurred way back then? Was God interested in making His presence known only to people who lacked the tools of modern science? How come we don't get no "booster shot"? Ain't 2000 years a little long to expect the more skeptical among us to go along unquestioningly?

I say, if you want people to believe, get some two-day-old corpses (confirmed by disinterested, medically-qualified individuals chosen by a committee representing the broadest range of belief systems) and let the raising of the dead begin. If true miracles occur, I'll be the first to sign up.

Just because you have "faith" doesn't mean you're required to put your brain on hold.

 

[dornick]

Originally posted by: azazyel

The cornerstone of Christianity is the supernatural resurrection of Jesus Christ. If that is not true than Jesus did not conquer death, conquer sin, and ultimately give us life. If that is not true than Christianity is a lie.

I couldn't disagree with you more, in fact that's just sad. If you only believe that being humble unto others, helping others is only a good thing to do because a dude rose from the dead then you need to take a hard look at your life. If you look at the life and teachings of Jesus and hang the validity of those teachings on a miracle that happened 2K years ago then you are a doing good for the wrong reasons. Anyways, why do people always forget that miracles were not uncommon during this age. There are a lot of accounts of people other than Jesus performing miracles even raising the dead.

Don't go claiming you know what Christianity is all about when you are obviously not a Christian. You can extract the humanist elements from it all you want, but that doesn't alter the core beliefs.

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: dornick

Originally posted by: azazyel

The cornerstone of Christianity is the supernatural resurrection of Jesus Christ. If that is not true than Jesus did not conquer death, conquer sin, and ultimately give us life. If that is not true than Christianity is a lie.

I couldn't disagree with you more, in fact that's just sad. If you only believe that being humble unto others, helping others is only a good thing to do because a dude rose from the dead then you need to take a hard look at your life. If you look at the life and teachings of Jesus and hang the validity of those teachings on a miracle that happened 2K years ago then you are a doing good for the wrong reasons. Anyways, why do people always forget that miracles were not uncommon during this age. There are a lot of accounts of people other than Jesus performing miracles even raising the dead.

Don't go claiming you know what Christianity is all about when you are obviously not a Christian. You can extract the humanist elements from it all you want, but that doesn't alter the core beliefs.

Your right, I actually follow the teachings of Jesus while the real "Christians" are out spreading hate, bigotry, violence and oppression and using my book of worship as a damn weapon. And you know what really bugs me is that most "Christians" don't know a damn thing about their religion. Did you ever wonder why the book of John is in the cannon? Read the first 3 then read John, they are nothing alike. Or why do Christians put up such a commotion about the 10 commandments? Jesus was the new covenant between man and god which pretty much wiped away the 10 commandments. Jesus even broke some of the commandments himself as well as most of the social norms of the day. He hung out with prostitutes, tax collectors people whom if you sat with you would not be allowed into the temple until you were "cleansed". He did brilliant things, but none of that matters to you, all your god cares about is that you believe and follow your church's doctrine. If all you believe you need to get into "heaven" is a half arse belief that Jesus was the son of god, go ahead take the easy route. I will still be the penitent man, my brother's keeper and if I go to your hell for that, I hope I burn well.

PS, the devil is a lie as well..


Posting this yet again....

Mathew 22: 35-40

Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

This is the first and great commandment.

And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.


hmm, no believe in me and be saved...weird.

 

[DodgerBlues]

I agree with Azazyel that the values Jesus taught (taken as just that, a set of moral values) are solid and worth modelling your life after whether or not he was the son of God. A person can have moral values and not be a Christian. Now I'm no theological expert but the way I see it, the resurrection remains a cornerstone of the Christian faith because of the idea of Jesus Christ as the redeemer of humanity, not because it validates his teachings (which stand on their own). So in a way, you guys are both right.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: azazyel
Posting this yet again....

Mathew 22: 35-40

Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

This is the first and great commandment.

And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.


hmm, no believe in me and be saved...weird.

I think a lot of the confusion arises from:

john 14.66
Jesus said to him, ?I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.


Seems people take that to mean one has to believe in the divine Christ and that he rose from the dead to atone for all of our sins. What they fail to realize is that he was referring to what he was preaching, the values and morals he espoused, the guideline to how people should live their lives. Also, the term "Father" doesn't refer to God. It refers to a Jewish high priest's title.

 

[dornick]

Originally posted by: azazyel

Originally posted by: dornick

Originally posted by: azazyel

The cornerstone of Christianity is the supernatural resurrection of Jesus Christ. If that is not true than Jesus did not conquer death, conquer sin, and ultimately give us life. If that is not true than Christianity is a lie.

I couldn't disagree with you more, in fact that's just sad. If you only believe that being humble unto others, helping others is only a good thing to do because a dude rose from the dead then you need to take a hard look at your life. If you look at the life and teachings of Jesus and hang the validity of those teachings on a miracle that happened 2K years ago then you are a doing good for the wrong reasons. Anyways, why do people always forget that miracles were not uncommon during this age. There are a lot of accounts of people other than Jesus performing miracles even raising the dead.

Don't go claiming you know what Christianity is all about when you are obviously not a Christian. You can extract the humanist elements from it all you want, but that doesn't alter the core beliefs.

Your right, I actually follow the teachings of Jesus while the real "Christians" are out spreading hate, bigotry, violence and oppression and using my book of worship as a damn weapon. And you know what really bugs me is that most "Christians" don't know a damn thing about their religion. Did you ever wonder why the book of John is in the cannon? Read the first 3 then read John, they are nothing alike. Or why do Christians put up such a commotion about the 10 commandments? Jesus was the new covenant between man and god which pretty much wiped away the 10 commandments. Jesus even broke some of the commandments himself as well as most of the social norms of the day. He hung out with prostitutes, tax collectors people whom if you sat with you would not be allowed into the temple until you were "cleansed". He did brilliant things, but none of that matters to you, all your god cares about is that you believe and follow your church's doctrine. If all you believe you need to get into "heaven" is a half arse belief that Jesus was the son of god, go ahead take the easy route. I will still be the penitent man, my brother's keeper and if I go to your hell for that, I hope I burn well.

PS, the devil is a lie as well..

hmm, no believe in me and be saved...weird.

no offense dude... it's true that there are far too many "Christians" out there who have distorted Jesus, his teachings, and doctrine to their own uses. Most of these are the usual religious fundamentals, with whom I would not classify myself. It's not written anywhere in my book that to merit heaven you only have to say "Jesus was the son of God". I don't even think this is an absolute necessity. What I do believe, and what you need to believe to be a true Christian is simple.

1. Humans sin against God.
2. Humans can never make up for their errors by themselves
3. Therefore God lets his Son take the punishment, thereby giving us an opportunity to be saved.
4. To be saved, people must then "take up the cross" and in short, try to live like Jesus did.

Note that much of the focus in Christianity is not on Earth, but on the next world. I know this infuriates atheists and humanists because they think there is no next world. Nevertheless, they are the core beliefs of Christianity.

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: azazyel
Posting this yet again....

Mathew 22: 35-40

Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

This is the first and great commandment.

And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.


hmm, no believe in me and be saved...weird.

I think a lot of the confusion arises from:

john 14.66
Jesus said to him, ?I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.


Seems people take that to mean one has to believe in the divine Christ and that he rose from the dead to atone for all of our sins. What they fail to realize is that he was referring to what he was preaching, the values and morals he espoused, the guideline to how people should live their lives. Also, the term "Father" doesn't refer to God. It refers to a Jewish high priest's title.

It was Jesus' death that was the payment for our sins.... not his resurrection. Note that when Jesus' was resurrected, his presence wasn't known until he revealed himself. It was his perfect blood that atoned for adam's perfect blood.

as far as the "father" definition...

it would seem highly unlikely that jesus would refer to jewish priest. in fact, it was the jewish high priests that were calling for his head. they had jesus put on the stake in place of barnabas, the rapist. they really wanted him dead. pontius pilate said repeatedly that he found no fault in jesus. so for jesus to assume such a position to the people he was publicly denouncing seems doubtful.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: azazyel
Posting this yet again....

Mathew 22: 35-40

Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

This is the first and great commandment.

And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.


hmm, no believe in me and be saved...weird.

I think a lot of the confusion arises from:

john 14.66
Jesus said to him, ?I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.


Seems people take that to mean one has to believe in the divine Christ and that he rose from the dead to atone for all of our sins. What they fail to realize is that he was referring to what he was preaching, the values and morals he espoused, the guideline to how people should live their lives. Also, the term "Father" doesn't refer to God. It refers to a Jewish high priest's title.

It was Jesus' death that was the payment for our sins.... not his resurrection. Note that when Jesus' was resurrected, his presence wasn't known until he revealed himself. It was his perfect blood that atoned for adam's perfect blood.

Adam? WTF? Adam is pure fiction. I don't know many people that actually believe he existed. If he did, why don't both of the Genesis stories mention him?

as far as the "father" definition...

it would seem highly unlikely that jesus would refer to jewish priest. in fact, it was the jewish high priests that were calling for his head. they had jesus put on the stake in place of barnabas, the rapist. they really wanted him dead. pontius pilate said repeatedly that he found no fault in jesus. so for jesus to assume such a position to the people he was publicly denouncing seems doubtful.

Why do you think the high priests were against Jesus? Jesus was trying to, essentially, take away some of their power. And, "barnabas? You mean bar Abbas. He was a John Doe that was offered up (allegedly) as an option instead of Jesus. And, yes, "Father" refers to the Jewish priestly titles. There was the Father and the Son. Those are priestly titles, much the same way as the angelic titles of Michael and Gabriel.

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: dornick
no offense dude... it's true that there are far too many "Christians" out there who have distorted Jesus, his teachings, and doctrine to their own uses. Most of these are the usual religious fundamentals, with whom I would not classify myself. It's not written anywhere in my book that to merit heaven you only have to say "Jesus was the son of God". I don't even think this is an absolute necessity. What I do believe, and what you need to believe to be a true Christian is simple.

1. Humans sin against God.
2. Humans can never make up for their errors by themselves
3. Therefore God lets his Son take the punishment, thereby giving us an opportunity to be saved.
4. To be saved, people must then "take up the cross" and in short, try to live like Jesus did.

Note that much of the focus in Christianity is not on Earth, but on the next world. I know this infuriates atheists and humanists because they think there is no next world. Nevertheless, they are the core beliefs of Christianity.

But what do the first 3 have to do with the 4th? Can't someone live a good life and not believe the first 3 and still be deemed worthy by god? For me it's hard to swallow that they wouldn't be. People like Gandhi who was more like Jesus then almost anyone I have seen or heard of. The whole idea of satiagraha echoes Jesus' teachings. But he was Hindi, so therefore bared from Heaven?

Personally I think we would all be better off if Christians just converted to Buddhism. If they did they might be able to do the 4th which is where most Christians have a problem.


Edit: Hell, I think TooL has more of a bead on Christianity then most Christians:

"So crucify the ego, before it's far too late
To leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical,
And you will come to find that we are all one mind
Capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
Just let the light touch you
And let the words spill through
And let them pass right through
Bringing out our hope and reason ...
before we pine away."

 

[imported_litesgod]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: azazyel
Posting this yet again....

Mathew 22: 35-40

Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

This is the first and great commandment.

And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.


hmm, no believe in me and be saved...weird.

I think a lot of the confusion arises from:

john 14.66
Jesus said to him, ?I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.


Seems people take that to mean one has to believe in the divine Christ and that he rose from the dead to atone for all of our sins. What they fail to realize is that he was referring to what he was preaching, the values and morals he espoused, the guideline to how people should live their lives. Also, the term "Father" doesn't refer to God. It refers to a Jewish high priest's title.

What about Matthew 26:62-64 where Jesus quite obviously states he is the son of God?

Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." "Yes it is as you say," Jesus repied.

Seems that Jesus did claim to be the son of God. In the Matthew 22 quote he is being asked about the Law of Moses, not questions about his divinity.

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: litesgod

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: azazyel
Posting this yet again....

Mathew 22: 35-40

Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

This is the first and great commandment.

And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.


hmm, no believe in me and be saved...weird.

I think a lot of the confusion arises from:

john 14.66
Jesus said to him, ?I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.


Seems people take that to mean one has to believe in the divine Christ and that he rose from the dead to atone for all of our sins. What they fail to realize is that he was referring to what he was preaching, the values and morals he espoused, the guideline to how people should live their lives. Also, the term "Father" doesn't refer to God. It refers to a Jewish high priest's title.

What about Matthew 26:62-64 where Jesus quite obviously states he is the son of God?

Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." "Yes it is as you say," Jesus repied.

Seems that Jesus did claim to be the son of God. In the Matthew 22 quote he is being asked about the Law of Moses, not questions about his divinity.

Check out other translations, they are quite different:

KJV:

64Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

New American Standard:

64Jesus said to him, "(CF)You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see (CG)THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and (CH)COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."

New International:

64?Yes, it is as you say,? Jesus replied. ?But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.?

Young's literal Translation:

64Jesus saith to him, `Thou hast said; nevertheless I say to you, hereafter ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the power, and coming upon the clouds, of the heaven.'



You see what I have read is that he was saying, "you said it, I didn't." Also, Jesus went in alone and didn't see his diciples again so how did they know he said any of this? I doubt the Jewish leaders would go out and say this stuff and if they did it was only to damn him. IMO it's how his deciples thought he would respond.

 

[dornick]

Originally posted by: azazyel

Originally posted by: dornick
no offense dude... it's true that there are far too many "Christians" out there who have distorted Jesus, his teachings, and doctrine to their own uses. Most of these are the usual religious fundamentals, with whom I would not classify myself. It's not written anywhere in my book that to merit heaven you only have to say "Jesus was the son of God". I don't even think this is an absolute necessity. What I do believe, and what you need to believe to be a true Christian is simple.

1. Humans sin against God.
2. Humans can never make up for their errors by themselves
3. Therefore God lets his Son take the punishment, thereby giving us an opportunity to be saved.
4. To be saved, people must then "take up the cross" and in short, try to live like Jesus did.

Note that much of the focus in Christianity is not on Earth, but on the next world. I know this infuriates atheists and humanists because they think there is no next world. Nevertheless, they are the core beliefs of Christianity.

But what do the first 3 have to do with the 4th? Can't someone live a good life and not believe the first 3 and still be deemed worthy by god? For me it's hard to swallow that they wouldn't be. People like Gandhi who was more like Jesus then almost anyone I have seen or heard of. The whole idea of satiagraha echoes Jesus' teachings. But he was Hindi, so therefore bared from Heaven?

Personally I think we would all be better off if Christians just converted to Buddhism. If they did they might be able to do the 4th which is where most Christians have a problem.


Edit: Hell, I think TooL has more of a bead on Christianity then most Christians:

"So crucify the ego, before it's far too late
To leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical,
And you will come to find that we are all one mind
Capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
Just let the light touch you
And let the words spill through
And let them pass right through
Bringing out our hope and reason ...
before we pine away."

Other religions may agree with following step 4, but steps 1-3 are still integral to Christianity. The important thing to realize is that Christianity says we are not good enough to merit heaven on our own. What do you mean by live a good life? Because everyone does things they regret doing. The basic idea is that we screwed up and did stuff God didn't want us to do... and no amount of sucking up is going to reverse that. I do, however, think it is possible for a non-Christian to realize this and not see a solution, but get saved anyway because they tried. So just because someone is Hindu, or never heard the name Jesus before doesn't mean they have no chance.

You absolutely right when you say the fourth step is the most difficult. I mean, it's super easy to just say the first 3 and BOOM you are saved! Fortunately, it doesn't work that way and #4 is absolutely necessary.

BTW, I don't see what those song lyrics/poetry/whatever has to do with Christianity.

 

[lebe0024]

I think it's funny that people always try to refer to Mark as the clear example of how legend has developed in the text (in comparing the early Mark to the later John). Have you even read Mark?

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: dornick

Other religions may agree with following step 4, but steps 1-3 are still integral to Christianity. The important thing to realize is that Christianity says we are not good enough to merit heaven on our own.

Why? Original sin? When did Jesus say that?

What do you mean by live a good life? Because everyone does things they regret doing. The basic idea is that we screwed up and did stuff God didn't want us to do... and no amount of sucking up is going to reverse that.

I think trying to be good is the point. Going through life trying to help others, trying to better yourself while rejecting the things that bring a person down, greed, hate, lust, etc. While we may fail occasionally but as long as we come to terms as a person then one can rise above. And I am not sure where the sucking up was coming from.

I do, however, think it is possible for a non-Christian to realize this and not see a solution, but get saved anyway because they tried. So just because someone is Hindu, or never heard the name Jesus before doesn't mean they have no chance.

So one atheists can go to heaven?

BTW, I don't see what those song lyrics/poetry/whatever has to do with Christianity.

It's my belief that everyone has to goes to hell and then to heaven. And hell to me is the destruction of the one thing that separates us from god, our egos. Once we can let go of that and stop believing in your own self hype you can learn to appreciate life is and the people we share it with.

lebe0024

who quoted mark?

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Also, remember the gospels were written during the lifespan of people who had witnessed Jesus alive and crucified (this is not true with the Gospel of Thomas).

That's not the case. The Gospel of John was written later as well.

If there were glaring inaccuracies there would be documentation in history of people countering what was written about Jesus in the first century, especially the Jewish leaders. However, we don't have anything of that sort.

No, there wouldn't be, as Jesus wasn't important enough for anyone but the early Christians to write about.