?s about Xtianity but were afraid to ask

01/20/2009 05:33:15 PM · #251

Originally posted by yanko:

Number 3) is tough to swallow. Are you implying that Paul was the only one, 10 years later or thereabouts, able to successfully spread the word? All those romans and others were incapable? Mind you, I'm not talking about spreading his praise or honor but just a direct or indirect spreading of the news of his existence and such via official records, gossip and the like.

No, maybe you misunderstand my arguement. #3 is based on the fact Paul says he was originally running around trying to stop these people. Christians were a threat to the establishment and as a Pharisee Paul had an interest in stopping them. However, if there were only a few Christians it's unlikely it would have been worth running around doing this. I think it's quite reasonable to assume that within 10 years (and possibly much earlier), there were enough people claiming Jesus rose from the dead to be considered a problem by the Jewish establishment. I cannot see how we can get to this position if Jesus was a mythical figure.

01/20/2009 05:44:02 PM · #252

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

To the few who can look at that and still claim Jesus was made up and never existed, I can only shrug my shoulders.

Well, Doc, I assume this one was aimed at someone who might think as I do, that Jesus may have been a Hero with a Thousand Faces, so right back atcha.

Originally posted by HeraldTibune:

//www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/06/mideast/tablet.php

"A 3-foot-tall tablet with 87 lines of Hebrew that scholars believe dates from the decades just before the birth of Jesus is causing a quiet stir in biblical and archaeological circles, especially because it may speak of a messiah who will rise from the dead after three days.

If such a messianic description really is there, it will contribute to a developing re-evaluation of both popular and scholarly views of Jesus, because it suggests that the story of his death and resurrection was not unique but part of a recognized Jewish tradition at the time."

It's not as cut-and-dried as one might hope. If you're comfortable that the information collected from that time period is as reliable as that which was gathered today about Obama's inauguration, what can I say? There are some, with much more time invested in the question than I, that have come to different conclusions. Here is another article that will leave you shrugging even further, I guess.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

01/20/2009 05:58:45 PM · #253

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

To the few who can look at that and still claim Jesus was made up and never existed, I can only shrug my shoulders.

The existence of Jesus was not in question. Rather, note that Paul, as a contemporary of Jesus, does not mention virgin birth, healing the sick, feeding the masses, or any other living miracle. The resurrection is assumed (and conflicts in basic detail with other biblical accounts), and any references to the words or teachings of Jesus came from a third party. Yet Paul is literally the star "witness" to events of that time.

01/20/2009 06:02:23 PM · #254

Hero with a Thousand Faces? At least you could have brought up Mithras. Man, I miss Louis.

So explain to me like I'm a four-year-old how your links (I read three of them) refute my line of thinking. I understand how you could infer "hey, Jesus is just another story", but how does it specifically refute a historical Jesus when Paul claims to have fought against people who fully believed Jesus was real and died and rose again?

01/20/2009 06:24:40 PM · #255

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Hundreds of thousands as a part of 2.1 billion? We're talking thousandths of a percent. I know it's not insignificant to you, being married to one, but in the big scheme, it's small.

There are hundreds of thousands of Christian Scientists
Millions of Mormons
Millions of Jehovah's Witnesses
There are also Unitarians, Certain Pentacostal Groups, The United Church of God, and many, many smaller groups and religious orders who do not subscribe to the idea of the trinity.

In addition, I would argue that of that 2.1 billion number, many are people who have rarely if ever set foot in a church, couldn't describe the trinity if hit them on the head (so to speak), and, in general, figure they have to answer a questionnaire with some answer and thus fall back on stating they are a christian so they fit in.

It would seem that, if differing groups find different answers within the same book, the bible, then the book does not emphatically state that one is true and the other is not. Indeed, it is stated by religious groups that believe in the trinity that the bible implies the existence of a trinity, but nowhere emphatically states it. It would seem again, a point of interpretation, much like the interpretation of many other controversial issues. Just because a larger group agrees to a consensus, does not make that consensus any more 'true.'

01/20/2009 06:40:13 PM · #256

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To the few who can look at that and still claim Jesus was made up and never existed, I can only shrug my shoulders.

The existence of Jesus was not in question.

You are off again Shannon. Barker called the Easter story a Myth. Perhaps you weren't arguing it, but it was the original contention.

01/20/2009 06:41:33 PM · #257

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Mithras is another of the syncretic gods, sure, but I'll let you wax nostalgic for Louis.

First of all, how does Paul's claim to have persecuted "Christians" in any way infer an actual Jesus? Secondly, where, other than then letters of Paul, is this supposed pogrom recorded? Also note...many of the skeptical biblical scholars point to Paul's writings as evidence that early Christians did not consider Jesus to have lived in the contemporary times, but rather as a pre-historic, mythical figure. From the Wiki on Earl Doherty:

Originally posted by Earl Doherty:

Doherty argues that Paul and other writers of the earliest existing proto-Christian Gnostic documents did not believe in Jesus as a person who incarnated on Earth in an historical setting. Rather, they believed in Jesus as a mythical hero who suffered his sacrificial death in the lower spheres of heaven in the hands of the demon spirits, and was subsequently resurrected by God. This Christ myth was not based on a tradition reaching back to a historical Jesus, but on the Old Testament exegesis in the context of Jewish-Hellenistic religious syncretism heavily influenced by Platonism, and what the authors believed to be mystical visions of a risen Jesus.

I'm afraid that might be beyond a 4-year old, though, sorry.

01/20/2009 06:46:14 PM · #258

Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Hundreds of thousands as a part of 2.1 billion? We're talking thousandths of a percent. I know it's not insignificant to you, being married to one, but in the big scheme, it's small.

There are hundreds of thousands of Christian Scientists
Millions of Mormons
Millions of Jehovah's Witnesses
There are also Unitarians, Certain Pentacostal Groups, The United Church of God, and many, many smaller groups and religious orders who do not subscribe to the idea of the trinity.

In addition, I would argue that of that 2.1 billion number, many are people who have rarely if ever set foot in a church, couldn't describe the trinity if hit them on the head (so to speak), and, in general, figure they have to answer a questionnaire with some answer and thus fall back on stating they are a christian so they fit in.

It would seem that, if differing groups find different answers within the same book, the bible, then the book does not emphatically state that one is true and the other is not. Indeed, it is stated by religious groups that believe in the trinity that the bible implies the existence of a trinity, but nowhere emphatically states it. It would seem again, a point of interpretation, much like the interpretation of many other controversial issues. Just because a larger group agrees to a consensus, does not make that consensus any more 'true.'

Billions is a big number. Even millions don't make a big dent. Anyway, I'll also say it's not fair to only take the "true believers" of one group (the mainstream Christians) but not do so with the other groups. How many of those Millions fall into the same category of apathy?

I can agree with your last statement, I'll just say it does make the lack of consensus less important if only a small % disbelieves. There are actually flat earth people out there, but I'd certainly argue we have a consensus that the earth is a sphere.

We don't need to get caught up though. I affirm your statement that not every person under the very general umbrella of Christianity believes in the Trinity. (I will point out that each and every group you listed at least down to the Unitarians are considered "non-Christian" by most official denominations (protestant and catholic)). I challenge you to find any official document or webpage by a traditional denomination that speaks to those four groups you mentioned and says "we welcome them as brothers in Christ" or something to that effect. I don't think you'll find it.

01/20/2009 06:57:35 PM · #259

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

We don't need to get caught up though. I affirm your statement that not every person under the very general umbrella of Christianity believes in the Trinity. (I will point out that each and every group you listed at least down to the Unitarians are considered "non-Christian" by most official denominations (protestant and catholic)). I challenge you to find any official document or webpage by a traditional denomination that speaks to those four groups you mentioned and says "we welcome them as brothers in Christ" or something to that effect. I don't think you'll find it.

the reason they are considered un-christian is because they don't agree with the idea of the Trinity. So now we come to the question, "What makes a christian christian?" What is the minimum required set of beliefs that, when believed, allows the majority group to consider the minority group a member? It can't just be belief in Jesus Christ (Muslims believe in Jesus Christ but as a prophet). What are they?

01/20/2009 06:57:54 PM · #260

Originally posted by david_c:

First of all, how does Paul's claim to have persecuted "Christians" in any way infer an actual Jesus? Secondly, where, other than then letters of Paul, is this supposed pogrom recorded? Also note...many of the skeptical biblical scholars point to Paul's writings as evidence that early Christians did not consider Jesus to have lived in the contemporary times, but rather as a pre-historic, mythical figure. From the Wiki on Earl Doherty:

Originally posted by Earl Doherty:
Doherty argues that Paul and other writers of the earliest existing proto-Christian Gnostic documents did not believe in Jesus as a person who incarnated on Earth in an historical setting. Rather, they believed in Jesus as a mythical hero who suffered his sacrificial death in the lower spheres of heaven in the hands of the demon spirits, and was subsequently resurrected by God. This Christ myth was not based on a tradition reaching back to a historical Jesus, but on the Old Testament exegesis in the context of Jewish-Hellenistic religious syncretism heavily influenced by Platonism, and what the authors believed to be mystical visions of a risen Jesus.

I'm afraid that might be beyond a 4-year old, though, sorry.

Paul's persecution of the church is noted in Acts, I Corinthians, Philemon, and 1 Timothy.

Multiple times in Acts do the Apostles claim to have seen these things with their own eyes. That seems to go against the idea they "believed in Jesus as a mythical hero". Even if we say Acts was fabricated, why wouldn't they fabricate it to assume the "mythical hero" if it was how early Christians really viewed things. I just have to call so much BS on that. These skeptics are looking for sensationalism and to sell books. They are dismissed by nearly all secular scholars of the New Testament.

01/20/2009 07:00:12 PM · #261

Originally posted by dahkota:

I disagree. The reason they are considered un-Christian is they do not ascribe to the divinity of Christ. (Mormons actually not quite, but Mormons also believe in their own version of the Trinity "three beings of one purpose". At least that's the way it was describe by the last Mormons I talked to.)

Message edited by author 2009-01-20 19:01:30.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

01/20/2009 07:54:28 PM · #262

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To the few who can look at that and still claim Jesus was made up and never existed, I can only shrug my shoulders.

The existence of Jesus was not in question.

You are off again Shannon. Barker called the Easter story a Myth. Perhaps you weren't arguing it, but it was the original contention.

I repeat: the existence of Jesus was not in question, and now add that YOU are off. WAY off. The context of Barker's challenge only questioned the supernatural story, not the existence of the person. Jesus may very well have existed, had followers, and been crucified as hundreds of other people were... and the Easter story could still be a myth. His point was that given such an important event, you'd expect the four gospels and Paul to at least agree on basic accounts of who was there and what happened (and on what day). Barker gives a much deeper analysis here, and while he suggests in that discussion that he doesn't believe the person existed either, it's irrelevant for the challenge.

01/20/2009 07:58:10 PM · #263

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Paul's persecution of the church is noted in Acts, I Corinthians, Philemon, and 1 Timothy.

But these are Paul's, no? Acts, I think, is ascribed to Luke, but not without contention. Any other records beyond canonical scripture?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Even if we say Acts was fabricated, why wouldn't they fabricate it to assume the "mythical hero" if it was how early Christians really viewed things. I just have to call so much BS on that.

Why would they? If Acts was fabricated post-Paul, they were fabricating these Early Christians, weren't they? Would it have looked silly for Paul to be persecuting these zealots for a myth, so we had to make it a real character? I dunno, you'd have to ask someone smrter than me. I don't pretend to be anything other than a dilettante. Even says so in my profile.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

These skeptics are looking for sensationalism and to sell books. They are dismissed by nearly all secular scholars of the New Testament.

uhm, these are a cross-section of the secular scholars of the NT...you know, like Price, Crossan, et al. It's the theologians and apologetics that are attempting to ridicule the idea, in an effort to maintain their status quo. At least, in my opinion.

01/20/2009 08:00:53 PM · #264

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To the few who can look at that and still claim Jesus was made up and never existed, I can only shrug my shoulders.

The existence of Jesus was not in question.

You are off again Shannon. Barker called the Easter story a Myth. Perhaps you weren't arguing it, but it was the original contention.

I repeat: the existence of Jesus was not in question, and now add that YOU are off. WAY off. The context of Barker's challenge only questioned the supernatural story, not the existence of the person. Jesus may very well have existed, had followers, and been crucified as hundreds of other people were... and the Easter story could still be a myth. His point was that given such an important event, you'd expect the four gospels and Paul to at least agree on basic accounts of who was there and what happened (and on what day). Barker gives a much deeper analysis here, and while he suggests in that discussion that he doesn't believe the person existed either, it's irrelevant for the challenge.

OK, if nobody is arguing Jesus didn't exist, then I got no beef with them. They can evaluate the idea of his divinity themselves. Oops, Barker WAS saying he's a myth after all. Oh well. BTW, your link is a rehash of David's link.

Anyway, if we all agree Jesus was at least historical then that's fine.

01/20/2009 08:11:15 PM · #265

Originally posted by david_c:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Paul's persecution of the church is noted in Acts, I Corinthians, Philemon, and 1 Timothy.

But these are Paul's, no? Acts, I think, is ascribed to Luke, but not without contention. Any other records beyond canonical scripture?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Even if we say Acts was fabricated, why wouldn't they fabricate it to assume the "mythical hero" if it was how early Christians really viewed things. I just have to call so much BS on that.

Why would they? If Acts was fabricated post-Paul, they were fabricating these Early Christians, weren't they? Would it have looked silly for Paul to be persecuting these zealots for a myth, so we had to make it a real character? I dunno, you'd have to ask someone smrter than me. I don't pretend to be anything other than a dilettante. Even says so in my profile.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
These skeptics are looking for sensationalism and to sell books. They are dismissed by nearly all secular scholars of the New Testament.

uhm, these are a cross-section of the secular scholars of the NT...you know, like Price, Crossan, et al. It's the theologians and apologetics that are attempting to ridicule the idea, in an effort to maintain their status quo. At least, in my opinion.

NOBODY ascribes Acts to Paul.

Anyway, my point about the easy refutation that early Christians "believed in Jesus as a mythical hero" is to simply look at the writings of early Christians. Even if the writings don't document actual events (which I believe they do, but assuming they don't) nobody disputes they were written by early Christians. So IF early Christians believed Jesus was a mythical hero, why don't we see it evident in their writings, especially if they had the luxury of making it up as they went along. You don't believe Jesus was mythical and then write an account in the manner of Acts or Luke.

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, 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, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

01/20/2009 08:59:10 PM · #266

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Ummm...do you have some examples of which "do not ascribe to the divinity of Christ?"

01/20/2009 09:39:28 PM · #267

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, 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, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

Well, it's right about here that my eyes usually glaze over. I'll put it to you this way, Doc: even if there is an historical figure at the centre of this movement, there are many theories as to who he might have been. It seems not all would agree that the early christian writers saw it as you do now....

//www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

01/21/2009 01:15:19 AM · #268

Originally posted by david_c:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, 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, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

Well, it's right about here that my eyes usually glaze over. I'll put it to you this way, Doc: even if there is an historical figure at the centre of this movement, there are many theories as to who he might have been. It seems not all would agree that the early christian writers saw it as you do now....

//www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

OK, fair enough. We can disagree.

01/21/2009 01:29:53 AM · #269

Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I disagree. The reason they are considered un-Christian is they do not ascribe to the divinity of Christ. (Mormons actually not quite, but Mormons also believe in their own version of the Trinity "three beings of one purpose". At least that's the way it was describe by the last Mormons I talked to.)

Ummm...do you have some examples of which "do not ascribe to the divinity of Christ?"

I may have made things a bit more black and white than they are. I actually learned a bit trying to reply to you here. What I'll post as evidence for my position is the wiki Religious Perspectives on Jesus. Go down to the Christian section and then "alternative views". Note that all the groups we are talking about (except Mormonism) are spoken of under this section.

Perhaps we are splitting hairs when you say they are rejected for their view of the Trinity while I say it's their view of Jesus. The two are inter-related for sure and most of those groups are rejected for more reasons than just the ones we mention.

Mousie

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/21/2009 01:48:29 PM · #270

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Chinabun:
Serious Question...

What's wrong with all of you bible followers?

Serious answer: The same thing that is wrong with everybody. We are sinners. We cannot live up the the expectations we have for ourselves and it shows in the same ways all people tend to show: hypocricy, infighting, prejudice, selfishness, etc.

The Christian hopes the redemptive work of God in their life will help change that, but it's a lifelong process. The lighthearted way to answer all this is the saying, "Perfect people need not apply".

Here's one:

Why do (the majority of vocal) religious people constantly insist on applying their irrelevant standards to those who do not live under the same system of which they are a part?

I am yet again offended by the ease with which the religious Christian denigrates all those around them as flawed and failing short in the eyes of their god, even in the face of repeated requests in this very forum to keep their judgements reserved for their own kind, or better, dropping the hipocracy altogether and 'judging not' as is mandated by their god. The typical response is to such a request is, however: "No. You ARE a sinner! Because God says so and God is truth!"

I was born free of sin, and I've maintained that state ever since. I'm not a sinner. Calling me a sinner is like me calling you a complete, undeniable failure because you haven't satisfied some arbitrary litmus of my personal belief system. God knows I'm sorely tempted to do just that.

Message edited by author 2009-01-21 13:49:29.

01/21/2009 02:02:29 PM · #271

Originally posted by Mousie:

Why do (the majority of vocal) religious people constantly insist on applying their irrelevant standards to those who do not live under the same system of which they are a part?

I am yet again offended by the ease with which the religious Christian denigrates all those around them as flawed and failing short in the eyes of their god, even in the face of repeated requests in this very forum to keep their judgements reserved for their own kind, or better, dropping the hipocracy altogether and 'judging not' as is mandated by their god. The typical response is to such a request is, however: "No. You ARE a sinner! Because God says so and God is truth!"

I was born free of sin, and I've maintained that state ever since. I'm not a sinner. Calling me a sinner is like me calling you a complete, undeniable failure because you haven't satisfied some arbitrary litmus of my personal belief system. God knows I'm sorely tempted to do just that.

Hey Mousie. Nice of you to join us. The answer is purely a tension between being called not to judge and being called to defend your values. It is a very difficult line to walk (especially since human nature is prone to judgement and hypocricy). I don't know what more to say.

I certainly can understand that natural pushback people will give you when you say things like your last paragraph. It is obviously intended to stand in direct opposition to what people may believe about humanity in general (rather than you in specific). So perhaps a part of the answer to your question is they "constantly insist" on judging you because you force them to do so. In some of your posts I've seen you are not satisfied with a polite refusal to judgement. You want people to judge and find in your favor. When you force them to make a choice, why are you surprised when they say "I do not agree."?

Anyway, I've always been impressed when Paul says, "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?" I don't go looking to judge people. However, if someone asks my opinion, I will state what I believe even if it sounds judgemental. I find that to be the best way to walk that fence.

01/21/2009 02:29:14 PM · #272

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Now we are back to my question. In my opinion, those alternative views are Christian. In your opinion, they are not. What makes them non-christian to you? I'm trying to get to a definition of a christian here, from you. Not a wiki definition, a Dr. Achoo one. If I was to call myself a christian, what would I be required to hold true? It can' be following the old and new testament and it can't be a belief in Jesus. There must be something else with which you define it.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

01/21/2009 02:31:49 PM · #273

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I will point out that each and every group you listed at least down to the Unitarians are considered "non-Christian" by most official denominations (protestant and catholic). I challenge you to find any official document or webpage by a traditional denomination that speaks to those four groups you mentioned and says "we welcome them as brothers in Christ" or something to that effect. I don't think you'll find it.

Well how very un-Christian to reject as brothers in Christ other "lesser" Christian religions. I swear every time I drop by this particular part of the forums I get more confused. In another thread, I believe it was noted that Catholics are not considered Christian by many.

So I kinda echo Courtenay's question of what defines "Christian"?

Mousie

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/21/2009 02:41:34 PM · #274

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I certainly can understand that natural pushback people will give you when you say things like your last paragraph. It is obviously intended to stand in direct opposition to what people may believe about humanity in general (rather than you in specific). So perhaps a part of the answer to your question is they "constantly insist" on judging you because you force them to do so. In some of your posts I've seen you are not satisfied with a polite refusal to judgement. You want people to judge and find in your favor. When you force them to make a choice, why are you surprised when they say "I do not agree."?

I would like to kindly point out that it was you who volunteered your judgement in respose to Chinabun's question about what is wrong with religious people. You chose not to keep it at the level of "religious people are sinners and predictably, faliably human" but expanded it to "we all ALL sinners", including people like me. Non-religious people.

You were in no way made to do so, and by implying that it's the statements of people like me who force your hand, when it seems clear that it's a judgement freely made even in the absence of any specific rhetorical challenges, it feels a bit like you're shooting the messenger.

In any case, if your assertion were true, I'd suggest we would have much less prostelyzation and fewer missionaries... religious folk would be content to live their own lives without going around trying to 'save' everyone else form threats that don't apply (like a quick trip to hell on a slide made of unrepentant 'sin'). It's undeniable that an overwhelming majority of the vocally religious forcibly place non-religious people within their belief systems, judge them accordingly, and then make that presumption very clear.

So again, why are are religious people emboldened to do this despite the grief and divisiveness it causes? I do not accept your answer that it is merely a resposne to outside pressure. Care to take another shot at it?

I'd posit that, as humans, it's awfully hard to restrain ourselves when we think we have the absolute, infallable authority (of God) behind us, and that other viewpoints simply pale in comparison once that mindset is adopted. Energized by this absolutism, tongues are loosened and consideration takes a back seat.

It's easy to see how a sense of absoulte authority could lead people into 'wrong' behavior. Heck, it can't be that hard to just call someone a sinner... people get burned alive over this kind of disagreement. Tossing around 'sinner' is a trifle in comparison, but that does not make it any more appropriate, or any less insulting.

Message edited by author 2009-01-21 14:43:22.