Who do you think Jesus was

Zombrex

Spinning this off from another thread. The original post from me was

Jakkass wrote: »

Where did Jesus ask them for this?

Who said he asked them for this? If he was doing it right he wouldn't have to ask them for anything. You would make a poor cult leader Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

I suspect they did it from their own hearts rather than being coerced.

That is because you are very naive. Let me guess, you think they really had demons in them that Jesus cured them of as well. Cause sure no one has ever done that trick before.

Jakkass wrote: »

I think your reading is absurd to be honest with you.

Really? Absurd? You would go so far as saying this is absurd?

Jesus and his gang strolls up to a sick (and rich) woman.
Jesus claims that the woman is sick because of demons, but Good News! Jesus is special so can cure individuals of these things!
Jesus then "cures" this woman of these demons.
This woman is so greatful she wants to help Jesus.
Jesus says well come with us and lets help others (by of course funding these missions to help others).

You can swap out "Jesus" with "Jim Jones" or practically any other cult leader from the last 6,000 years and the MO is exactly the same.

Yes, very absurd.

It may be absurd to a Christian, but to me it seems a rather reasonable explanation or narrative for Jesus without the need to invoke any supernatural explanation.

Jesus was a cult leader who manipulated people into worshipping him, following him and providing for him through claims to supernatural ability. Like the thousands of cult leaders before and after him.

He eventually ran a foul of the authorities of the day and ended up being executed.

Unable to deal with the reality that their all powerful cult leader was executed a story that he had rising from the dead developed.

Seems pretty reasonable to me, with some Biblical support (baring in mind that the Bible is an account filtered through Christians so critical information is not likely to be found in it).

Was just wondering what others think of how Jesus actually was, if you think he was actually someone at all.

oldrnwisr

Wicknight wrote: »

Was just wondering what others think of how Jesus actually was, if you think he was actually someone at all.

In the words of Gag Halfrunt:

Jesus is just zis guy, you know.

CerebralCortex

I have no evidence to make a decision myself but Richard Carrier seems to be someone who does. My suspicions are that he is a corruption of some historical figure or a group of historical figures put together.

francois

Probably a sunburnt mystic

Bannasidhe

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I have no evidence to make a decision myself but Richard Carrier seems to be someone who does. My suspicions are that he is a corruption of some historical figure or a group of historical figures put together.

A historical figure who threatened Roman Rule in some political way -hence his execution by crucifixion,a punishment reserved for treason.

We can be sure his name wasn't Jesus - the 'us' on the end making this a Roman name-most likely he was named Joshua. He would also more than likely have been married - he was referred to as 'Rabbi' and it was compulsory for Rabbis to be married. The most likely candidate for his wife is the woman later vilified as a prostitute - Mary Magdalene - naturally her name would not have been Mary but Miriam-as would Jesus' (Joshua's) mother's. M Magdelene's brother - Lazerus -is a documented historical figure, Eleazar ben Ya'ir, he commanded the fort at Masada during the Revolt against Rome in the 1st century.

In order for Paul to sell the idea of Christianity to Rome he had to remove the politics from the story.

gent9662

He was a guy that was preaching a new age idea which was innovative and fresh. Similar to what (and I don't in any way want to draw a direct comparison) Hitler did to the German people after world war 1.

CiaranMT

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I have no evidence to make a decision myself but Richard Carrier seems to be someone who does. My suspicions are that he is a corruption of some historical figure or a group of historical figures put together.

I'm thinking along the same lines. This comparison of Jesus to other historical figures and practices is a pretty handy guide for those interested.

Bannasidhe

dclane wrote: »

He was a guy that was preaching a new age idea which was innovative and fresh. Similar to what (and I don't in any way want to draw a direct comparison) Hitler did to the German people after world war 1.

The message Jesus spread was not actually that dissimilar to the one spread by Siddhartha - it was the polar opposite of Hitler's.

Hookah

After reading Phillip K Dick, I think Jesus was a magic mushroom popping member of the orgy-addled Essene cult.

He was a hippy way before Hippy-ism was even invented.

Peace and love, brothers and sisters.

krudler

The most misquoted man in history probably. Simple guy who preaching getting on with each other, fine , I can buy that, he was basically a biblical John Lennon. The magic tricks and zombie stuff was added in later to spice up the tale. The Life Of Brian got the biblical hysteria and hero worship angle brilliantly. Religion is basically the worlds biggest game of chinese whispers, blessed are the cheesemakers indeed.

MagicMarker

Well, he was a picker, a grinner, a lover and a sinner and he played music in the sun. He was a joker, a smoker, a mid-night toker and got his lovin' on the run. Some people even call him the space cowboy yeah.

philologos

krudler wrote: »

The most misquoted man in history probably. Simple guy who preaching getting on with each other, fine , I can buy that, he was basically a biblical John Lennon. The magic tricks and zombie stuff was added in later to spice up the tale. The Life Of Brian got the biblical hysteria and hero worship angle brilliantly. Religion is basically the worlds biggest game of chinese whispers, blessed are the cheesemakers indeed.

1. There is much more said by Jesus in the New Testament than merely getting on with eachother.
2. There is no significant textual evidence of the accounts of miracles being added into the New Testament. In fact the textual evidence points to the vast majority of it (at least 99.6% of it) being as it was when it was first written.

gent9662

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The message Jesus spread was not actually that dissimilar to the one spread by Siddhartha - it was the polar opposite of Hitler's.

Yes I agree with you. The point I was trying to get across is that he was a new voice and idea to a population of people that were being ruled by the Roman empire. Jesus offered a new sort of rule; the kingdom of God as opposed to the Empire of Rome. Hitler was an outspoken voice against the harsh treatment of Germany by the treaty of Versailles. He championed a belief in a new germany for the Germans, Jesus offered a new kingdom of heaven for gods children.

Hitler declared that he would fight and die for a new Germany for the Germans, whilst Jesus was to die for the sins of men to that they could be forgiven and enter the Kingdom of heaven.

Zombrex

Hookah wrote: »

He was a hippy way before Hippy-ism was even invented.

Another thing we can blame on Christianity then

Bannasidhe

dclane wrote: »

Yes I agree with you. The point I was trying to get across is that he was a new voice and idea to a population of people that were being ruled by the Roman empire. Jesus offered a new sort of rule; the kingdom of God as opposed to the Empire of Rome. Hitler was an outspoken voice against the harsh treatment of Germany by the treaty of Versailles. He championed a belief in a new germany for the Germans, Jesus offered a new kingdom of heaven for gods children.

Hitler declared that he would fight and die for a new Germany for the Germans, whilst Jesus was to die for the sins of men to that they could be forgiven and enter the Kingdom of heaven.

I see what you are saying but would argue that Jesus' message wasn't that new, Siddhartha had preached the same radical message of equality,non-materialism and inclusiveness 600 years earlier. Both were a direct threat to the political powers of the day - in particular their advocacy of following your conscience and living in an ethical way. Hitler's message was based on obeying the state at all costs and the destruction of those who did not conform.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

In fact the textual evidence points to the vast majority of it (at least 99.6% of it) being as it was when it was first written.

I don't agree with Krudler, I don't think Jesus was just a nice guy being misquoted, far more likely he was a cult leader trying to gain followers.

But equally what you just said there has no historical evidence for it at all. We don't have the first writings in the Bible, we don't have anything close to them. To say it hasn't been changed since it was first written has no support for it at all beyond supernatural faith.

gent9662

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I see what you are saying but would argue that Jesus' message wasn't that new, Siddhartha had preached the same radical message of equality,non-materialism and inclusiveness 600 years earlier. Both were a direct threat to the political powers of the day - in particular their advocacy of following your conscience and living in an ethical way. Hitler's message was based on obeying the state at all costs and the destruction of those who did not conform.

Yes I see what you mean. What jesus was offering was more or less the same as Siddhartha. I guess it was just that the timing was bang-on for JC.

Bannasidhe

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't agree with Krudler, I don't think Jesus was just a nice guy being misquoted, far more likely he was a cult leader trying to gain followers.

But equally what you just said there has no historical evidence for it at all. We don't have the first writings in the Bible, we don't have anything close to them. To say it hasn't been changed since it was first written has no support for it at all beyond supernatural faith.

Of course it was changed,edited,abridged with those gospels which were 'on message' included in the final version aka The Biblical Canon while those which dissented from the agree message being dismissed as apocryphal.

Bannasidhe

dclane wrote: »

Yes I see what you mean. What jesus was offering was more or less the same as Siddhartha. I guess it was just that the timing was bang-on for JC.

Didn't work out too bad for Siddhartha either - Buddhism is still going strong.

wonderfulname

I have a very romantic idea in my head of him being some kind of failed righteous political revolutionary, I know I got that into my head by colourfully interpreting something of merit but I'm not quite sure what.

I think the BBC or channel 4 did a documentary on the subject a while back, does anyone happen to know what it was called? All Google is giving me is "Did Jesus Die?" but that doesn't fit the profile.

b318isp

What was Jesus up to until he was baptised as an adult? Was he a PITA teenager? Did he join a youth club? If he was the son of God, I would have expected him to have shown many signs of it before his twenty's.

Bannasidhe

b318isp wrote: »

What was Jesus up to until he was baptised as an adult? Was he a PITA teenager? Did he join a youth club? If he was the son of God, I would have expected him to have shown many signs of it before his twenty's.

He was hanging out at the local market wearing an Elmo t-shirt and complaining about how unfair life is.

Always wondered about the Wedding at Cana - if Jesus and his Mam were guests, why were they the ones told the wine was running out and expected to do something about it? Story makes much more sense if Jesus was the groom-then the lack of booze would have been his problem to solve.

Zombrex

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Of course it was changed,edited,abridged with those gospels which were 'on message' included in the final version aka The Biblical Canon while those which dissented from the agree message being dismissed as apocryphal.

We can't say that either, though it is likely. The only complete copies of the Bible we have are dated a 200 years after the first copies would have been written and the earliest fragments are dated 70-100 years after the first copies would have been written.

If religious people want to take it on faith or divinely inspired revelation that these copies are identical to the original versions (themselves divinely inspired) they can, but it is silly to say that this is historically supported.

To the rest of us, for whom the Bible is just another religious book, it would be very surprising if the New Testament has survived editing and other alterations during its early life.

This isn't a shocking claim, if the Bible hadn't gone through this it would be one of the few books in history. And again if you aren't a believe in the supernatural claims of Christians there isn't much reason to assume the New Testament is special among all other books from history.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

But equally what you just said there has no historical evidence for it at all. We don't have the first writings in the Bible, we don't have anything close to them. To say it hasn't been changed since it was first written has no support for it at all beyond supernatural faith.

I'm saying that what Biblical scholarship we have demonstrates that he is more than likely wrong.

Although we don't have the absolute original manuscripts there are thousands of copies of them. All we have to do in order to see if changes are introduced is to compare the manuscripts to each other. What we've found is that there are very very few discrepancies between them. If changes were introduced they would have been caught red handed.

It might be a comfortable thing to believe in, but there is absolutely no evidence that the Bible was altered significantly beyond its original. At the very most there are 40 verses of the New Testament in doubt. Of these 40 verses the vast majority are merely repetitions of what are found in other Gospels which aren't in doubt.

The case is extremely weak at best. krudler is welcome to believe what he likes, but what evidence we have isn't in his favour or indeed in anyones favour if they postulate that the Bible was completely rewritten.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm saying that what Biblical scholarship we have demonstrates that he is more than likely wrong.

So we do or we don't have the original?

oldrnwisr

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm saying that what Biblical scholarship we have demonstrates that he is more than likely wrong.

Although we don't have the absolute original manuscripts there are thousands of copies of them. All we have to do in order to see if changes are introduced is to compare the manuscripts to each other. What we've found is that there are very very few discrepancies between them. If changes were introduced they would have been caught red handed.

It might be a comfortable thing to believe in, but there is absolutely no evidence that the Bible was altered significantly beyond its original. At the very most there are 40 verses of the New Testament in doubt. Of these 40 verses the vast majority are merely repetitions of what are found in other Gospels which aren't in doubt.

The case is extremely weak at best. krudler is welcome to believe what he likes, but what evidence we have isn't in his favour or indeed in anyones favour if they postulate that the Bible was completely rewritten.

I just have one question in relation to your posts. What modern version are you taking as the most accurate and to what "original" text are you comparing it to make the claim that there have been no significant changes?

The KJV, for example contains numerous verses which are ommitted from newer and ostensibly more accurate versions. There are also numerous differences between the Codices Sinaticus and Vaticanus. As for differences between different versions of the Bible these have been estimated at anything from 30,000 according to John Mill to 400,000 according to Bart Ehrmann. There are many examples of translational changes, deliberate alterations and in some cases (Mark 16:9-20) outright forgeries.

c_man

Jakkass wrote: »

1. There is much more said by Jesus in the New Testament than merely getting on with eachother.
2. There is no significant textual evidence of the accounts of miracles being added into the New Testament. In fact the textual evidence points to the vast majority of it (at least 99.6% of it) being as it was when it was first written.

Even if such a claim were true, it doesn't mean that the original stories put to paper weren't full of bs.

philologos

Now we're getting into the difference between translation, and manuscripts in original languages. In mentioning the KJV we are talking about the former and not the latter. Translations are going to differ because there are many ways one can translate one sentence from one language to another. I don't doubt this at all. What I do doubt is that translations become significantly different in meaning from each other on the basis of this translation.

As for Mark 16:9-20 it falls under the 40 verses in doubt that I've mentioned already. I can trust that Mark 16:9-20 nonetheless occurred because it is merely restating what is already in Matthew 28 which isn't in doubt.

c-man: They could be totally nonsense, that isn't what is being argued. What is being argued is that the New Testament manuscripts have been significantly altered, which is false as far as I can see.

c_man

Jakkass wrote: »

c-man: They could be totally nonsense, that isn't what is being argued. What is being argued is that the New Testament manuscripts have been significantly altered, which is false as far as I can see.

It's just the way I picked up on krudler's "The magic tricks and zombie stuff was added in later to spice up the tale."

oldrnwisr

CerebralCortex wrote: »

So we do or we don't have the original?

No, we don't have the original. The oldest extant copy of the new testament is in the Codex Vaticanus which is dated to the 4th century. The earliest manuscript for the new testament is the Rylands Library Papyrus P52 which is a copy of the gospel of John, which is dated between 117 and 138CE. The new testament exists on 25,100 manuscripts in a variety of different languages. Except for small passages, no two agree completely throughout. The Easter Sunday account in the Gospels is a perfect example. None of the four versions are the same. You have two angels outside the tomb in John, two men in Luke, one angel in Matthew and one young man in Mark.

Dave!

False prophet tbh

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm saying that what Biblical scholarship we have demonstrates that he is more than likely wrong.

No you haven't. Biblical scholarship has shown that after about 250AD there has been very little changes to New Testament.

Jakkass wrote: »

Although we don't have the absolute original manuscripts there are thousands of copies of them.

Not from the date range we are talking about.

Jakkass wrote: »

It might be a comfortable thing to believe in, but there is absolutely no evidence that the Bible was altered significantly beyond its original.

There is no evidence it wasn't. The surviving copies are editions far down the line from when the original manuscripts would have been produced, at a time when the church would have been small and scattered.

And since the vast vast vast majority of books are altered at some point it would be foolish to hold the New Testament as some how special in this regard, unless you wish to invoke supernatural claims.

This is of course before we get into the issue that the manuscripts are reflections of the oral history.

It would be very foolish to hold the New Testament up as some sort of special case in regard to historical transmission without any reason beyond faith in a supernatural director.

philologos

c_man wrote: »

It's just the way I picked up on krudler's "The magic tricks and zombie stuff was added in later to spice up the tale."

My point is that there is no evidence that this was the case, and indeed that there is Biblical scholarship that could question this strongly.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

My point is that there is no evidence that this was the case, and indeed that there is Biblical scholarship that could question this strongly.

So, do we have the originals?

Do we know who wrote them?

Do we know what changes were made?

Are we able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the authors were utterly reliable, utterly honest people who would not -- as was standard at the time -- make up speeches, events and entire panoramas in order to cast a particular light on the story?

oldrnwisr

Jakkass wrote: »

I can trust that Mark 16:9-20 nonetheless occurred because it is merely restating what is already in Matthew 28 which isn't in doubt.

How's that?

I'm talking about this Mark 16:9-20

Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

Where exactly is this (particularly the highlighted sections) stated in Matthew 28?

oldrnwisr

robindch wrote: »

1. So, do we have the originals?

2. Do we know who wrote them?

3. Do we know what changes were made?

4. Are we able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the authors were utterly reliable, utterly honest people who would not -- as was standard at the time -- make up speeches, events and entire panoramas in order to cast a particular light on the story?

1. No. See my earlier post for more details.


2. No.


3. We do have some idea of the changes made.

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

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

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


4. Hell no.

robindch

oldrnwisr wrote: »

No

Hey, I'm aware of that -- I'm interested to see Jakkass's response

oldrnwisr

robindch wrote: »

Hey, I'm aware of that -- I'm interested to see Jakkass's response

My bad.:o

philologos

robindch wants my answer:

No we don't have the originals, but we do have 40,000 manuscripts to compare. With this many manuscripts it would be nigh on impossible to make significant changes to the New Testament.

We do know who wrote most of the texts not all. Matthew, Mark do not explicitly mention who wrote each. There is evidence both in the text and in early church history that John wrote his Gospel, and Luke explicitly identifies himself in the text.

We know that 40 passages are in doubt. Of these passages the vast majority are repeated in other parts of the New Testament which aren't in doubt.

We don't know this, but it is incredibly unlikely that they would, or indeed even go out into the depths of the Roman Empire to risk their lives were it not true. This leads into an argument about the veracity of the Resurrection. One would have to ask what gain there would be in concocting such a story. Indeed one would have to ask why the New Testament invites such scrutiny and embarrassing details that would have been glossed over in Jewish society were they false:

1. Women were the first witnesses to the risen Jesus at a time when the testimony of a woman was half that of a man.
2. The New Testament publicises the sheer unbelief of the disciples after Jesus died to the extent of locking themselves in a room in fear for what the authorities would do them. Hardly the seal of those who firmly believed in the message of their teacher?
3. Paul mentions explicitly in the New Testament that there were 500 witnesses of the Resurrected Jesus. Witnesses that people could have visited were they curious about the truth of the Gospel.

If one wanted the New Testament not to be questioned why would it invite scrutiny like this? What it seems to be to me as far as I'm concerned, is the full, raw and honest truth.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

We don't know this, but it is incredibly unlikely that they would, or indeed even go out into the depths of the Roman Empire to risk their lives were it not true. This leads into an argument about the veracity of the Resurrection.

No it doesn't. We've covered this before.
You have cults like Falun Gong espousing their supernatural beliefs even under the persecution of the Chinese Government.
You've offshoots of Christianity like Mormonism putting forward silly beliefs despite attacks from other Christians.

Jakkass wrote: »

One would have to ask what gain there would be in concocting such a story.

Of course you don't need an incentive to make stuff up.
Why do people concoct stories about alien abduction or ghosts or psychics?

Jakkass wrote: »

3. Paul mentions explicitly in the New Testament that there were 500 witnesses of the Resurrected Jesus. Witnesses that people could have visited were they curious about the truth of the Gospel.

Surely you understand the difference between 500 witness and one guy saying there was 500 witnesses?

philologos

My point was that it invites scrutiny. Someone could have easily checked it up at the time when Paul was writing. Why would it do this if there were clearly not 500 witnesses unless one really wanted people to outright dismiss it as factually incorrect?

Point being, there is a much stronger case to say that the New Testament wasn't significantly altered than the case to say that it has been. If anyone has any evidence to demonstrate that this is the case I'll gladly go away and read what they provide me.

liamw

Jakkass wrote: »

We don't know this, but it is incredibly unlikely that they would, or indeed even go out into the depths of the Roman Empire to risk their lives were it not true.

Seriously?

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

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

My point was that it invites scrutiny. Someone could have easily checked it up at the time when Paul was writing. Why would it do this if there were clearly not 500 witnesses unless one really wanted people to outright dismiss it as factually incorrect?

Point being, there is a much stronger case to say that the New Testament wasn't significantly altered than the case to say that it has been. If anyone has any evidence to demonstrate that this is the case I'll gladly go away and read what they provide me.

And the writings of L. Ron Hubbard contain many, many factual inaccuracies that can only be outright lies and at the time those writings were open to scrutiny and the facts could have been easily checked up.
And they were and the things in the writings were shown to be false.
So how come there are still scientologists?

Hookah

Jakkass wrote: »

c-man: They could be totally nonsense, that isn't what is being argued. What is being argued is that the New Testament manuscripts have been significantly altered, which is false as far as I can see.

There is a another, separate argument regarding 'Who is Jesus?'

Was Jesus a gnostic, as evinced in the Nag Hammadi library, teaching a knowledge-based, practical spirituality, a la Buddha, or was he teaching a faith-based route to heaven, the supporters of which notion won out at the Council of Nicea?

philologos

liamw wrote: »

Seriously?

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

The intention doesn't seem to involve mass suicide. The message that they brought to the people doesn't even encourage suicide. It seems like you're pulling out inadequate excuses. The message involves living new lives, becoming a new creation, living each and every day for the Gospel.

If the Christian message was in earnest about mass suicide you wouldn't see Christianity here today. It's a bad example you're presenting and I think pretty much anyone can see that.

King Mob: I'm not here to argue about Scientology, but perhaps we could meet up some time and read Dianetics together first before we aim to discuss what claims this book makes

As for your argument with the Vatican. Here's a couple of points for you that might make this clearer:
N.B - I personally think the RCC is important as a Christian church amongst many, but I do have my disagreements.
1. Despite what claims people may make about the RCC being the first church there is simply no evidence, and indeed evidence to the contrary that it was the only church up until the Reformation.
2. Secondly, you are missing the point since none of the Apostles benefited from the power structure of the RCC, or the wealth it has. Indeed such gains would have been completely counter-intuitive. Paul lived in poverty for the churches that he served. He writes that he knows what it is like to have much and what it is like to have little. Indeed there is textual evidence to suggest that Paul worked while he was with the churches.
So King Mob, what exactly was your point here? Or are you pretty much saying that Pope Benedict XVI is benefiting from the suffering of the Apostles? If so that is a separate argument that I would suggest that you take up with members of the RCC, or indeed others you deem worthy of this.

Your point about the Falun Gong can actually help me. Do you think the Falun Gong are dying for what they believe to be true, or are they dying for a lie that they made up. The truth value of the Gospel isn't even necessary for me to make my point. The argument being presented is that they died for a lie that they concocted. If the Falun Gong are doing this then I would be surprised, but I would suspect the Falun Gong are dying because they earnestly believe what they did. Don't you?

philologos

Hookah wrote: »

There is a another, separate argument regarding 'Who is Jesus?'

Was Jesus a gnostic, as evinced in the Nag Hammadi library, teaching a knowledge-based, practical spirituality, a la Buddha, or was he teaching a faith-based route to heaven, the supporters of which notion won out at the Council of Nicea?

Gnostic texts come far too late to be considered as more reliable than the New Testament accounts. The reason the texts were chosen as they were as the Council of Nicea was because they were the earliest known texts used in the churches. All of these texts were written in the 1st century many of them by eyewitnesses of Jesus. The texts found at Nag Hammadi were certainly not written by eyewitnesses of Jesus even in the smallest part, and certainly weren't written in the first century.

I have a collection of the Nag Hammadi texts in a single volume. They make for interesting reading and comparison but certainly cannot be considered and reviewed with the same authority as the New Testament is.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

King Mob: I'm not here to argue about Scientology, but perhaps we could meet up some time and read Dianetics together first before we aim to discuss what claims this book makes

But it's an example of a cult which you think is totally wrong which people believe in despite it's obvious wrongness. So showing your point that Paul would be called out for a lie, therefore wasn't as being false

Jakkass wrote: »

So King Mob, what exactly was your point here? Or are you pretty much saying that Pope Benedict XVI is benefiting from the suffering of the Apostles? If so that is a separate argument that I would suggest that you take up with members of the RCC, or indeed others you deem worthy of this.

It was an off handed joke. My main point was the second one were you don't need an incentive to make stuff up.

Jakkass wrote: »

Your point about the Falun Gong can actually help me.

Well sure, if your premise is that the gospel isn't an accurate record.

Jakkass wrote: »

Do you think the Falun Gong are dying for what they believe to be true, or are they dying for a lie that they made up. The truth value of the Gospel isn't even necessary for me to make my point. The argument being presented is that they died for a lie that they concocted. If the Falun Gong are doing this then I would be surprised, but I would suspect the Falun Gong are dying because they earnestly believe what they did. Don't you?

They truly believe in their supernatural powers.
This could be from a combination of being told lies, being told earnestly believed things that aren't true and plain old self delusion.

But since they are willing to suffer for their beliefs, they must be true right?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

All of these texts were written in the 1st century many of them by eyewitnesses of Jesus.

You have absolutely no idea if that is actually true or not. :rolleyes:

Man alive Jakkass, could you be any more naive about this stuff. Why would you think the New Testament would be any different from the Gnostic texts?

Hookah

Jakkass wrote: »

Gnostic texts come far too late to be considered as more reliable than the New Testament accounts. The reason the texts were chosen as they were as the Council of Nicea was because they were the earliest known texts used in the churches. All of these texts were written in the 1st century many of them by eyewitnesses of Jesus. The texts found at Nag Hammadi were certainly not written by eyewitnesses of Jesus even in the smallest part, and certainly weren't written in the first century.

I have a collection of the Nag Hammadi texts in a single volume. They make for interesting reading and comparison but certainly cannot be considered and reviewed with the same authority as the New Testament is.

50 years in the difference to the first Gnostic Gospel.

Is that why they weren't deemed heritical, beacuse they came slightly later?

Or did those at the Council of Nicea not like the idea of teachings that said one could have a direct experience of God without the need for a priestly hierarchy?

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

But it's an example of a cult which you think is totally wrong which people believe in despite it's obvious wrongness. So showing your point that Paul would be called out for a lie, therefore wasn't as being false

You've been on this section of the board long enough to know what my policy is in respect to other religions particularly those I don't know about. I only discuss them when I know their tenets sufficiently, and when there is someone of that faith there to present it to me. This mightn't have always been the case but in the most part it is.

I don't know enough about the Church of Scientology to adequately discuss its teaching. Hence why I made the admittedly tongue in cheek comment about meeting up and reading it together for clarity

If Paul was telling a lie at that time in that church people could have traveled to confirm that this was indeed the case. It is a verifiable claim rather than an unverifiable claim. I'm asking you clearly why Paul would include such a detail in 1 Coirinthians 15 when he is trying to stress the importance of the Resurrection for any other reason than trying to back up his argument. The people in Corinth could have called him out as a liar easily or sent someone out to Israel to see if this was true.

King Mob wrote: »

It was an off handed joke. My main point was the second one were you don't need an incentive to make stuff up.

Fair enough, but surely you can see how it is an inadequate comparison.

King Mob wrote: »

Well sure, if your premise is that the gospel isn't an accurate record.

For the purpose of this argument it doesn't matter a pick. I believe that the Gospel is the full truth of God, but if you look to krudler's argument he is claiming that the Gospel was concocted. There is simply no reason to believe this given the first century history of the church. If we were discussing the conclusion as to whether or not the Apostles were completely deluded as to whether Jesus rose from the dead I would take that argument way more seriously because they have absolutely no positive reason to die for a lie that they concocted.

King Mob wrote: »

They truly believe in their supernatural powers.
This could be from a combination of being told lies, being told earnestly believed things that aren't true and plain old self delusion.

But since they are willing to suffer for their beliefs, they must be true right?

See above. For the purpose of refuting krudler's argument it isn't even required for it to be true. It is only required for it not to be concocted. If we can agree that it is unlikely that the Gospel accounts were concocted we can definitely move on to talking more about their veracity, if you'd like. Otherwise we should probably establish this first.

The Falun Gong and the Apostles may be both thoroughly deluded, I'm more than happy to say that for now. What we must be able to agree on is that it is highly unlikely that people would go out and die for lie that they themselves concocted. If we can't agree on this we need to go back to basics here.

liamw

Jakkass wrote: »

The intention doesn't seem to involve mass suicide. The message that they brought to the people doesn't even encourage suicide. It seems like you're pulling out inadequate excuses. The message involves living new lives, becoming a new creation, living each and every day for the Gospel.

If the Christian message was in earnest about mass suicide you wouldn't see Christianity here today. It's a bad example you're presenting and I think pretty much anyone can see that.

Man alive Jakkass.

When did I say Christianity was about mass suicide?

The point is that people are willing to go as far as killing themselves under a delusion. Your argument was that followers of Jesus would be unlikely to risk their lives if Christianity wasn't true is clearly invalid, as is evident from the cases presented.