What do you object to about Christianity?

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Interestingly, the disciples themselves were incredulous when theu heard that Jesus was alive:

According to Luke's gospel, "these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them" (24:11).

Dead people weren't supposed to come back to life!

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Harvard Law professor and attorney Simon Greenleaf wrote a book called The Testimony of the Evangelists Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administrated in Courts of Justice. In addition to demonstrating why the Gospel accounts would be acceptable in a court of law, the 1874 edition featured a section called “Harmony of the Gospels,” which chronologically reconciled the testimonies from the King James Bible and addressed alleged discrepancies.

Regarding the differences in the accounts, Greenleaf wrote in § 34, “The character of their narratives is like that of all other true witnesses, containing -- as Dr. [William] Paley observes -- substantial truth, under circumstantial variety. [From A View of the Evidences of Christianity, 1794. See Appendix 2.] There is enough of discrepancy to show that there could have been no previous concert among them; and at the same time such substantial agreement as to show that they all were independent narrators of the same great transaction, as the events actually occurred.”

http://www.tektonics.org/harmonize/greenharmony.htm

There are different accounts , but they harmonize.

If Christianity was a big fraud, then then why would the bible even contain different accounts which at fist glance are contradictory. That's a pretty bad conspiracy!

 

[totalnoob]

Phineas, I'd love to see you harmonize the conflicting accounts into a single coherent story. This is a flawless word of God right? It shouldn't be too difficult for you.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Phineas, I'd love to see you harmonize the conflicting accounts into a single coherent story. This is a flawless word of God right? It shouldn't be too difficult for you.

It's been done. I'm not going to reinvent the wheel.

A lot scholarly work has been done on the subject.

I can probably find references if you would like.

Or, give me your zip code and I'll direct you to a good local church in your area. I'm sure a pastor will be able to explain it to you.

 

[totalnoob]

It's been done. I'm not going to reinvent the wheel.

The earliest gospel is Mark, and it is almost universally agreed that the later gospel writers used him as source material. Mark makes no mention of post-mortem appearances of Jesus. The original version of Mark ENDED with the women keeping their silence and telling noone about the empty tomb. That is all Matthew/Luke had to go on when they wrote their versions 30 years later. The conflicting accounts of post-mortem events in their gospels are easily explained by the fact that they were not contemporaries of Jesus..and had no firsthand knowledge of the events described. They were however true believers with a strong motivation to embellish their stories..so it's no mystery how the story of a missing/stolen body could become a magical resurrection in the course of a few decades.

 

[totalnoob]

It's been done. I'm not going to reinvent the wheel.

I would like to read a single narrative of the empty tomb story from start to finish..one that harmonizes all of the events in the synoptic gospels. I find it hard to believe nobody has created such a thing in 2000 years. If it exists, please post a link.

 

[HumblePie]

The earliest gospel is Mark, and it is almost universally agreed that the later gospel writers used him as source material. Mark makes no mention of post-mortem appearances of Jesus. The original version of Mark ENDED with the women keeping their silence and telling noone about the empty tomb. That is all Matthew/Luke had to go on when they wrote their versions 30 years later. The conflicting accounts of post-mortem events in their gospels are easily explained by the fact that they were not contemporaries of Jesus..and had no firsthand knowledge of the events described. They were however true believers with a strong motivation to embellish their stories..so it's no mystery how the story of a missing/stolen body could become a magical resurrection in the course of a few decades.

Especially in an era of people that still believed in witches, sorcerers, magic, and that the world was flat among other stupid things. When you have no TV, most people aren't literate, and people have a lively imagination, it is not hard to logically assume so much shit was fabricated.

 

[IronWing]

Not all people in Christian ministry get up in front of a crowd every Sunday.

Also there are plenty of lay people that take time of from work and travel at their own expense, domestically and internationally, to help others. They do so without any payment or compensation. The churches that I've been associated with have mission trips several times of year.

As far as the value, you'll have to ask those who have been helped by Christian volunteers.

Nice context shift. Now back to the value of preaching which you carefully chose to leave unaddressed.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

The earliest gospel is Mark, and it is almost universally agreed that the later gospel writers used him as source material. Mark makes no mention of post-mortem appearances of Jesus. The original version of Mark ENDED with the women keeping their silence and telling noone about the empty tomb. That is all Matthew/Luke had to go on when they wrote their versions 30 years later. The conflicting accounts of post-mortem events in their gospels are easily explained by the fact that they were not contemporaries of Jesus..and had no firsthand knowledge of the events described. They were however true believers with a strong motivation to embellish their stories..so it's no mystery how the story of a missing/stolen body could become a magical resurrection in the course of a few decades.

When the gospels were wrtten is a matter of debate. The consesus seems to be Mark 65-70; Matthew and Luke in the 80s; John in the 90s.

Regardless, these documents were circulating among those who were contemporaneous with Jesus and witnessed the events. If it was all make believe, don't you think that they would have said something?

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Nice context shift. Now back to the value of preaching which you carefully chose to leave unaddressed.

What's to be said about it? At most churches, the pastor of the church delivers a sermon during the church service.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Harvard Law professor and attorney Simon Greenleaf wrote a book called The Testimony of the Evangelists Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administrated in Courts of Justice. In addition to demonstrating why the Gospel accounts would be acceptable in a court of law, the 1874 edition featured a section called “Harmony of the Gospels,” which chronologically reconciled the testimonies from the King James Bible and addressed alleged discrepancies.

Regarding the differences in the accounts, Greenleaf wrote in § 34, “The character of their narratives is like that of all other true witnesses, containing -- as Dr. [William] Paley observes -- substantial truth, under circumstantial variety. [From A View of the Evidences of Christianity, 1794. See Appendix 2.] There is enough of discrepancy to show that there could have been no previous concert among them; and at the same time such substantial agreement as to show that they all were independent narrators of the same great transaction, as the events actually occurred.”

http://www.tektonics.org/harmonize/greenharmony.htm

There are different accounts , but they harmonize.

If Christianity was a big fraud, then then why would the bible even contain different accounts which at fist glance are contradictory. That's a pretty bad conspiracy!

Hold on. Are you seriously claiming that because there are contradictions, that is a point in favor of the validity of these accounts? Like that proves the witnesses didn't collude on their story, so as long as they got the big things right, that means it's true? I'm sorry, but this is totally laughable.

You can't have it both ways, I'm afraid. Either the Bible is the true, perfect transcribed Word of God or it was written by fallible men. If the Gospels are taken as independent historical accounts, then they were not authored by a singular God. Men are notoriously prone to error, especially in eyewitness testimony, and the people who historically are assumed to have written the Gospels were not even there.

Your proof of Jesus's resurrection seems to be that the Bible says the rock placed in front of his tomb "looked big" and rocks in Palestine at the time tended to be big. Oh, and it was moved to a place as if it were picked up. So these things, combined with his body being missing, lead to the natural conclusion that the dead Jesus awoke, moved the stone with the power of God, and then appeared to dozens or hundreds of people who didn't even recognize him. Are we also supposed to believe that he appeared to "over 500 people" because the Bible said so? Their testimonies are not recorded.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

If it was all make believe, don't you think that they would have said something?

You seem to miss the point of a cult. Some of us wonder this very question about the present. Besides, this argument doesn't support you. What about all those other religions? If they were phony, wouldn't somebody have said something when they were being cooked up? At best, that just puts Christianity on equal (equally bad) footing.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

You seem to miss the point of a cult. Some of us wonder this very question about the present. Besides, this argument doesn't support you. What about all those other religions? If they were phony, wouldn't somebody have said something when they were being cooked up? At best, that just puts Christianity on equal (equally bad) footing.

The Gospels say Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead. People who lived with Jesus saw these documents. What do you think there reaction have been if it weren't true?

 

[sdifox]

My religion is the best. All you have to do is to pay a monthly instalment of 29.95 and you are instantly guaranteed a good after life.

If you call in the next 20 minutes, I'll knock off 2 month out of the year. That is a 60 dollar value, free if you call in the next 20 minutes.

Operators are standing by.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Hold on. Are you seriously claiming that because there are contradictions, that is a point in favor of the validity of these accounts?

There are no contradictions, there are different retellings of events. That's no great suprise. Ask any witnesses to an event and they'll proabablu see the same event a little differently.

If there was conspiracy, I would think that that were be a vanilla recording of events such that they would all be in lock step.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

The Gospels say Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead. People who lived with Jesus saw these documents. What do you think there reaction have been if it weren't true?

You're making up terrible arguments. First, it's highly likely that all of the people who lived with Jesus were dead by the time the Gospels were assembled. Paul's epistle to the Corinthians was addressed to people who were already Christians, so they would have no reason to object. And so on. The objectors of Christianity were quite outspoken -- I mean, the Jews did kill the man and they were around to see him. Does their disbelief prove he was not divine?

Besides all that, you haven't addressed the point I've raised repeatedly: Even if all the eyewitness testimony were verifiably true and Jesus, assumed now to be a real historical figure, did all the things the Bible says he did, how does that prove he was the son of God?

By eyewitness testimony, Sathya Sai Baba has performed many of the so-called miracles of Jesus in the present day. This man has millions of followers. It seems he has a much stronger case than Jesus did when he was alive. Do you believe in Sathya Sai Baba's powers? He won't submit to scientific scrutiny, but certainly you could overlook that since it doesn't harm your belief in Jesus.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

There are no contradictions, there are different retellings of events. That's no great suprise. Ask any witnesses to an event and they'll proabablu see the same event a little differently.

If there was conspiracy, I would think that that were be a vanilla recording of events such that they would all be in lock step.

So are you admitting that the Bible is not the flawless Word of God, but the work of a human sort?

 

[sdifox]

So are you admitting that the Bible is not the flawless Word of God, but the work of a human sort?

Especially when it was only in Latin

 

[sdifox]

Life of Brian is equally likely.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Especially when it was only in Latin

The Old Testament was mostly Hebrew and the New Testament Gospels were written in Greek.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

So are you admitting that the Bible is not the flawless Word of God, but the work of a human sort?

I believe what the bible says about itself.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16)

 

[sdifox]

The Old Testament was mostly Hebrew and the New Testament Gospels were written in Greek.

Referring to the Catholic church's past practice. Common people were too stupid to read the Bible, only the priests can interpret it for them.

 

[sdifox]

The Bible was such holy writ that this was needed to come up with an unified version...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_council

The sad part is, it was not enough, leading to the hundreds if not thousands of sects.

Face it, it's a giant corporation that needs to revise its vision.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

I believe what the bible says about itself.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16)

If I may be permitted, let me rephrase your answer: yes.

 

[IronWing]

Referring to the Catholic church's past practice. Common people were too stupid to read the Bible, only the priests can interpret it for them.

Also, the printing press didn't come in until about the time of the Reformation. Bibles were too precious to let the dung covered masses paw through them.