Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Authority Of Scripture
Comments
-
-
-
-
BrianCalgary wrote:If you can reask them, I can't find them.
Thanks:)
Brian, you lazy....:D
Here are they, I found them for you.Medina wrote:But I want to ask you something.
I'm confused by this sentence
it means that we still have salvation through Christ our Lord,
[1] If Jesus is not God how can we achieve salvation through him?
[2] Is salvation not granted by God alone?
[3] Or are you saying we achieve salvation through his message?JimiTime wrote:All of Gods creation thereafter came through him
[4] Can you support this from the Bible please? I think its important that we lose our opinions and base our arguments on factual evidence from the Bible.
If you are referring to the passage in John 1
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
then I ask you.. [5] where do you found your opinion that only things AFTER Jesus ' life were created by Him? This verse would imply that ALL things are made and will be made by him.
Also, this passage is a statement at the start of the gospel according to John, it is not something that Jesus himself said. [6] Why would you believe the writer's opinion? [7] Shouldn't it come from Jesus himself if you are to believe it?
[8] You won't believe random things that I or Wicknight or Wolfsbane will tell you but you will stake your whole eternity on this random persons statement?JimiTime wrote:Adam however, even though he was created without blemish he sinned, and therefore inherritted death through sin. This sin was carried to all mankind and we were defiled before God.JimiTime wrote:However, from the time that Adam sinned, God set about bringing to us a saviour, who would pay the debt of a perfect man. No-one had what it took to pay the debt, until Jesus came.
[9] How did Jesus repay the debt? [10] By being flogged and crucified? [11]Some people have suffered even worse deaths than that, do you think all their sins were wiped away by their suffering? [12] Or their fellow mankind's if they had been the chosen one?
There are serious flaws in the Bible, the main one being that it contradicts itself in many places. [13] How do you justify the choices from it that you have made? [14] Because you prefer it that way? [15] Because it makes sense to you? [16] How can you be sure its the Truth? I can be sure that if contradicts itself all over the place then it cannot be the Truth. Not all of it anyway, so why would I trust it.
Adam was created without sin he caused himself, as every child in the world is born. You have no proof that 'death' is the price of Originial Sin. [17] Where did this notion even come from? There is no mention of an inherited sin either from the mouth of Jesus or from any words quoted from God's speech.
[18] What exactly was the original sin? Adam did what every person does on this earth and will eventually do...make their first mistake.
[19] Tell me how can Jesus be God and the Son of God at the same time??
[20] How can the Holy Spirit lead Jesus? [21] If Jesus was God/Son of God he wouldn't need the Holy Spirit would He?
I found 21 of her questions, now no more excuses Brian.
Avanti! 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Puck wrote:Yes they knew about the Christ. "Christ" is not Jesus' last name so when they were asking about the "Christ" they were refering to the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament not the man they would know as Jesus of Nazareth. Christ is the title that people use to refer to Jesus because we believe he is the Christ, the Messiah (which is the Hebrew version of the Greek word "Christ" comes from, they are interchangeable). Evry Jew at the time would have known about the prophesies of a Messiah that was to come. The debates arose regarding who this Messiah was.
As for who "The Prophet" was, there are a few theories. We know that the Jews of the time believed that Elijah would reappear before the coming of the Messiah but since they already asked about Elijah we can rule out that option. However, Matthew 16:14 would indicate that some of the Jews thought that Jeremiah the prophet was to reappear too, or another prophet. Some have argued that a prediction of Moses' in Deuteronomy 18:15 could have been interpreted by the Jews to mean that a prophet was to come. Some would argue that this "prophet" is actually Christ too. To be honest I haven't made up my mind on it yet but I'm leaning towards the first theory.
Thanks for your reply Puck.
Btw, those questions that Jews asked John are so explicit, it's like they built a wall between the Christ (Jesus) and the Prophet, so that everybody knows that two of them are not the same person.Puck wrote:You're asking some great questions.
Well it's just so interesting. I'll keep digging to find more info on this particular paragraph. Who was the Prophet? for they surely knew that Jesus was the anointed one or the Christ...
0 -
-
-
-
-
Wibbs wrote:IIRC there were one or two other historian types that reported his death by crucifixion(Brian may shed light here). Even if it was just one report from outside the early Christian sphere it would have a lot of weight. From the purely historical view one could argue that because both the early Christian writers and external sources are all consistent about the manner of his death(if not the precise details), you can at least say that 1) somebody called Jesus is likely to have existed and 2) His most likely cause of death was crucifixion. Now as for the religious opinions and the details of Jesus' life that's down to faith not history.
Indeed as crucifixion was considered a shameful way to die, especially for one who is supposed to be a Prophet/Holy man/God, it's surprising that no one denies it at the time or soon after. You would imagine it would be a hard sell to non believers used to seeing common criminals executed in this way(especially among Romans).
Contrast that with the opinion held by the Quran written 700yrs later(give or take) and hundreds of miles away with no chance of original witnesses, where he wasn't crucified but instead we have Allah swapping him with a doppelganger at the last minute. Which account is likely to hold more weight? Ally this to my last point that crucifixion was considered shameful(especially among the Pagan Arab tribes at the time of Mohammed, who used it as a punishment themselves) and we're back to the "hard sell" angle and the probable motive for the change.
Again there are sects in every faith. Even when the text is largely the same as is the case with Islam you have different interpretations(Sunnis, Shi'as, Wahhabis, Fatimids, Druze even Sufis are concidered a sect by some, wrongly).
Hi Wibbs
You are right there is another mention of Jesus in history, I'm nearly sure I posted this before, its from Jospehus in The Testimonium Flavianum. I know I posted this somewhere else but I'll stick it in again here anyway
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
- Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63
(Based on the translation of Louis H. Feldman, The Loeb Classical Library.)
To be honest Wibbs what you say about another account giving weight is true. To me it does prove that Jesus existed and that he was condemned to the cross. So the detail is very important so that we know what did happen and who he was. And as they say 'The devil's in the detail' , so too its the details which are causing all the confusion, the different religions and my own personal lack of faith him being the Son of God.
Whether he himself made it onto it or not or whether it was someone else (as according to Islam) is not clarified by the testimony of Jospehus. I mean how would he know anyway - if Jospehus like the other Jews thought it was Jesus who had hung on the cross (if Islam is to be believed) then a statement saying Jesus hung on the cross would still not clarify the matter !! :rolleyes:
About it being a hard sell - well I don't think it would be, considering that the crucifixion is not just 'the way he died' but 'the way he saved your soul'. As in he suffered all that pain so that we could be forgiven. In fact it sounds very noble and like a huge sacrifice. I think it would be the opposite, it makes the sell easier.
Many people say that if God was loving he would not have allowed the crucifixion of His only Son - he wouldn't need to, he could have saved us some other way. Thats not my personal view but a lot of people who believe this would probably be much happier believing the Islamic version of events, that in fact Jesus was not crucified but simply taken up to heaven while someone else with his image was crucified in his place.
I suppose what I'm trying to get to is that it seems a much more plausible thing for God to do if Jesus was such an important person, if he was special, whether as a prophet or the son of God.
There are indeed various sects in most religions. I was only pointing this out because ISAW said he saw no problem of different accounts of his life. This would imply ISAW might be open to any of the beliefs then, since he is not looking for a logically provable belief and he doesn't have a problem with different accounts.0 -
2 brief points for consideration by 2 posters:
Kamelot, if Jesus never claimed to be God, why did the Jews bring him to Pilate on the charge of sedition; claiming to be Lord even over Caesar?
An even basic understanding of the office of Emperor would recognise that the practice of reification was universal by circa 30CE and so implicit in the charges brought against Jesus is a claim to divinity.
Medina, over the last few years I have made myself very familiar with the four accounts of Easter in the Christian scriptures. There are apparent discrepancies all over the place, as you rightfully acknowledge. However, the inferance you draw is diametrically opposed to mine.
I came to the Bible as a skeptic believing that it was compiled by power-holders long after the event to create an exagerrated and misleading account of the life and death (and manipulated fictional account of his suppossed Resurrection) of a Jewish prophet. I saw the same complications as you but I realised that they testify to the authenticate creation of the texts. The Gospels must be hurried, genuine accounts since any period of time for reflection after the fact would have allowed the committees time to wipe out these discrepancies.
Talk to some prosecution lawyers. One of the first tests of witnesses at any crime which was seen by a large number is to look for varying responses. Inherently, people have different perspectives and so will have different accounts. A universal account over a large group of people is a sure sign of collaboration.
Thus for example, off the top of my head, we have 2 angels in one account and one angel in another. An apparent contradiction that would be expected in any set of texts that purport to tell the same story from different witnesses with historical credibility. It doesn't meant the Gospels are invalid- it means one witness saw 1 angel, the other saw 2.
(Cheekily- if there were 2, there had to be 1 ) 0 -
Advertisement
-
That isn't true if the events they describe actually happened.Excelsior wrote:A universal account over a large group of people is a sure sign of collaboration.
A number of different accounts of the same event with significant details changed means people are making things up.
You see this all the time, for example the 9/11 attacks. Most people in New York on 9/11 will claim to have seen the planes hit the towers. But most of those claims are false, even though most of them believe they did see the planes hit the towers. But if you took all those claims seriously you would have to remove half the buildings in down town manhattan to make the stories plausable, or move the world trade centre to central park.
Add to that a 50 year gap between event and recording and who knows what the original event was like by the time the oral stories have reached the paper to be recorded.
There is no doubt that there is some origin to the ressurection stories, but there is little reason to take any of the Bible stories as being a accurate description of the event (beyond faith of course
)
Personally I would think that most plausable explination is that Jesus' body was taken by his followers and confusion amoung his followers lead some to believe he was resurrected. I mean that was the well known prophecy at the time. He could hardly not be ressurected now could he.
That is assuming he was even buried in the cave in the first place. Again alteration of original details are common as tales are passed from one another. Look at Katrina, where the press were being feed a steady stream of complete nonsense about rapes and murders happening in New Orleans. Ask one person and it was a baby that was raped in the SuperDome. Ask another and it was in fact a 7 year old girl. Another will claim that it was actually a 7 year old boy. Your logic would suggest that this is evidence that someone must have been raped at the Superdome, but when the dust had settled there were not rapes found to have happened in the Superdome, certainly not the wave of murders and rapes being reported.
It is quite easy for stories to gain acceptance as fact if repeated enough. Again, using Katrina, after the media had reported that weapons were being found on New Orleans residence fleeing to Baton Rouge and that car jackings were taking place the mayor of Baton Rouge stated they did not want to inherite this problem, instantly given further weight to the inital statement of violence. But, like most of the rumours in New Orleans, it wasn't true. One knife had been taken off one non-violent person.
And all these stories were coming out only days after they were supposed to have happened, not weeks or years.
It is very easy to see that in an enviornment like the Middle East 2000 years ago, before mass media and proper journalism, the execution of a cult leader could easily turn into an event such as the resurrection.
If someone believes that the Bible is correct in the important details about the ressurection and that Jesus was ressurrected, that great. I've no problem with that, this is a Christianity forum after all. But it is incorrect for someone to state the Bible itself supports this fact in any form of historial manner. The idea that while the witness account might have got the minor details, they all got the major details correct proves that the major details happened is not a proper assumption to make, again beyond pure faith.
After all, as far as we know, no 7 year olds were raped in the Superdome.0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59240
Well Hi right back at ya.Medina wrote:Hi Wibbs
Well the line he was restored to life suggests old Josephus reckoned he had been dead first in fairness...Whether he himself made it onto it or not or whether it was someone else (as according to Islam) is not clarified by the testimony of Jospehus. I seem to remember a Greek writer making mention of Jesus being crucified too.
If God exists and finds you confused then do you think the very act of you searching for your own personal truth is going to upset Him? When kids are dying in this world now for the lack of clean water, I honestly think there are worse things to worry about(not to belittle anybodies quest for a spiritual truth obviously). If more religious types started reading less and feeding the poor more the world would be a better place for all.so too its the details which are causing all the confusion, the different religions and my own personal lack of faith him being the Son of God.
Ok fair enough, but how likely is that? I mean it's entirely possible that he was switched at the last minute, but as I say how likely is that? Especially if the whole idea of the switch only shows up 700yrs later. The simplest answer is usually the correct one.I mean how would he know anyway - if Jospehus like the other Jews thought it was Jesus who had hung on the cross (if Islam is to be believed) then a statement saying Jesus hung on the cross would still not clarify the matter !! :rolleyes:
I take your point of the nobility of it all. The crucifixion is one of the most powerful images we have of nobility in death. But and it's a big but, it has that hold on us because of the religious iconography that has pervaded Christian thinking for the last 2000yrs. To a 1st century Jew or Roman the nobility may have been spotted but would have been well hidden under the whole shameful idea of crucifixion. It was the punishment meted out to the worst criminals and enemies of the state. The place where he was crucified lay on the outskirts of the city in an area that was pretty much the city dump. Shameful wasn't in it.About it being a hard sell - well I don't think it would be, considering that the crucifixion is not just 'the way he died' but 'the way he saved your soul'. As in he suffered all that pain so that we could be forgiven. In fact it sounds very noble and like a huge sacrifice. I think it would be the opposite, it makes the sell easier.
Now if you take many of the "Pagan" Arab tribes before Mohammed they practiced crucifixion for much the same reasons. It would be as hard a sell to them as it was to the Romans. Indeed when the first Christian Roman emperor came along he immediately banned crucifixion as a punishment. In Islams case the solution was to deny that happened to one of their most revered prophets(naturally). Interestingly unlike today, the earliest images of Jesus that survive avoid the crucifixion as subject matter as the people viewing those images would have been only to familiar with the sight of common thieves and scoundrels hung up that way. Uncomfortable wouldn't be in it.
Now forgive me speaking as agnostic, but I thought that was the very reason that Christians feel their God did that(help me out here Christian typesMany people say that if God was loving he would not have allowed the crucifixion of His only Son - he wouldn't need to, he could have saved us some other way.). He sent his only son to atone for humanity. He didn't need to. He chose to. Or something.
In the end one picks the faith that sits easy with you or you are born to. All of them have contradictions. Why "in God's name" people worry so much about the details when they could actually listen to the great teachers of humanity and actually follow their example regardless of the faith in question. I'm sure if God is loving and merciful he would be only too pleased if that was the case. In the absence of clear signals from a God(and the huge array of Gods and interpretations bears this out), then all we can try to be is as "human" as possible.There are indeed various sects in most religions. I was only pointing this out because ISAW said he saw no problem of different accounts of his life. This would imply ISAW might be open to any of the beliefs then, since he is not looking for a logically provable belief and he doesn't have a problem with different accounts.Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.
0 -
-
-
-
-
Wibbs wrote:Now forgive me speaking as agnostic, but I thought that was the very reason that Christians feel their God did that(help me out here Christian types). He sent his only son to atone for humanity. He didn't need to. He chose to. Or something.
Ah! Once again, as so often is the case, the Agnostic says it better than I could.0 -
-
Wibbs wrote:If God exists and finds you confused then do you think the very act of you searching for your own personal truth is going to upset Him? When kids are dying in this world now for the lack of clean water, I honestly think there are worse things to worry about(not to belittle anybodies quest for a spiritual truth obviously). If more religious types started reading less and feeding the poor more the world would be a better place for all.
Hmm Wibbs, I'm going to say something now and please don't start an attack try and see it from a perspective of a person (of whatever religion but lets say Christianity or Islam) .
Reading in itself is not important. I am afraid that in the act of searching for God (not my own personal truth, but The Truth - which i know *sighs* is to some extent a personal truth because I agree with the last point you made , roughly that believe believe what makes most sense to them.)
I suppose everyone who really believes something thinks it is The Truth.
Anyway thats not what I was trying to get at. But basically, I think the act of searching for God , yes it could be a time-waster because it could take your whole life- but I am more worried about not offending God , and with finding the 'right way' (the Truth) to worship him because I do think He wants that and I do think thats the first responsibility we all have as God's creation.
But I take your point about the amount of time and money and effort spent on religion while two thirds of the world needs help. And to an atheist, it looks selfish, illogical and stupid probably.
Oh dear I can sense a strong backlash to this coming, but please please try and see what I mean..this is difficult to explain.Wibbs wrote:I take your point of the nobility of it all. The crucifixion is one of the most powerful images we have of nobility in death. But and it's a big but, it has that hold on us because of the religious iconography that has pervaded Christian thinking for the last 2000yrs. To a 1st century Jew or Roman the nobility may have been spotted but would have been well hidden under the whole shameful idea of crucifixion. It was the punishment meted out to the worst criminals and enemies of the state. The place where he was crucified lay on the outskirts of the city in an area that was pretty much the city dump. Shameful wasn't in it.
Now if you take many of the "Pagan" Arab tribes before Mohammed they practiced crucifixion for much the same reasons. It would be as hard a sell to them as it was to the Romans. Indeed when the first Christian Roman emperor came along he immediately banned crucifixion as a punishment. In Islams case the solution was to deny that happened to one of their most revered prophets(naturally). Interestingly unlike today, the earliest images of Jesus that survive avoid the crucifixion as subject matter as the people viewing those images would have been only to familiar with the sight of common thieves and scoundrels hung up that way. Uncomfortable wouldn't be in it.
It made him a common man's hero though didn't it because so many people loved him before he died and the upper class Pharisees shafted him.Wibbs wrote:Now forgive me speaking as agnostic, but I thought that was the very reason that Christians feel their God did that(help me out here Christian types). He sent his only son to atone for humanity. He didn't need to. He chose to. Or something.
Yes I was referring to people who don't believe the mainline Christianity view. 0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement