I'm well familiar with most of this, and most of it is hooey. There are also those who say Josephus' mention is even a later addition, and that theory is more credible than the others.

Paul wrote within 20-25 years of Jesus' death, and no, outside of the Book of Hebrews (another animal altogether), there is little to no controversy - except among those purposefully trying to discredit the Bible - as to who wrote his letters. The wide consensus is that he did.

The idea that "none of them are actually thought to have been written by the disciples" ... thought by whom? The same people working so, so hard to cut and chop and discredit anything they don't agree with, especially inside "Christianity." Yes, there are debates and theories and questions, and I know about Q and M and the various theories, but the existence of questions do not discount the books' validity. Luke wrote Luke, and he was a traveling companion of Paul, and he interviewed eyewitnesses like Mary herself and others. John wrote John, and was the disciple who was with Jesus, etc.

No, we did not learn that. Nice try. There's no reasonable way to worm out of Paul's vivid description in Romans 1 to argue that he's talking about anything else but sodomy.

But you understand that, even if we accept that your version of history is true, that these sources were all written by Jesus's disciples themselves, and are not independently verifiable?

That your statement of "historically verifiable" is essentially a load of hooie in and of itself?

There is no standard used in historical study today which would consider the life events of Jesus to be "historically verified".

I'm not saying they didn't happen, but you can't just throw that out there, and not expect that to be challenged.

Well _I_ just learned that. Before now I've never seen a bible with the word "Homosexual" in it.

And Sodomy is non-penile/vaginal copulation-like acts like oral or anal sex and also dealing with animal sex. Can be with a woman or a sheep...a gorgeous, cuddly attractive sheep...

I disagree with your use of "college" here. What you have presented is far from what a theologically academic, non-seminary (Divinity), university teaches.

The type of "logical understanding" I received in getting my Master of Theology was based on historical data, literary criticisms and philosophical inquiry. Never were the personal beliefs of the students or professors (mostly Jesuit priest) brought up. Certainty, there never was an attempt to prove why Christian faith is right or wrong.

What I appreciated about my approach was the notion that through a rigorous historical, anthropological and philosophical inquiry the new "truth" that emerges can be profound as well.

For example: One can look at the OT/NT as a journey of a people struggling with unjust suffering and faith. As the notion of God matures from a punishing parent to a forgiving redeemer, the notion of salvation changes from communal to personal.

I see a group of people struggling with their faith as other communities become rich and powerful. I see the use of The Laws as an attempt to show more faithfulness to a fickle "jealous" god. I see the earthly promise-suffering-redemption cycle repeating until Jesus comes and changes it to eternal reward-suffering-redemption approach.

My questions are then:
Can any of the success of Christianity be attributed to the the Church fostering a selfish desire in its believers to get the eternal reward (a reward that unlike previous ones cannot be proven wrong by the living)?

Moreover, has the manipulation of these rules for eternal life been in the best interest of the believers or current power structure?

In other words, is heaven more necessary for salvation or conformity?

Josephus (in 93-94 AD) wrote two passages about Jesus. The first was concerning the death of his brother James. The second, the one that the general consensus is that it was heavily edited but not entirely unauthentic, was about his crucifixion.

Well, I knew it was very small. ;)

So two sentence blurbs.

I don't see liking the things you pick as hypocrisy. Seems more like psychology to me.

What you can get me going on is why so many people pick the dominant religion of their cultural group and mistake that for faith (or even worse, a religious form of patriotism). Don't get me wrong here: I'm an American evangelical whose father was a reformed evangelical minister, so I'm not calling any kettles black, here. I just recognize that most people pick what their parents taught them -- religious or otherwise, and even on subjects unrelated to religion -- and replace critical examination with comfortable habit. Not arrogance, it seems to me, but socialization and a bit of intellectual laziness.

That doesn't preclude some people from owning their religious belief and verifying their conclusions, and it doesn't stop people from picking something else entirely...I just think that most people don't. Whenever I see people who are strident without compassion or a bit of doubt, I understand them as folks who believe they have received a direct revelation from God, or the sort that haven't ever looked closely at what they've been taught and really don't want to -- they'd rather shout than try to understand their own doctrine.

Wait. You got a Masters of Theology without ever assessing whether the theology you were studying was bull$%^* or not? That's kind of funny.


Can any of the spread of Christianity be attributed to manipulating the masses? Yes. But I wouldn't count that as "success." The fact that several actions of the church did reward the power structure (see Middle Ages) more than the believers themselves is why I say it wasn't a success, but a crime.

Yet the manipulation of the doctrine of eternal salvation does not discredit the doctrine itself. Eternal life is the point of salvation, and it has nothing to do with conformity.

Maybe Im missing something in your comment. But C.S. Lewis is Christian and the books of Narnia are based on Christianity. So you going to Narnia to worship Aslan is in fact saying you want to worship Jesus. Ironic, huh?

Mind==>>Blown

Look, y'all. We're coming to the end of the day for me here, and I've got to move on. I think most of the discussions we've had since the original post were interesting, but ancillary to the original point.

The original point, as best as I could describe it, is that the shouts of "hypocrisy" and "cherry picking" against Christians who dare call homosexuality a sin are not founded. That basic principles of Protestant/Evangelical biblical interpretation can reasonably demonstrate why it isn't inconsistent to eat pork and yet still call homosexuality a sin. That many of the people (especially celebrities, ala Jack Black) that mock Christians for their positions, are really just mocking, not making sound points of theology or pointing out flaws in the Christians' theology.

We've gone way, way off topic of late, and I have a few tasks I still need to get done. Thank you for keeping this (at least mostly) civil. Where I strayed into snarkiness or insult, I sincerely apologize.

Wait...the Narnia allegory stuff isn't common knowledge?

Sorry, my sarcasm is apparently way too subtle. :)

i prefer the lion form to the hippee form tho.

Lust is, of course, not the same as what homosexuals who are in monogamous committed relationships experience. Because, after all, if you think its all about lust, well then what's to prevent such a close relationship between you and another man? Is there perhaps something more there and simply wanting to have sex? There is something that God has placed in us which calls out for a great fellowship than simply a friendship - a relationship in which the ideal is for the other person to show us the closest approximation of the love of God that can be shown by another human to us. That has little to nothing to do with lust.

As for the Book of Job, I consider it to be one of my favorite books of the Old Testament. Not because God excoriates Job, no. But because he excoriates Job's friends, who said that Job must have done something sinful to deserve his sad place. God yells at them the strongest of anyone.

Also, of course, the vast majority of Biblical scholars see the Book of Job as a large parable rather than something that historically occurred.

For Job's sake, I certainly hope so.

That's kind of like saying: You got a degree in math without assessing whether a number, in and of itself, is real? Or: You got a degree in British Monarchy without assessing if monarchy is bullshit. Given me a break, if we only studied things to confirm what we already believed we'd still be in caves.



I think just the recent use of the Islamic promise of eternal reward shows you are vastly underestimating the power this promise has to conform and manipulate.

I haven't done the studying you have done, but this part resonated with me. When I read the bible (in Sunday school and now), I have always had the impression that the authors of the early books of the OT were trying to understand their faith and ascribing things they didn't understand to God. We know now that eating pork and shellfish when not properly prepared can make you very sick. In those times, I'm sure it could be deadly and it would be very easy to say that God must not want us to eat it since we die when we do. God must want us to conquer this nation, kill all the men, and take all the women for concubines since we prayed for that outcome and it happened. If God didn't want it, we wouldn't have won. When you don't have the tools to determine proper cause and effect, the logical effect is always "God did it".

I'd also like to hear more about the dating of the Gospels. My understanding is that it is a very minority position that the Gospels were written by the names used as titles, or that they were written any earlier than a couple of generations after Jesus's death. I don't believe the books themselves even claim to be written in that time. I'd love to read more about it, though.

I think the point is that even if something can be used to manipulate, that doesn't necessarily make it untrue. If the Islamic promise of eternal reward is true, that makes manipulation that much easier.

My number #1 interest above all else is history. Christianity as portrayed in the NT and, most importantly, the person of Jesus, most definitely are not historically verifiable in a way that would be acceptable for any other event in time that was not related to a religion.

As Chief says, that doesn't mean that it didn't happen, it just means you can't say with anymore certainty that it did than with any other religious or ancient text. Given the wonderous tales contained within... well... that's why people who aren't Christian aren't Christian. It's not like we are staring at hard actual facts and turning a blind eye, it's that the evidence is no more or less convincing than most other religions.

One of the great disadvantages that Christianity has re: the historicity of the bible is that the history of the Catholic church is very well known. These are the folks that quite literally gave you the NT you have in your bookcase today...

What's the third thing that Mary revealed and what is in the missing chapters of the bible?

I just saw this and while I did not read much beyond the first page, I would have to add my (presumably only other) voice and support to revrew.

One of the points I want to emphasize from the original post was how the Jewish leaders (i.e., Pharisees, Sedducees) corrupted God's laws into something that was not intended, solely for self-righteousness and self-glorification (as well as power). In Matthew's account on the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is quoted as saying "You have heard that it was said..." or "it has been said..." or "you have heard...". These would include rules on murder (5:21-26) defining what God mean by murder (as in the commandment) instead of the strict, limiting way society defined it; adultery (27-30) where lust of the heart truly is adultery; divorce (31-32) where it was so easy to get a divorce (God hates divorce but recognizes that it will happen); retaliation (38-42) where "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" had been perverted to justify greater punishment. In each of these, Jesus contrasted these laws by saying "But I say to you...", given the true meaning that was intended in the first place.

God's words has not, does not and can not change and is inerrant in its original manuscript as something God-inspired can only be. Man's use of those words have been corrupting and blasphemous and were warned about by many writers. There are 17 mistakes or myths that people make about the Bible:

1. Assuming that the unexplained is not explainable
2. Presuming the Bible guilty until proven innocent
3. Confusing our fallible interpretations with God's infallible revelation
4. Failing to understand the context of the passage
5. Neglecting to interpret difficult passages in the light of clear ones
6. Basing a teaching on an obscure passage
7. Forgetting that the Bible is a human book with human characteristics
8. Assuming that a partial report is a false report
9. Demanding that NT citations of the OT always be exact quotations
10. Assuming that divergent accounts are false ones
11. Presuming that the Bible approves of all it records (e.g., it records some lies, like those of Satan's)
12. Forgetting that the Bible uses non-technical, everyday language
13. Assuming that round numbers are false
14. Neglecting to note that the Bible uses different literary devices
15. Forgetting that only the original text, not every copy of Scripture, is without error
16. Confusing general statements with universal ones
17. Forgetting that later revelation supersedes previous revelation

Yeah, I think it is safe to say that when something unreasonable happens, there will likely be an irrational explanation...even today.

Yeah, but where's the original manuscript? What's in the NT is what a bunch of Catholic church leaders decided should have been included from a much larger selection of texts, centuries after the events they detailed, which in turn were written by non-contempories based on passed-down verbal reports. There are no original manuscripts. If Jesus came down to clear up some of the stuff in the OT, he should have picked a better audience than the remote and, in all likelihood, illiterate tribesmen that he did because the message is every bit as garbled and twisted by humans now (NT) as it ever was then (OT).

There are thousands of ancient manuscripts from the early centuries, as well as before the time of Christ (25,000 NT alone, 5600 in the original Greek) and the text has varied very little in all of this time. There are portions of early copies of Paul's letters from 150-200ad, for example. Altogether, we have 18 NT manuscripts from the 2nd century and one from the 1st. 43% of the NT verses are contained in just those early manuscripts. Compare to Homer's Illiad (which no one seems to question), we have only 643 copies of manuscripts, not to mention no surviving original copies of Shakespeare, which no questions either. Additionally, we record oral histories of many peoples, civilizations and tribes and most of those are not questioned either.

The academic discipline of "textual criticism" assures us that the Bible translations we have today are essentially the same as the ancient Bible manuscripts, with the exception of a few inconsequential discrepancies that have been introduced over time through copyist error (like the age of one OT king, forget which one).

As far as the canonical books, they did go through a rigorous process of authenticity with the Catholics including the Apocrypha books (which are not canonical, imo).

But if you step back and think about it, the Bible is God's revelation to us. Do you think He would allow man to change His words and message? The good news that Paul spread to the Roman empire (Jews and Gentiles alike), that Augustine (4th century theologian), that Martin Luther and that today's evangelicals spread is the same message of salvation, atonement, redemption and sanctification.

Historically, I think God's timing for His Son's arrival was brilliant. You had a common language (Greek) throughout most of the Western world (which much of the NT was written in), as well as local Aramaic. That provided the basis for the Latin (another "universal" language) translations that lasted for many centuries.

what do you guys have against WIndows NT? It was a great server. It didn't crash THAT much.

yuk that joke sucked as much as the Overtime joke I was trying to come up with

I'll give you an example. The earliest known NT manuscript is from the Book of John, dated about 125ad - about 30 years after John's original writing. It's a small fragment with the words on it bolded below:

Recto: It is not lawful for us to put to death

No one; that the w ord of Jesus might be fulfilled;

Which he spoke signifying by what death

He was about to die. Entered therefore into the

Praetorium again Pilate and called

Jesus and said to him, "Are you the King of

The Jews?"



Verso: For this I have been born, and for this I have been born into

The world that I may bear witness to the truth.

Everyone that is of the truth hears my voice.

Says to him Pilate, "what is truth?"

And this having said again, he went out

To the J ews and says to them;

I not any fault find in him.

Compare what's in this NT manuscript to modern non-paraphrase translations we have today. If you really want to get overwhelmed, compare the Dead Sea Scrolls (dated about 300-400 years before Christ) to the modern OT translations.

What is this boldface code? The lyrics to eminem's latest hit?
The next da vinci code book?

this really reminded me of Jesus Christ Superstar. Rice used the historical text for this really.

[quote=Buccaneer;2776800]There are thousands of ancient manuscripts from the early centuries, as well as before the time of Christ (25,000 NT alone, 5600 in the original Greek) and the text has varied very little in all of this time. There are portions of early copies of Paul's letters from 150-200ad, for example. Altogether, we have 18 NT manuscripts from the 2nd century and one from the 1st. 43% of the NT verses are contained in just those early manuscripts.


The difference is that the Illiad and the writings of Shakespeare are works of literacy, and don't claim to be the work of God. It doesn't really matter who wrote them or how much they've changed over the years, because they are stories, and very good ones. Some of the contain real characters or events, but no one claims they are word-for-word transcriptions of real events.


We don't question them because that's all we have left of them in many cases. There's nothing to question because there are no answers - the oral history is the only human link to those peoples/civilizations. That's not the same thing as taking them at face value.


Again, the problem is the manuscripts that were put to paper a century or more after Jesus was supposed to have lived, by people who weren't there, based on oral-traditions. It's the source that's the issue, not how accurately the source has made it's way down to us from those times.


"But if you step back and think about it, the Bible is Allah's revelation to us. Do you think He would allow man to change His words and message?"

Did it work, are you Islamic yet?


It was anything but. He came at a time when a minute fraction of people were literate enough to record Jesus' message, and it would take century after century after century for it to spread through the ancient/pre-medieval world, and that was only after adoption by a military power strong enough to force it upon its populace and its conquests.

Every devout Christian that I know holds the following statement to be true...

"God created us all in his image."


With that said. Homosexuality is not a choice, that has been scientifically proven. Which means that homosexuals were also created by God. Uh oh, the next step in this logic may cause an issue...

Man was given intellect, which means he could think and reason. As a rational being, man was unique in creation and clearly distinct from the animals. The image of God in man means he was "created in righteousness and true holiness" (before the Fall). After the Fall, man's sin nature became inherent and universal, as well as the consequences of sin.

In other words; reasoning was a feature, not a bug. :D

A quick query then - the bible and Christian points are against homosexual sexual acts themselves as most people interpret it (ie. the physical act).

At no point then does it say that two men can't be married - it just indicates that they shouldn't have sex, as such if two gay people wanted to live together and be in a loving relationship (ie. kissing, cuddling, sleeping together) and just not have sex would that be ok with you? ... if not why not?

I personally struggle to see why Christians as generally so obsessed with gay sex myself and over-react to it so hugely, I haven't seen them react this way about theft, murder, bigotry, marital cheating, sex outside marriage or stealing in recent years ..... all of which are also 'sins' but apparently far more acceptable ... why is being homosexual a 'super sin' which appears to trump all others?

(on the cherry picking front there are LOADS of items which are ignored by Christians because they don't fit into todays society (ie. a womans rights to divorce for instance) can you honestly reconcile all these issues but not fine acceptance for homosexual marriage despite the ambiguous nature of the language used and the numerous translations muddying the issue)

There is no such thing, biblically, as super sin. Paul makes that clear in his letter to the church in Corinth, as well as to the Romans. It saddens me to see other sexual immoralities such as adultery and pornography ignored. But this yet another example of basing one's belief on the fallible and changeable authority of societal and cultural moods and trends instead of the authority of the scriptures.

This is one of the (many) problems I have with a literal interpretation of the bible.

I'm 41 at the moment, when I try and piece together my teenage years from memory I find it incredibly hard to put events in a coherent order and even very important events in my life at hard to recall accurately.

As such why should a report written that distance away from the facts be taken as anything but a very general indication of something colored by the tinge of time and personal bias to the events which occurred?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember blasphemy being painted as the "super sin"? Blasphemy more in the sense of turning yourself from God throughout the span of your life, rather than shouting out Jesus Christ when you drop something on your foot.

I just can't buy it as a sin. I'm sorry, I just can't. If that means me and the big guy disagree, so be it.

Bingo.

In no domain outside of religion would a single non-contemporary source written so long after the events - and even 20-25 years is an exceptionally long period of time that only seems slight due to the fact that we are talking about events from 2000 years ago - be considered proof of anything having actually occurred.

Whoops. You've got some misunderstanding there. Paul wrote 20-25 years after Jesus' death about things that happened 20-25 years after Jesus' death. His writing was contemporary to what was going on, writing about his own life and the life of the churches he was working in. He wrote of the apostles, whom he met and interacted with personally.

And if there's some confusion or minor discrepancies, such as faulty and fading memories would produce, those are reflected in the different Gospels, which don't always jive on the minor stuff (order of events, etc.). This, however, is what a person or even a modern courtroom would expect of actual eye witness testimony. Minor discrepancies are a badge of authenticity. When the stories all match perfectly, it's an indication of fabrication.

BTW, Thanks for chiming in, Bucc. I'm not going to be able to give this thread as much attention as I have already.

Confusing Gospels maybe but not misunderstanding. The point still stands.

rev, bucc... do you accept divorcees at your church? Would you support (or do you think your congregation would tolerate) a pastor who regularly preaches against divorce as a sin as much as many christian pastors take a stand against homosexuality?

If so that's cool, and it's a genuine question. But this is the single most hypocritical thing I see in the church today.

Thats a cyclical argument - ie. the Bible is Gods word and he would protect it because its his message.

Its only a valid argument is you accept the first premise which many people don't.

Aslan is Love, Simba is Not

This plus abortion = sins most white heterosexual men are not tempted by, or are not applicable to white heterosexual men.

Porn and infidelity are much bigger issues in the church by volume of sin -- and I don't know of a church that would not agree that those are both sin -- but they don't get a tenth of the attention the super sins do. (I actually call them "The Special Sins" in air quotes when this topic comes up at my church.)

Homosexual sex isn't any more of a sin than, say, pre-marital sex (and a bunch of lesser moral crimes). You don't see the religious base getting riled up about legislation to punish 17 y.o. boys for fucking their girlfriends or laws forcing them to get married (or keeping them from getting married because their relationship is rooted in immorality, which would be a better cognate). The argument you hear most often has to do with the slippery slope of morality and "Godz gonna judge us for tolerating sin -- look at N'awlins!".

Seriously? You've left shutting down the porn industry largely to womens rights groups (of whom you're also terrified because they're upending the "natural order"), basic civil rights for minorities to the ACLU, and care for the poor and the widows to the fucking federal government...and you're worried that God is going to judge us because we tolerated some guys ramming their dicks into each other's assholes? That's where you're going to stake your claim to righteousness?

ETA: I want to be explicit here so you know where I'm coming from -- I do believe that the Bible teaches that homosexual sex is a sin. Since I also believe that the Bible is the word of God, I believe that homosexual sex is a sin. I equally believe that every time I look at a hot workstudy in my university office and wonder what it would be like to fuck her, I've committed an equally damnable sin. The Bible says a ton more about lust than it does about gay fucking, and that's a test I fail daily. I don't expect I'm going to stop giving the sex eye to hot 20 y.o. co-eds any time soon. It's built into my design as a dude. I try to be respectful and ask God to help me with my sin. Whatever. That's why I'm grateful for grace -- which God says that he wants desperately to extend to everyone who will have it. The worse sin, it would seem to me, is saying that my sin is less than someone else's and trying to set up an obstacle between them (and their sin) receiving the grace that God has so generously and freely given me when I do not and have not ever deserved it.

I can only guess it's coming to a head because both abortion and gay marriage are becoming government mandated.

As far as the church is concerned and its priorities, I can only speak personally that marriage was a huge issue in our church and many resources were spend on the covenant marriage. Our pastor spoke a lot about once you're married, it's supposed to be permanent and it's incumbent upon both partners to work out any issues you may have.

Oh, and he also spoke about pornography as well - even something as "harmless" as the movies you'll find in almost every hotel room in the US.

Oddly, I don't remember our church ever speaking about gay marriage or its policy for/against. As you all said, too many other problems to be concerned over.

Just a side note as it is part of my world, there is a lot of academic discussion on what Shakespeare wrote. There are several different versions of Shakespeare's plays and the "modern" version that most everyone reads or performs is certainly not a copy of the original text.

So a person born and raised in a rural area of China and has the misfortune of never being exposed to Christianity - that person is going to Hell, right?

Vulgarities aside, this is a pretty strong argument.

Blasphemy against God, His Son, the Holy Spirit, the Word and the Church is a clear sin but the Phariseatic tradition (as well as late religious traditions) made it punishable by death. But Saul was a blasphemer and a persecutor but he obtained mercy and forgiveness (as recorded in Timothy) and become Paul. Blasphemy against the Spirit cannot be forgiven for that simply means that one did not repent and did not receive the free grace and mercy (hardened against the gospel message) - a true, unrepentent unbeliever.

I have only looked at a few posts here... is this thread worth reading in depth, or is it much like the Bible... something that most people do just fine with catching the highlights.

Chris, that is a common question and not an easy answer. I don't know what they will be held accountable for but the path to salvation is a narrow one and cannot change. But you, I and many here have heard the gospel message and will be held accountable for our response to it. And as a believer, it is our responsibility to get the gospel message out to everyone.

Pretty good read, I'd say.

It got CrimsonFox boxed, so I would say it was wholly worth it.

As a quick response bhlloy and drake (since I need to get to work and I'm on my iPhone), hypocrisy against the Word has been going on for a long time. Jesus several times slammed the Pharisees with their outward appearance of piety but their hearts were still evil. Sin is very much prevalent not only in our cultures but in our churches as well (many false teachers and deceivers). All those show the condition of man and the need for true repentance and redemption but most will go through the wide gate and not the narrow more difficult one. What men preaches and teaches can be like the Pharisees and one should not base their faith upon man and his institutions, only upon the Word, God's revelation to us.

how did CF get boxed? was there a post deleted?

Wondering about that as well.

I think it is the general acting like an asshat troll rule. Not that I agree he was acting like one, but his general comments that were OT of the thread might have done it?

Looking through the last few pages, my opinion he was going above and beyond the usual sarcasm/mockery that we expect. Think he hit critical asshattery mass.

"We have a place for babies like you...THE BOX!"

Nailed it, so glad I played risky and avoided the parlay.

Indeed. Good call.

This line has stuck with me, I guess I take a more sociological view. In the case of every other religion, the "manipulation of the doctrine" is used by detractors as conclusive evidence of a religions illegitimacy.

For example, Bucc said, "God's words has not, does not and can not change and is inerrant in its original manuscript as something God-inspired can only be." This statement could (more or less) be claimed by a Jew, Muslim and even Hindu.

In nearly every case, religions provide a social, political and economic framework for a community. The need for a religious "sacred canopy" to protect a community from fear, death, chaos, and selfishness has been a necessary quality for any civilization to survive. (Certainly since Civ IV ;) )

In essence, to a Christian, the only difference between the western christian sacred canopy and all others, is they are merely spiritually right. However, in function, stability and meaningfulness, they are the same as every other one. Moreover, when a religion fails, it is not because it is proved wrong, rather, it is that it ceases to fulfill its essential function of meaningfulness and stability to a community; thus creating an opening for the uncontent to revolt (see Jesus, Luther, Stalin).

One can make the argument that the decline in religious attendance in America is not because the faith has been proven wrong, but that medicine, sports teams, political parties and internet forums are providing more meaningfulness and stability. Where religious memberships are increasing in the world, science, leisure and liberty are weak.

The statement that other sacred claim the same is not true, as far as I can tell. The other religious works does not include the same prophetic content and certainly not the fulfillment of prophesy. Also (pasted from another site) the writings from the Far East, the teachings of Confucius, Buddhism and Hinduism do not even make a claim to be God’s word. They present to their followers a path to a simpler, more satisfactory life. The Muslim Koran makes no claims to being words from Allah. Rather it is the writing of Mohammed, a religious leader, his record of history as well as his desire for the future. But has any prophecy in the Koran come to pass? Only the Christian Bible claims to be God’s very word to man and only the Bible contains the verifiable track record of prophetic fulfillment as evidence of its claims. Biblical prophecies are batting 1000. No other religious group or religious writings can make the same claim. (Bible references related to this article: Jeremiah 25.11, Daniel 9.1-5, John 1.1-5)

Bible prophecies are batting 1000? Ok, I'm checking out of this thread and it's zaniness...

*weeps*

Yeah. Nothing good is gonna come from going down that road.

Really?

I can write a book that claims to be God's own word to man too. No big deal there.

And not sure what NON-BIBLICAL evidence there is of Biblical prophecies batting 1000?

Because I can write a book that claims to be God's own word to man that attests that a bunch of things that the book itself prophecies also came true. That's not hard.

Surely you don't want me to list them all and their fulfillment? ;)

What the huh?

You have as much chance as writing something Biblical as Joseph Smith does.

I'm no religious scholar, but I do know that the Natyasastra (The Holy Book of Theatre)has an authorship tradition very much like the Bible. It was compiled by Bharata, but all the knowledge was provided directly from Brahma.

:D

In general, one can say other religions see Christianity as the story of the prophet Jesus. In general, their argument is that the prophet of their religion got the full message, not Jesus. Jews, Muslims, Mormons all believe their prophets have a truth that is greater (word of god, god inspired, etc) than the one Jesus proclaimed. In Hinduism, the main text is believed to be divinely inspired and is translated as "Revealed." Again, they would say that which is revealed to them is more complete than that which was revealed to Jesus.

The problem comes in trying to "prove" which prophet is correct. It is this desire that has caused the majority of the suffering and cruelty of religions.

“Preach the gospel at all times. Use words if necessary.” St Francis.

An author wrote on this issue that if you are to take ten works of Shakespeare and see how authentic they are compared to the originals. The authenticity of the Bible is still stronger. I know he started as an atheist and tried to go out and disprove Christianity only to become a believer himself. I think his books have more notes than a number of school books I have read.

FYI, one of my pastors ripped on that phrase, and I agree with him. Without words, a Christian's actions are no different than a non-believer's.

The problem with that is our lack of an "original" version. He was probably talking about the First Folio, but that was compiled and published after Shakespeare's death.

Uh... that's not at all true for Mormons. They don't claim that Joseph Smith had some greater truth than Jesus. They claim that he restored the Gospel as it was with Jesus.

This is just incorrect. The Koran is supposed to be Mohammed transcribing God speaking to him. That is why the Koran is not allowed to be translated - because Mohammed wrote God's word in Arabic and it should stay like that for all time. Obviously, Christianity has a diffierent viewpoint - but then again, Biblical literalism is a relatively new concept (like last 200 years)


Here is the problem I have with the prophecy statement. Some prophecy HAS come true, but then when it doesn't, some Christians like to say, oh well that obviously means the end of time. Such as the Book of Daniel - it really nails the reign of Antioches Epiphanies, up until his death. Conservative Christians like to wave it away by saying instantly Daniel goes from BC era to the end of days, which makes little to no sense.

Men wrote down the revelations of God that they witnessed. Eyewitness reports are usually very accurate (that's why they are given such power in courts), but not perfectly so. We must remember the Bible is not itself revelation, but a record of revelation. Bibolatry is just as idolatry as anything else.

I will side with St. Francis, one of the biggest lights of the Church. You are to act like Jesus with love towards neighbor in such a way that people are drawn to that light and ask why you are acting in the way you are acting. That's when you say it is the light of Jesus, the Son of God, King of Kings, Lord and Savior of Creation.

People are drawn to those whose faith results in action, not mere words & especially not words promoting fear (if you don't believe you'll end up in Hell, etc).

Seriously Bucc? In what way has the Bible been prophetic except in parallel's? And your logic that other religions don't claim to the word of god is silly - that's exactly what Muslims believe the Quran is. Its hard to take you seriously on this when you don't demonstrate even a cursory knowledge of the other belief systems you're making claims about.

Dola, I see Imran already made the same point.

My earlier post was sloppy and posted without much thought or clarification. Sorry.

The prophecies mentioned were the prophecies of the Messiah fulfilled in Jesus Christ - all from the OT (54 of them).

Well that's nothing if not a circular example.

The NT fulfilling the prophecies of the OT does not make the NT any more accurate a historic source as it does not address any of the issues regarding the accuracy of the NT...

Not going to read this thread or post in it, as I have friends from FB here (which I never go to), but I'm assuming it's going to be a case of "Gangbang a Christian".

Facebook and FOFC has really changed the way I communicate. I'm not sure I think that's a good thing.

There are several early non-Christian writers outside of the Bible that spoke to events of Christ and the early church. The list I have includes Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, Emperor Trajan, the Talmud, Lucian, Mara Bar-Serapion and Acts of Pontius Pilate as referenced by Justin Martyr. But I go back to my earlier point about the sheer number of ancient manuscripts close to the time of the events of the 1st century and even if we had no manuscripts, nearly all of the NT can be reconstructed by the writings of the early church fathers. I understand the point of comparing to other ancient writings (where the earliest manuscripts can date to 1000 years later) in that no one is basing their life (or death) on those but the evidence is there if you chose to research what we have and see how the message have remained unchanged in all of those years since the early centuries.

The thing with any book containing prophecies is its 'accuracy' is entirely dependent on how detailed it is in the descriptions of its predictions.

Its no coincidence imho that any 'accurate' books have incredibly vague wording and symbolism for their predictions - this allows each generation to read into the texts something which makes sense to them ....

If you doubt this look at any writing which predicts the future which still has supporters indicating it has credibility - ie. Nostradamus etc.

You might want to read a little more regarding other religions beliefs and suchlike, many many religions have made claims regarding such things ..

Prophecy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What did crimsonfox do?

I'm curious as to Revrew's view on Catholics.

Marc, I did admit that it was a sloppy post. That's what I get for posting quickly on my phone instead of waiting till I got home.

+1

I was waiting for someone to come into this thread and make a reasonable facsimile of my argument on this topic.

That'll do Pig. That'll do.

:) good post.


Edit for when my wife reads this post. I don't know anything about these co-eds Drake is talking about.

BTW, the list you have is essentially complete - these are all the sources for a historical Jesus. None of them come even within the first decades following his death and, more importantly, none make any reference to a fantastic, divine, miraculous, deeds. They are merely used to demonstrate that Jesus existed - NOT that the events of the NT occurred.

Tacitus was born some years after Christ would have died, and his text on Christians was written around 116, so 80-90 years after Christ. From him we get a brief description of the crucifix and on Christian persecution. No mention of miracles, etc.

Non-contemporary, and dated after the earliest Christian texts were written anyway.

Born at least 30-40 years after Christ would have died. Again, very brief, mentions Christians, historians debate whether he was actually referring to Jesus Christ, and even if so, it's non-contemporary and contains no miracles/wonderous tales etc.

'Josephus on Jesus' Written around 60-70 years after Jesus would have died. Mentions Christians and Jesus, nothing miraculous again. Parts of it widely considered interpolated later, but even this particular part of the text was regarding Jewish persecution IIRC, and nothing 'divine'.


Nothing survives outside of a c. 221 AD reference to a history written by Thallus around 52 AD, so maybe 2 decades after Christ. Contains a story about an exlipse and earthquake that could be linked to a gospel episode.

Born around 30 years after Christ. Simply mentions Christians who worship "Christus" rather than the Roman Emperor.

Trajan was the recipient of Pliny's letter that mentioned Christus and the Christians above.

The Talmud was written between the 2nd and 5th centuries, putting it well out of the contemporary timeframe, and it's almost certain that parts of it were based directly on NT texts anyway.

Born nearly 100 years after Christ. Insulted Christians and may have included a reference to Jesus' crucifiction. That is it.

Mara's letter to his son was written sometime between 73 AD and the 3rd Century. Not contemporary, and, at best, it might contain an early reference to the crucifixion of Jesus.

A forgery from the 4th Century at best guess. Clearly written in different hands etc. Read the wiki page on 'Acts of Pilate' for the full info.


I'm sorry but that's completely wrong. NONE of the NT can be reconstructed by the above documents. Only, a) that Christians existed in the decades following the supposed death of Jesus and that, b) someone named Jesus Christ probably existed around that time. That's it.

I must have missed this first time through, but I couldn't agree with this more. We minimize the sins that we might be tempted by or even partake in and demonize the ones that have very little effect on our life or we are confident that we won't be ostracized for speaking out against. Refreshing honesty and an attitude that would possibly draw me back if I thought it was shared on any real level within the church.

Interestingly enough, and very surprising for me when I read up on Islamic history last year, Islam has a similar problem with their prophet too, which is more worrying considering he came centuries closer to our time.

You misunderstood. The early church fathers would not include any of the above documents. I was refuted the claim that there were no evidence of a historical Jesus. Besides, I'll give you a new list: Eusebius, Irenaeus, Clement of Rome, Ignatius and Tatian.

There were so many accounts in the early 2nd-4th centuries of the phenomenal rise of Christianity (esp. consider that some believe it came out of a delusional sect of illiterates) that there had to be something more than saying that Jesus did not exist or refuting His claims (and those of his followers). It would not have spread much outside of Judea, let alone Samaria and into Asia Minor and the seat of the Roman empire; nor would we have had the consistency of the Scriptures for 1600-1700+ years or the spread into every nation on earth. In other words, the same gospel message that Paul spread to Rome (or Pat Rick in Ireland if you would accept a couple of centuries later) and gospel message we have today. The early spread was into several different cultures and it was done by the Spirit instead of by force or by warfare (which, unfortunately later "missionaries" failed to learn).

Anyone can deny that Jesus was the Son of God but many learned (and unlearned) people have not and that's the point: it is your choice to believe based on the evidence we do have and the claims made in the Scriptures.

And I think that was revrew's original intent - not to cherry-pick something out and make it a super sin. But one must not also make it less of a sin either.

Pick any denomination of Christianity, the issue isn't what church you belong to, but the condition of your own heart and faith. There are many Christians within Catholicism and many within the Catholic Church who are not. The same can be said of Baptists, Methodists, etc., etc.

I don't agree with wide patches of Catholic theology, but again, the same could be said of just about any denomination.

The point of this thread, however, was understanding and interpreting the OT. In my original post, I pointed out that the system I presented was widely accepted among Protestant/Evangelicals, and that I'm uncertain of a Catholic approach to the OT.

Full disclosure: I grew up Catholic, though left the church in my teens