F
FCEGM
Guest
Posts 7 and 23 contain book recommendations that would be helpful - read them.
- Status
M
Mirdath
Guest
I’m not talking about that type of martyrdom, and you know it. I’m talking about people who have had spears shoved into their privates for daring to believe something new.
Believing something doesn’t make you either sane or correct. I’m inclined to go with the first.
There really isn’t any way I can think of to convince me that doesn’t involve direct divine intervention or a time machine. Like Didymus, I can believe in that which I see. I can generally even trust the testimony of others, so long as it doesn’t start getting into things that do not make hard, concrete sense.
E
estesbob
Guest
Like “string theory” and Macro evolution?
M
Mirdath
Guest
String theory is another thing I reserve judgment on; macroevolution makes plenty of sense, and there is no want of evidence for it.
E
estesbob
Guest
I am not a creationist by any stretch of ther imagination being more concerend with the “who” rather than the “how” However I cant get my mind wrapped around Dinasours evolving into birds. There is plenty of fossil evdidence for micro evolution, very little for macro evolution. As one Biologist admited "Evolution is the only thing that explains the diversity of life unless there really is a God.
But I fear i am dragging us off topic.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
I thought it important to establish some common ground by suggesting the possibility of an early dating of the gospels before i proceeded. The reason for this is that, regardless of who the authors were, they used primary sources. This sets him apart from many other ancient historians who often wrote their accounts of history decades and even hundreds of years after the events took place. While it is true that Dr. Luke might never have met Jesus, he interviewed many who had. He states this at the beginning of his gospel:
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus… .
(Luke 1:1-3)
Like a consummate investigative journalist, Luke wore out sandal leather tracking eyewitnesses down, knocking on doors, and interviewing them one after another until he had all the facts to write an accurate account. He interviewed those who traveled with Jesus, talked with Jesus, listened to Jesus, saw Jesus make the blind see and even the dead get up and walk, and most importantly he interviewed those who spent time with Jesus after he rose from the dead.
The gospels (especially the gospel of Luke) are filled with dates, the names of places, and the names of important people. One archaeological dig after another has shown the accuracy of Luke’s information.
Where Luke has been suspected of inaccuracy, and accuracy has been vindicated by some inscriptional evidence, it may be legitimate to say that archaeology has confirmed the New Testament record.
(F.F. Bruce)
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
You should consider that escaping persecution in the 1st and 2nd century A.D. was an easy thing for Christians. When they were arrested and taken to some Roman official, all they had to do was say three little words and they would be set free: “Caesar is Lord.” Christians who knew Jesus, or who had relatives who did, would refuse to say this. The result was that they were tortured, as you indicated. They were tied to stakes, doused in tar, and lit up like torches to the amusement of their tormentors who drank wine and laughed at their demise. They were executed in stadiums for the to entertain the bloodthirsty crowds, and they were crucified by the thousands. The accounts of these events are not recorded by Christians, but by pagan Roman historians.
They suffered all this because they would not say three little words. Please ask yourself, why did they refuse to say them and save themselves?
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Please try not to be offended Mir, but i must honestly say that it appears you are biased. Wouldn’t it be better to be objective and open minded?
The excessive skepticism of many liberal theologians stems not from a careful evaluation of the available data, but from an enormous predisposition against the supernatural.(Millar Borrows of Yale University)What you appear to be saying is that there is nothing anyone might say, no evidence someone might produce that will change your mind. I’m trying to say this as gently and respectfully as i know how: Its as though you are one who will refuse to be confused by the facts.
M
Mirdath
Guest
One final note, your information seems to be a little out of date
Many dinosaurs already had feathers or proto-feathers (and we already knew they flew, look at the pterosaurs), whales have vestigial foot-bones, and so on. Missing links are being found gradually but surely. Archaeopteryx has been known for decades, and it’s not the only dinobird.
M
Mirdath
Guest
Because they valued it more than they valued their lives. I personally think they were foolish to think that way, but I suppose that’s another reason I’m not cut out to be a believer.
And yet again, Christians are not the only martyrs to have done so.
I am being objective. Religious experience, for good or ill, is entirely subjective, and not admissible as evidence (if it were, we’d have far more criminals trying to get out of their punishments by claiming God told them to do it). You do not have facts, you have records – and records are easily mistaken or corrupted.
How am I not being open-minded? Is it because you think that if my mind is open, I will have no choice but to believe? That’s not impartiality and openness, that’s plain stupid credulity. Tell me, what makes your belief that God died on a cross out of love for humanity any more believable to me than the belief that Elvis was kidnapped by space aliens? They are equally verifiable – in fact, I dare say there are more sources about Elvis than there are about Jesus.
Yes, I’m vaguely predisposed not to believe in something I cannot see or touch; is that a problem? I have never said ‘Jesus could never have been God’; I have said I don’t think it’s likely. I do not believe, but I admit the possibility. If you want me any more open-minded than that, I’m afraid you’re going to have to perform a trepanation.
E
estesbob
Guest
The witness of those who knew him. Something incredible must have happende to allow this small Jewsih "cult to spread around the world.
I could tell you the minor and major ways the Lord works in my life on a daily basis but i am sure you would dismiss that as quicky as i dismiss flying Brontosuarus’s
I will tell you this Mirdath-he will reveal himslef to you someday and when you realize he is there is will be the most joyful day of your life.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Pliny the Younger in his letter to Roman Emperor Trajan (A.D. 112):
[The Christians] were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as a god, and bound themselves by solemn oath, not to do any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and them reassemble to partake of food–but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.
Emperor Trajan’s letter of reply to Pliny:
No search should be made for these people, when they are denounced and found guilty they must be punished … however, that when the party denies himself to be a Christian, and shall give proof that he is not (that is, by adoring our gods) he shall be pardoned on the ground of repentance even though he may have formerly incurred suspicion.
Ancient Roman Historian Tacitus (c. A.D. 100):
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on the class hated for their admoninations, called Christians by the populace. Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular.
(The Annals of Tacitus)
Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty [to being Christians]; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn apart by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show of circus, while he mingled with the people…
(The Annals of Tacitus)
Ancient Roman historian Suetonius (A.D. 117-138):
As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [Christ], he expelled them from Rome.
(Life of Claudius)
Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a body of people addicted to a novel and mischievous superstition.
(Life of Nero)
I’m assuming the “mischievous superstition” and evil to which Tacitus and Suetonius refer is the Eucharist, or perhaps the belief that Christ rose from the dead. These historians were no friends of the Christians.
[The Christians] were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as a god, and bound themselves by solemn oath, not to do any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and them reassemble to partake of food–but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.
Emperor Trajan’s letter of reply to Pliny:
No search should be made for these people, when they are denounced and found guilty they must be punished … however, that when the party denies himself to be a Christian, and shall give proof that he is not (that is, by adoring our gods) he shall be pardoned on the ground of repentance even though he may have formerly incurred suspicion.
Ancient Roman Historian Tacitus (c. A.D. 100):
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on the class hated for their admoninations, called Christians by the populace. Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular.
(The Annals of Tacitus)
Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty [to being Christians]; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn apart by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show of circus, while he mingled with the people…
(The Annals of Tacitus)
Ancient Roman historian Suetonius (A.D. 117-138):
As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [Christ], he expelled them from Rome.
(Life of Claudius)
Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a body of people addicted to a novel and mischievous superstition.
(Life of Nero)
I’m assuming the “mischievous superstition” and evil to which Tacitus and Suetonius refer is the Eucharist, or perhaps the belief that Christ rose from the dead. These historians were no friends of the Christians.
M
Mirdath
Guest
Much as I’m sure something happened to spread Zoroastrianism across the Persian Empire, and something else to spread Hinduism across the Indian subcontinent – and thence let its heresy Buddhism cover all of Asia. Ideas are like virii: contagious. Christianity is an idea, and an attractive one to many, with its promise of eternal joy; but it’s still only an idea.
I don’t dismiss it. It’s just subjective, and that’s no good for making anyone else believe.
We’ll see
And they’re saying ‘yeah, these guys called Christians exist and are kinda weird’, not ‘Jesus, son of Joseph and Mary, was crucified and rose from the dead, showing him to be god and man’. So we can be fairly sure that a man named Jesus existed, but beyond that, these guys aren’t saying anything.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Actually, they did not value an it. They valued a person–Jesus Christ. Really, when i think about it, even a life of 100 years is like the blink of an eye compared to eternity with Him.
Haven’t you ever wondered what happens when your short life is over?
M
Mirdath
Guest
He was already gone. They valued the idea of the Christ.
Of course I have. I figure it’s most likely bog-standard oblivion, and that’s fine by me. The few near-death experiences I’ve had have supported that view, just as, apparently, they make others figure there’s really a heaven or a hell.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Highly unlikely. Think about it: There are more than 24,970 extant ancient manuscript copies of parts of the New Testament. It is possible that one man or one group might slip in an error in translation or deliberate change in the text in a few copies. However, it would be impossible for one man or group travel the ancient world and force the religious faithful to make the same errors or deliberate changes to some 25,000 manuscripts.
Of the extant ancient MSS of the New Testament, there are:
- 307 Greek uncials
- 2,860 Greek minuscules
- 2,410 Greek lectionaries
- 109 Greek papyri
- 10,000+ Latin Vulgate
- 2,000+ Ethiopic
- 4,101 Slavic
- 2,587 Armenian
- 350+ Syrian
- 100 Bohairic
- 75 Arabic
- 50 Old Latin
- 7 Anglo Saxon
- 6 Gothic
- 8 Other languages
There is an objective science to Biblical translation. Scholars, by comparing thousands of extant ancient manuscripts, can weed out any additions, omissions, modifications and errors in translation. Where there is any disagreement among these experts, minority interpretations of the text are put in the notes in the margins of most study Bible (the first 11 verses of John, chapter eight is an example of this). Scholars who translate the biblical texts stake their reputations on their objectivity.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Fascinating! By “idea of Christ” i imagine you mean that which is not real, or a lie. So, are you saying, Mir that Matthew, John, Peter and Paul valued their lie of Christ instead of the real Jesus?
Are you saying they deliberately deceived those who gave their lives for this lie? Are you saying that they perpetrated the wicked fraud that Jesus was God and raised his own body from the dead, and would raise their bodies from the grave too?
M
Mirdath
Guest
That is, I think, what I’ve been getting at.
Lie? I would not put it that way. ‘Myth’, perhaps. ‘Wishful thinking’, also a possibility. Even, though I consider the likelihood quite remote, ‘fact’. Be that as it may, there was a man Jesus, and there was an idea centered around that man; that idea is now Christianity. Whether that idea reflects the reality, I do not know for sure, but I do not think it does exactly. This is no fault of the apostles, or even of the johnny-come-lately Paul; it’s a reflection of the frailty of all of us. However good record-keepers they were, they were still human, imperfect and fallible, and after their association with Jesus, much given to hope and perhaps even fancy.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
The difference between a myth and a lie is time. Myths about men develop long after anyone who knew the men are in the grave. Myth does not apply to Matthew and John, who wrote that Christ as a matter of fact rose from the dead physically. Wishful thinking does not apply to Peter who preached emphatically just days after Christ rose from the dead that Jesus was a alive and in the flesh in a physical, immortal body. Human fragility would not excuse Paul who was commissioned by Peter to preach the same lie. Paul preached that there was no doubt that Jesus was raised from the dead, and he even went so far as to say that believing in the physical resurrection of Jesus was essential to being raised from the dead too.
Do you see what i mean, Mir? They were either deceived, or they were intentionally deceiving others, or they were speaking the truth. Myth and wishful thinking are placid, less offensive, ways to describe the reality, but much less accurate than saying they flat out lied.
M
Mirdath
Guest
Myths can and do develop even while their subjects are still alive. It’s mostly a matter of how fast information is transmitted, and how permanently it can be recorded – neither of which capacities was at an all-time high in first-century Judea.
Paul wasn’t even there. How would he know first-hand?
It is perhaps a way of saying ‘the accounts probably don’t match up’ less likely to cause people here to start vomiting up the usual bile, yes. I’m not trying to give anyone a heart attack or severe gastrointestinal problems here, I’m trying to respectfully disagree and say that I consider accounts given in a particular religion’s holy book insufficient ground for proving the historical verity of that same religion. Circular logic will get you nowhere.
- Status