[Misc] Christians seem to be really good people

[Eeyore]

You've got that a bit wrong. The gospels were all completed by the year 90AD. Not 300 years after.
Paul's first letter to the Corinthians was written around the year 53AD.

New Testament - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The earliest fragments from biblical manuscripts come from the second century (minimum 80 years after the event), and there's not a great deal of details. This does present an authority issue as well as an authorship issue. Peter has always given me a problem. He was a fisherman from a Galilee. I find it very hard to believe he could have written an articulate letter in full Greek.

There are certain writing styles though. You can tell John straight away, a very endearing writer. Paul always seems a bit cross about something. But did they actually write this stuff ? We are so far moved from the originals that we cannot be sure.

I often wonder about all the stuff that wasn't included. And what happened to it. The New Testament certainly tows a line, but only became canonised at Carthage in 397. This, of course, was a long time after Constantine had declared it the official religion of the Roman Empire (303 ?).

So with so few references to Jesus in secular accounts near the time, and some of those untrustworthy, we are left with very little of evidential substance to go on. Although his existence is something not in much doubt.

The real question is who was he ? And that is what folk would need to find out through experience. I cannot see how the New Testament, and the way it came together, would be a person's authority. A guide, perhaps, but not an ultimate authority. A good example of this is how they were convinced that Jesus was coming back soon, and yet here we are nearly 2,000 years later.

Acts 17: 24-27

 

[kuzushi]

You’re very good at this ruse. You’ve lost the argument, so you try to switch the debate. Stop it. Complete the point that is being discussed. In this case, you do accept my evidence, so why is my conclusion wrong? Please explain. Are you a Christian arguing your corner badly, or are you a troll?

I don't know what you want me to say.
You see discrepancies. I'm not arguing with you there. I know that in Matthew it says that Joseph's father was Jacob, whereas in Luke it says that it was Heli. I've had people explain that in one it's referring to Joseph's dad and in the other to Mary's. I'm not very convinced by that. It could be right, but without further evidence I'm not convinced. Anyway, I accept your point about the discrepancies, but what have these got to do with whether or not Jesus existed?

It's like you're adding 2 and 2 and getting 5.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

Wtf are you guys going on about?

 

[Blues Guitarist]

Wtf are you guys going on about?

The gospels disagree with each other - on many major points, but Christians somehow think it still makes sense.

 

[kuzushi]

The earliest fragments from biblical manuscripts come from the second century (minimum 80 years after the event), and there's not a great deal of details. This does present an authority issue as well as an authorship issue. Peter has always given me a problem. He was a fisherman from a Galilee. I find it very hard to believe he could have written an articulate letter in full Greek.

Perhaps he had help. He was the leader of the early church, and Greek was the major international language. So as the main man he'd have been able to solicit translating services easily, and as a major language, there would have been plenty of people able to help with Greek. Besides, perhaps we're underestimating Peter.

There are certain writing styles though. You can tell John straight away, a very endearing writer. Paul always seems a bit cross about something. But did they actually write this stuff ? We are so far moved from the originals that we cannot be sure.

I often wonder about all the stuff that wasn't included. And what happened to it. The New Testament certainly tows a line, but only became canonised at Carthage in 397. This, of course, was a long time after Constantine had declared it the official religion of the Roman Empire (303 ?).

Is it tows the line or toes the line?
I think of it as your toes don't cross the line, as in the line keeps you in check. Could google it but I'm too busy googling religion-related stuff these days..

So with so few references to Jesus in secular accounts near the time, and some of those untrustworthy, we are left with very little of evidential substance to go on. Although his existence is something not in much doubt.

Good to see you agree with me, and Bart Ehrman, and virtually all the scholars of antiquity on that point

The real question is who was he ? And that is what folk would need to find out through experience.

My experience is that it is very powerful. When you start really trusting in Jesus it can really turn your life around.

I cannot see how the New Testament, and the way it came together, would be a person's authority. A guide, perhaps, but not an ultimate authority. A good example of this is how they were convinced that Jesus was coming back soon, and yet here we are nearly 2,000 years later.

Are you sure they were convinced he was coming back soon?
Because everything else is so doubtful to you, but that seems to be readily accepted.
If you accept that snippet so readily, why not other things?

Acts 17: 24-27

Acts 17:24-27

New International Version
24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.​

 

[Blues Guitarist]

I don't know what you want me to say.
You see discrepancies. I'm not arguing with you there. I know that in Matthew it says that Joseph's father was Jacob, whereas in Luke it says that it was Heli. I've had people explain that in one it's referring to Joseph's dad and in the other to Mary's. I'm not very convinced by that. It could be right, but without further evidence I'm not convinced. Anyway, I accept your point about the discrepancies, but what have these got to do with whether or not Jesus existed?

It's like you're adding 2 and 2 and getting 5.

The discrepancies I pointed out question whether Jesus was the son of god. That is an important point, with which you appear to agree with me.

And if you read the end of the gospels about the trial, the crucifixion, the resurrection and what happens next - you'll see that the gospels disagree with each other to the extent that if one is true - the others are false.

If you've read the bible you already know this - so how come you still believe parts of the story?

 

[pastafarian]

Waffle for the gullible.

15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

Bible Gateway passage: James 5 - King James Version

Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten. Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure...

www.biblegateway.com

 

[BadFish]

Not that important, unless you collect Pokemom.

. . . Or have Jesus Top trumps like me, get the Pokemon stuck in there and the whole game is ruined.

 

[Jackthelad]

Matthew's genealogy traced Jesus' royal pedigree because the Gospel's central purpose was to prove that Jesus was the promised Messiah. Luke's genealogy traced Jesus' relationship to all of humankind because the Gospel's central purpose was to prove that Jesus was the Savior of the world.

If all gospels were the same it would be more likely they were false. The fact it has differences is logical with reports in real life, you will rarely get the same witness report without some differences.

 

[kuzushi]

The discrepancies I pointed out question whether Jesus was the son of god. That is an important point, with which you appear to agree with me.

And if you read the end of the gospels about the trial, the crucifixion, the resurrection and what happens next - you'll see that the gospels disagree with each other to the extent that if one is true - the others are false.

If you've read the bible you already know this - so how come you still believe parts of the story?

I suppose I weigh it all up, the same as you do.
In a way, the fact that there are discrepancies points to the fact that it wasn't made up. If it were just made up, it would agree, and I imagine there'd be just one book, like the Quran. If it were cobbled together from events that really happened, you'll get what we have.

The existence of the church is a big clue, especially how it flourished in the face of fierce persecution.
The early Christians didn't really have a Bible like we do now, so how did the creed spread?
It must have been through the zealousness and doggedness of the first followers of Jesus. They must have had a rocket up them to do what they did. This is not what you'd expect from a half-hearted bunch. You're talking here about a bunch of highly motivated, convinced people. Thomas, apparently, took the gospel as far as India.
Even without the Bible, and if the church had somehow vanished from the earth at some point in the intervening years, we'd still know from historians of the day that there was a growing movement of people who followed a man believed to have been crucified and risen from the dead.

 

[Eeyore]

Perhaps he had help. He was the leader of the early church, and Greek was the major international language. So as the main man he'd have been able to solicit translating services easily, and as a major language, there would have been plenty of people able to help with Greek. Besides, perhaps we're underestimating Peter.


Is it tows the line or toes the line?
I think of it as your toes don't cross the line, as in the line keeps you in check. Could google it but I'm too busy googling religion-related stuff these days..


Good to see you agree with me, and Bart Ehrman, and virtually all the scholars of antiquity on that point


My experience is that it is very powerful. When you start really trusting in Jesus it can really turn your life around.


Are you sure they were convinced he was coming back soon?
Because everything else is so doubtful to you, but that seems to be readily accepted.
If you accept that snippet so readily, why not other things?

Acts 17:24-27​

​

New International Version​

24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.​

Mate, you're talking to someone who practically grew up in a church hall, read and was forcibly fed scripture, and then did his own research into the early church. And I think my wider point may have been too subtle.

Arguing the case for historical, or rather biblical Jesus, is not served well on a football forum. We cannot be sure, either way, of the exact happenings in Palestine around the time of Jesus. I came to that conclusion because, for some reason, we only have one side of the story. And even there there are a lot of questions about how that came to us.

So it is pointless trying to convince people of the gospel message via theological debate. You are wasting your time here.

Most religion is dictated through cultural experience. If you or I were born in Pakistan we may be debating the Koran right now. In parts of India, Buddha. We are the product of our environment.

That said, I have always maintained an awareness of, and a thirst for, higher learning.

When folk asked 'But why does this happen ?' and 'What about injustice ?' I simply answer 'I don't know'. I won't debate and protect the writing of human hands or a gospel of exactitude that may have been relevant 2000 years ago.

What I will protect is my own right to faith and others too, as long as it has good heart and rational mind. Some may ask why in an honest tone, and I give them Hebrews 11 v 1.

And when some say fair enough but they don't believe, and never will, I certainly don't tell them they are going to hell.

 

[pastafarian]

Matthew's genealogy traced Jesus' royal pedigree because the Gospel's central purpose was to prove that Jesus was the promised Messiah. Luke's genealogy traced Jesus' relationship to all of humankind because the Gospel's central purpose was to prove that Jesus was the Savior of the world.

If all gospels were the same it would be more likely they were false. The fact it has differences is logical with reports in real life, you will rarely get the same witness report without some differences.

And the geneologies, when you use the creation truth and how long people lived according to bible truth, give the age of the earth and the universe to a few thousand years.

I dont blame mankind for inventing all this, they simply wanted to explain how everything was at a time when science didnt have answers. They also needed a creation story to convince the gullible to obey the god they had invented

 

[Blues Guitarist]

I suppose I weigh it all up, the same as you do.
In a way, the fact that there are discrepancies points to the fact that it wasn't made up. If it were just made up, it would agree, and I imagine there'd be just one book, like the Quran. If it were cobbled together from events that really happened, you'll get what we have.

So, for you, a holy book with lots of errors is more convincing than one with no errors? In that case, my man, the bible is made for you. Enjoy. You're on ignore from here on in.

 

[BadFish]

I was encouraged to explore my faith and find evidence to fit. Now I am touched I find that I can do this more and more easily (and no Catherine it is not trauma, I hardly ever even think about those pr . . . It's not bloody trauma!!)

For instance if he were not his son, why would god make him the best top trump? He must sincerely believe he was his son. Faith rating of 20, Jesus would know if he was Jesus or not so a perfect faith rating proves he is Jesus.

Top trumps don't get shit wrong.

 

[kuzushi]

Mate, you're talking to someone who practically grew up in a church hall, read and was forcibly fed scripture, and then did his own research into the early church. And I think my wider point may have been too subtle.

Are you a follower of Jesus?

Arguing the case for historical, or rather biblical Jesus, is not served well on a football forum.

Are you saying we should stop?
People seem to want to talk about it. I assume that if they didn't want to, they wouldn't.
This is just one of many threads on this forum.

We cannot be sure, either way, of the exact happenings in Palestine around the time of Jesus. I came to that conclusion because, for some reason, we only have one side of the story. And even there there are a lot of questions about how that came to us.

I think we can be sure in broad terms about what happened.
About the other side of the story, there's the Talmud.

So it is pointless trying to convince people of the gospel message via theological debate. You are wasting your time here.

Most religion is dictated through cultural experience. If you or I were born in Pakistan we may be debating the Koran right now. In parts of India, Buddha. We are the product of our environment.

Christianity is now the largest religion in South Korea.
There are over 100 million Christians in China.
The church is booming in sub-Saharan Africa.
Many Muslims are converting and following Jesus after seeing him in their dreams. I'm not aware of it happening the other way.

That said, I have always maintained an awareness of, and a thirst for, higher learning.

When folk asked 'But why does this happen ?' and 'What about injustice ?' I simply answer 'I don't know'. I won't debate and protect the writing of human hands or a gospel of exactitude that may have been relevant 2000 years ago.

What I will protect is my own right to faith and others too, as long as it has good heart and rational mind. Some may ask why in an honest tone, and I give them Hebrews 11 v 1.

And when some say fair enough but they don't believe, and never will, I certainly don't tell them they are going to hell.

Can I ask you, do you think they are going to hell then?

 

[BadFish]

Come on @kuzushi you have got them on the ropes. Smote their devilry with your three questions. Don not stray from the 3 and you will touch them like you touched me. The power of the Lord is too strong and flows from within you.

Don't worry they told me it is my Christian duty to help you show the sheep like you showed me. We can do it together.

 

[pastafarian]

What I will protect is my own right to faith and others too, as long as it has good heart and rational mind.

I dislike religion, but ( and i think most will agree), we have religious freedom in this country and I will defend their right to the last for them to spout their nonsense.

With that freedom to promote your religion comes the right for other people to criticize it.
I got some grief a few years back on NSC for defending Anjem Choudary promoting his utopian Islam according to sharia.

It was vile stuff (according to many opinions including mine) but what people failed to realise was it was his religious truth. Criticize the content by all means, but he should be allowed to spout his horrible religious beliefs even if we disagree.

Important to remember he was not jailed for his horrible religious beliefs, he went on for years winding people up. It was only when he stepped into supporting terrorism that his time was up.

 

[kuzushi]

Come on @kuzushi you have got them on the ropes. Smote their devilry with your three questions. Don not stray from the 3 and you will touch them like you touched me. The power of the Lord is too strong and flows from within you.

Don't worry they told me it is my Christian duty to help you show the sheep like you showed me. We can do it together.

Hmm. Looks like @Blues Guitarist is running away.

 

[pastafarian]

Many Muslims are converting and following Jesus after seeing him in their dreams. I'm not aware of it happening the other way.

Even though christians (and other religions) and atheists do convert to Islam
Why would a christian convert to Islam after seeing Jesus in their dreams?

 

[BadFish]

Hmm. Looks like @Blues Guitarist is running away.

No, no he is running towards that love of Jesus (for it is all around) your three questions are his trainers, your logic his high vis reflective safety vest and your richeousness his camel back water system. For he will run as far as the lord wishes him to until he sees the glory

You got this, another conquest. Another step toward this month's bonus.