Christian Concepts

[First Baseman]

I will use Wikipedia.com to make it simple for you. If you want an in depth discussion, I will use my Survey of the New Testament textbook.

Matthew: The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous: the author is not named within the text, and the superscription "according to Matthew" was added some time in the 2nd century.

Mark: The Gospel of Mark is anonymous. A tradition beginning in the early 2nd century with Papias of Hierapolis (c.AD 125) ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, a companion and interpreter of the apostle Peter, but most scholars do not accept Papias' claim.

Luke: The gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles make up a two-volume work which scholars call Luke–Acts. Together they account for 27.5% of the New Testament, the largest contribution by a single author, providing the framework for both the Church's liturgical calendar and the historical outline into which later generations have fitted their idea of the story of Jesus. The author is not named in either volume. According to a Church [RCC] tradition dating from the 2nd century, he was the Luke named as a companion of Paul in three of the letters attributed to Paul himself, but "a critical consensus emphasizes the countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters."

John: The Gospel of John is anonymous, its author only identified as "the Disciple whom Jesus loved". The evangelist was always called John, and Church [RCC] tradition identified the Beloved Disciple as John the Apostle. This latter identification, however, is rejected by the majority of modern biblical scholars. Scholars believe that the text went through two to three "editions" before reaching its current form.

Summary: all 4 Gospels were written by anonymous authors decades after Jesus' death, per a vast majority of scholars and theologians who objectively research them.

I dont believe you.

 

[Neo Deist]

I dont believe you.

Uhm...ok.

 

[roger1440]

If we would string end to end all the quotes from Jesus from the 4 gospels, remove the redundancy it would only take about 2 and a half hours to read. It would appear Jesus didn't have to much to say. What's up with that?

 

[First Baseman]

Uhm...ok.

What are you a minister of?

 

[Neo Deist]

What are you a minister of?

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/for-the-record.189818/#post-4852681

The truth.

 

[First Baseman]

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/for-the-record.189818/#post-4852681

The truth.

Oh, then you are a minister of Jesus Christ because He is the truth. I suggest you clean yourself up, then.

 

[First Baseman]

Uhm...ok.

Instead I believe God and His Son and His Apostles. Have a good day, sir.

 

[Neo Deist]

Oh, then you are a minister of Jesus Christ because He is the truth. I suggest you clean yourself up, then.

I do teach Jesus' lessons on morality and compassion.

Nothing to clean up.

 

[viole]

The idea that God is benevolent and loving coincides with Jesus dying for our sins if we accept the Sons of Men as moral examples by which we can be judged.

According to what moral example will the people, who never heard of Jesus, will be judged?

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

We do not have The Autographs, that is, the original writings of the Bible.

We do not have the autograph copies of any of the major texts of ancient history yet the extant copies are used to teach history despite gaps between original and oldest known copies being 10 times the gaps between biblical texts. Examples include The Gallic wars on the secular side verses Paul's creedal statements coming just a few years or even months after the actual events occurring. Why are these gaps only a problem for the bible and ignored for countless other works? Unless you deny every single non-biblical text in ancient history your being grossly inconsistent.

They have long been lost or destroyed. All we have are copies of copies.

What you state is worse by far for every other text in ancient history. Do you deny the accuracy of all other texts from the same period or even older when secular academia continues to accept these texts which have vastly far worse textual veracity? You have no choice, you must disavow every text from ancient history or affirm the bible as being vastly more reliable.

Furthermore, science has already shown that much of what the Bible says is simply not true.

Again this is completely untrue. I have a degree in science, mathematics to be exact (I have studied physics, engineering, and have spent more than two decades obsessively scouring professional theological debates between theologians and people who have doctorial degrees in science). Yet I cannot even think of a scientific argument (outside of purely theoretical claims) which contradicts any actual Christian scriptures. The closest science gets is a claim about evolution which contradicts a merely interpretative position on the age of the universe. In countless ways the bible was right about scientific claims it makes from the bronze age compared to scientific errors made as late as 100 years ago in the secular community. However the bible is not primarily a scientific text.

It was written in a time when people had very little scientific or medical knowledge (by today's standards). The Bible is not a history textbook. It is a collection of stories, many of which are metaphorical or allegorical.

Yet the bible has never been shown to be scientifically mistaken outside of a few examples of scribal error. Countless scientific claims in the bible have been shown to be correct thousands of years before secular science finally got it right after being in error for that same length of time.

According to whom? As it stands, those of us who are theological scholars will disagree with you. The Gospels were not written by any eyewitness. That much has been made clear. Heck, they disagree half the time when each tells the story.

The arrogant claim that you are an expert in theology is not an argument. Please quit making arrogant assessments about your competence, stop making generalized claims, and concentrate on making specific claims which contradict the bible. It appears you know little about these issues and making blanket statements about the bible or your competence will not help your position.

LOL! 30 years as a Baptist, and a Doctor of Theology from seminary now. Yeah, I might know a thing or two.

How in the world can you have a doctorate in biblical theology and seemingly not even be familiar with even the arguments I am making (which are simply mainstream ideas hundreds of thousands of years old). This is as bad as Islam denying the traditional view of the Trinity. Muhammad is not simply right or wrong about the doctrine, Muhammad did not even know what the doctrine even claims. It is not whether you are wrong or right, it is that you don't seem to know what the argument is even about.

What I teach is biblical, not traditional.
What many people preach is traditional, not biblical.

No, what your saying is neither traditional (which I reject) nor biblical. You are simply making generalized platitudes and not specific enough to even consider.

 

[Neo Deist]

We do not have the autograph copies of any of the major texts of ancient history yet the extant copies are used to teach history despite gaps between original and oldest known copies being 10 times the gaps between biblical texts. Examples include The Gallic wars on the secular side verses Paul's creedal statements coming just a few years or even months after the actual events occurring. Why are these gaps only a problem for the bible and ignored for countless other works? Unless you deny every single non-biblical text in ancient history your being grossly inconsistent.

What you state is worse by far for every other text in ancient history. Do you deny the accuracy of all other texts from the same period or even older when secular academia continues to accept these texts which have vastly far worse textual veracity? You have no choice, you must disavow every text from ancient history or affirm the bible as being vastly more reliable.

If you don't have the originals, you can't guarantee the accuracy and validity of the copies. Therefore the Bible is not guaranteed to be 100% accurate...especially when you translate across languages.

Again this is completely untrue. I have a degree in science, mathematics to be exact (I have studied physics, engineering, and have spent more than two decades obsessively scouring professional theological debates between theologians and people who have doctorial degrees in science). Yet I cannot even think of a scientific argument (outside of purely theoretical claims) which contradicts any actual Christian scriptures. The closest science gets is a claim about evolution which contradicts a merely interpretative position on the age of the universe. In countless ways the bible was right about scientific claims it makes from the bronze age compared to scientific errors made as late as 100 years ago in the secular community. However the bible is not primarily a scientific text.


Yet the bible has never been shown to be scientifically mistaken outside of a few examples of scribal error. Countless scientific claims in the bible have been shown to be correct thousands of years before secular science finally got it right after being in error for that same length of time.

1. Humans do not come from a single pair of people (Adam and Eve). Genetics has already shown that it would require at a minimum of 10,000 "original" people to account for the diversity in the world, especially under a young earth theory.
2. There was not a global flood and practically every form of science on earth supports this.
3. Noah's Ark did not happen the way it is written. By that I mean the actual building of the ship, loading of animals and all the supplies necessary to care for them.
4. The Tower of Babel was not the cause of multiple languages.
5. The earth is not the center of creation, the universe, or even our solar system.
6. People were not possessed by demons. They had medical problems such as epilepsy.
7. The Israelites were not slaves in Egypt that won their freedom by divine means, and the exodus never happened. There's not a shred of archaeological evidence.

The list goes on.

The arrogant claim that you are an expert in theology is not an argument. Please quit making arrogant assessments about your competence, stop making generalized claims, and concentrate on making specific claims which contradict the bible. It appears you know little about these issues and making blanket statements about the bible or your competence will not help your position.

How in the world can you have a doctorate in biblical theology and seemingly not even be familiar with even the arguments I am making (which are simply mainstream ideas hundreds of thousands of years old). This is as bad as Islam denying the traditional view of the Trinity. Muhammad is not simply right or wrong about the doctrine, Muhammad did not even know what the doctrine even claims. It is not whether you are wrong or right, it is that you don't seem to know what the argument is even about.

No, what your saying is neither traditional (which I reject) nor biblical. You are simply making generalized platitudes and not specific enough to even consider.

You mad?

Just because you do not like what I say, does not mean I am wrong. It just means I struck a nerve because I challenge something you believe in. Turn the other cheek...

 

[Neo Deist]

While I am at it, there are several people that have challenged the Church over the centuries and were proven right. Many of them were charged with heresy and executed, placed under house arrest, or exiled. Galileo is but one of those people.

Galileo pointed a telescope at the night sky and made the statement that the earth was not the center of the universe (creation). Since the Church held to the belief of geocentricity, this obviously struck a nerve with them. Galileo was put on trial and convicted, with a sentence of house arrest for the remainder of his life (which was 7 years). Oddly enough, we now know that Galileo was right, the Church was wrong, and Pope John Paul II made an apologetic declaration toward that end 350 years after the fact.

The point is that the Church (and people) are so adamant about their beliefs and the Bible that when something comes along and challenges them, they get bent out of shape. They quickly forget Jesus' lessons on morality, compassion and forgiveness and go for the jugular. They are only "Christian" when it suits their needs.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

According to what moral example will the people, who never heard of Jesus, will be judged?
Ciao
- viole

First of all, except for those of Matthew 12:32, the dead are covered by Romans 6:7.
Please notice in the final judgement on Earth is among the living at the coming ' time of separation' on Earth at Matthew 25:31-33 that the living people are judged on the basis of their reaction to Jesus' message - Luke 4:43 - as proclaimed by Jesus' 'spiritual brothers ' alive on earth at the time of Matthew 25:40,45; Matthew 24:14.

Since the good news of God's kingdom government is proclaimed world wide today, and we can not read hearts, then Jesus, as the judge mentioned at Isaiah 11:3-4, makes the final decision as to who will remain alive on Earth to be part of Day One of Jesus' coming 1,000-year governmental rulership over Earth when it begins.- Proverbs 2:21-22; Psalms 92:7; Matthew 5:5

 

[1robin]

A. We also don't sentence children to eternal damnation.

This is certainly a long enough post. When I was in the military there was an old saying that stated: to defend everything is to actually defend nothing. In this context it would be to condemn everything is to condemn nothing. 10% of this post was not in response to my claims but I will comment on them anyway.

Your statement appears to condemn God because he holds a view regarding ultimate justice. As such it makes no sense and does require argumentation. I guess you regard anarchy and a lack of accountability as a virtue.

B. If a parent abuses or neglects a child by not filling their needs, they will get arrested (hopefully).
1. Crist suffered and died to meet our needs in accordance with God's wishes.
2. Human parents supply far less.
3. We do not have anything we might offer God to make up for our own disobedience.
4. God did not remain aloof from our sin, our need to unite with him, but entered into our need and suffering at great cost in the greatest example of selfless love in human history.

For this you condemn him, I do not get it. The only explanation is the moral bankruptcy attributed in the bible to unbelievers. Reject unconditional love at your own peril.

Scripture says Jesus died for our sins. History says he died because the Romans executed him like they did everyone else who got on their nerves. [/quote] History says both and both require approx. equal amounts of faith. On what basis do you deny one while condemning the other? Let me give you a few (among many) historical claims made by the bible affirmed by NT historians regardless of which side their on.

1. Jesus appeared in history with an unprecedented sense of divine authority.
2. That he practiced a ministry of exorcism and miracle working.
3. That he died by crucifixion inflicted by the Romans on instigation of the Hebrew priestly orders.
4. That even his enemies claimed to speak to him after death.
Bonus: That his apostles had no other possible motivation to record their conclusions beyond their sincerely believing them and (there being no other human being in history to know their validity).

These affirmations are equally able to justify faith in both conclusions I have made. I am consistent and grant both, you are inconsistent and grant one while denying the other based on the same facts. I also have personal experience which grants the spiritual conclusion.

Personally, I found the Mahabharata to be more morally consistent. It has WAAAAAAY less "do this because I told you so even if it's hypocritical".

In what other way can moral edicts be delivered from a morally perfect being to a morally corrupt species?

You're arguing that the Truth is based on book sales? So for all the centuries where it was jealously guarded by the church, it was false because there were fewer copies?

Since nothing I have ever said in 12,000 posts even contains the words "book sales" this argumentation is invalid.

So they said. If I write a story where I am tracking an ancient historical figure, does that story become true because I say I witnessed it?

I did not make a claim concerning known facts but made claims concerning the sufficiency of evidence which is actually identical to any claim ever made about anything. Nothing is certain except the fact I think. Virtually all claims (especially historical and legal) are based in probability which eyewitness accounts are the greatest for of evidence. IOW it is rationally (intellectually justifiable) to believe in historical claims based on good testimony.

So God loves to be irrational?

You can't even start yelling this until you show your ability to judge the ration for the irrational and then show that my claim about God was irrational.

You are an extremely limited, non-Omnipotent, extremely limited, and sinful (calm down we are all sinful) human being, yet you are suggesting He DOES reconcile man to Himself using the blood of His son?

The authors of the bible are extremely limited, non-Omnipotent, extremely limited, and sinful (calm down we are all sinful ... per the authors, anyway, despite evidence not all are unrighteous, even IN the bible), yet they are suggesting He DOES reconcile man to Himself using the blood of His son despite there seeming to be no real need for it in either Testament?

There most certainly is inexhaustible evidence in the OT. Just to give an example, the blood of goats and rams are said to be necessary to push the sin debt of Israel forward but are also said to be incapable to erase sin's debt in general. For that it is said the blood of animals can never do but only the blood of the lamb of God. The OT is full of shadows to NT literals. The lambs blood over the door saved them from a single nights judgment but only the NT true lamb of God saves us all from the eternal second death in the NT. The same way the OT blood of symbolic lambs pushed the sin debt forward until the NT literal lamb of God cancelled sin's debt forever. Also the OT story about Abraham being stopped from sacrificing his son to God providing the symbolic Ram to push forward sin's debt until the NT true sheep of God could erase the debt eternally.

Who said? And define "perfect".

Without moral fault.

Jesus: Be perfect, as God is perfect.

Scriptures are taken in context by the honest and stripped of context by those with agendas. In context perfection is a goal not a destination. Even if you reject context you have just made an argument against your world view. However Jesus does make us legally perfect by substitutionary atonement. My sin is exchanged for Christ's perfection in Christianity. So lacking my own perfection I am granted legal perfection before God by taking by faith the events on the cross. Biblically my righteousness is represented by a filthy garment which is exchanged for a white robe upon my acceptance of God's sacrifice. If you stop reading into the bible your own corruptions and take what the bible states the biblical salvation is the most elegant, appropriate, and comprehensive theory ever devised. Your own view is completely irrational. On your view salvation is based on my merits and is basis for boasting which Christ condemned.

Strange, Jesus seemed to think you have the power to shine your own light...

Light, nor what you claimed above does not appear in anything I said so I can a-priori reject you misplaced argumentation.

If God forced Jesus to commit suicide by cop, it is not self-sacrifice. Even before Jesus, as animals were being used as sacrifices, it's not like the animals just jumped up on the altar and sliced their own throats.

I did not say anything about God being forced into anything, in fact I says the polar opposite so again I reject this claim out of hand.

Sacrifices stay dead. That's why it's a sacrifice. Chilling for 3 days before getting back up doesn't constitute sacrifice.

On what basis do you arrogantly claim to define God's own terms. Quit arguing from false exegesis.

Vishnu?

All Hindu derived salvation modules require man to save himself through quasi-gnostic enlightenment and do not contain a completely passive faith based models.

Do not say to yourself, ,"Do not say to yourself I am saved" for I tell you, God can make believers out of rocks.

What you said does not exist in the bible which is why you did not supply a link to it, however it's compete opposite does: For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- Ephesians 2:8 .
We do not earn gifts. The single scripture in context completely refutes every claim you have made. This is getting simply sad. I will break here and quote the rest of your post in a separate response below.

 

[1robin]

So it's useless?

Uggghhh!!!. It went from sad to pathetic. Your declarations are not an argument.

Yeah, imagine if God had to have perfect grace, love, and forgiveness of sins.

Yeah, imagine if a mere human arrogantly defines God's ability and definitions then makes declarations that do not merit a response.

You are explicitly told by Jesus and God how to act to be considered righteous.

Since you posted nothing from the entities you deny they require no defense. I will simply provide what they actually said: John 3 is Christ's most exhaustive instructs about how we can became righteous and enter the kingdom of God and it's climatic statement is: You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.'

The bible is not a god and saves no one. It is a book.

It is neither nor did I claim it was. The bible is "theopneustos" meaning God breathed and applies to original revelation which even in the oppositions scholarly conclusion has been 95% preserved in modern bibles, no corruption exists in core doctrine, and the 5% scribal errors are know and indicated in just about every modern bible.

So God is incompetent and can't make humans who function correctly...

This is pathetic. God cannot accomplish logically impossible things. God cannot make beings with freewill that also are not capable of rebelling against him and acting in non-perfect ways.

Paul: I'm a Christian. I'm, like, the BEST Christian, believe me. I have all kinds of evidence Jesus spoke to me. I'm offended that anyone requested a recorded transcript or anything like proof. When you're a Christian, you gotta believe, and believe ME, I'm the best Christian there is. I'm humble. I'm so humble I denounce Jesus' actual followers and do my own marketing. I'm so humble that I tell you to do things even when I explicitly state God didn't tell me to say it and I am just saying it because I wanted to. ETC, etc ...

This is one of the most arrogant, meaningless, and self contradictory things I have seen and indicates that you are exactly the opposite from what is true of the very thing you claim. Glad this is over. Please make less and more reasoned claims than this generalized and ignorant type of post.

 

[Burl]

According to what moral example will the people, who never heard of Jesus, will be judged?

Yeah, maybe only those who accept Christianity are protected by it and judged by it's example. That leaves each to their own faiths. Now you're going to ask me by what example are Atheists judged?

 

[CG Didymus]

(Kelly of the Phoenix said, "So God is incompetent and can't make humans who function correctly...")
This is pathetic. God cannot accomplish logically impossible things. God cannot make beings with freewill that also are not capable of rebelling against him and acting in non-perfect ways.

So were Adam and Eve ever perfect? How about the adversary angel? If not, then they were created, on purpose, with a flaw, and apparently that flaw is freewill? Because of freewill they, and all of us, rebel and make wrong choices that go against God's will. Since we can never be perfect, we will always do something wrong.

So some people say they believe in Jesus, yet they won't be able to follow him perfectly. Some people won't do the right things or believe in the right things to be true, born-again Christians, even though they may call themselves Christian. So forget them, they're going to hell. Same with those that reject Jesus. Same with all the people of all the other religions, no matter how "good" they might be, because "good" is never good enough. So only the flawed, still sinning people that "truly" believe in the right things about Jesus get to go to heaven? I suppose a "good" Christian should always repent when they realize they are going against God? But what do they do? They repent and repent and repent and never ever stop sinning. They can't help it, they have freewill and keep missing the mark. God says go right, and they go left. God says don't touch, and what do they do? They grab the thing with both hands and practically maul it. Then, feel guilty and repent. But God knows they'll sin again.

But then one glorious day Jesus comes back. Forget for now that 1000 year thing, let's get to when everything is done and all believers are in heaven with no more slanderer or adversary to mess with them. So, do they still have freewill?
Thanks 1Robin, it's been a long time. It's good to see a thread you're posting on.

 

[CG Didymus]

If we would string end to end all the quotes from Jesus from the 4 gospels, remove the redundancy it would only take about 2 and a half hours to read. It would appear Jesus didn't have to much to say. What's up with that?

What about the quotes from the Gospel of Thomas and some of the other non-canonical gospels? Did Jesus say any of those things? What if he said some of those things? Isn't that important? How about the canonical gospels? Did he say all of those things? Did he say them exactly like the writers say he did? Or, did they paraphrase? If they paraphrased, isn't that important? And I wonder, what ever happened to the things Jesus wrote himself? Or, didn't he ever write any of his thoughts of teachings?

 

[Neo Deist]

Scripture says Jesus died for our sins. History says he died because the Romans executed him like they did everyone else who got on their nerves. History says both and both require approx. equal amounts of faith. On what basis do you deny one while condemning the other? Let me give you a few (among many) historical claims made by the bible affirmed by NT historians regardless of which side their on.

1. Jesus appeared in history with an unprecedented sense of divine authority.

Jesus' appearance in history that is not recorded in the Bible, is found in 2 documents: "Antiquities of the Jews" written by Josephus, and Tacitus' work entitled "Annals." The former is thought to have forgeries and additions, while the latter has an anti-Christian tone to it since Tacitus was Roman. Neither says anything about miracles or anything divine. All they say is that Jesus was executed by order of Pilate.

2. That he practiced a ministry of exorcism and miracle working.

So Jesus, who many believe was "God in the flesh," could not tell the difference between a bogus demonic possession and a medical condition like epilepsy? So much for omniscience. Maybe it is because the Bible was written by HUMANS and they had no clue what the hell was wrong with some people. When in doubt, cast the demons out! It had to be supernatural!

3. That he died by crucifixion inflicted by the Romans on instigation of the Hebrew priestly orders.

The Pharisees did not have a thing to do with Jesus being crucified. Pilate was a Roman governor and had the military at his disposal. Furthermore, Pilate was known to be cruel and was later exiled by Caesar because of it. To think that a bunch of old Jewish guys could make any demands of their conquering masters is just silly. Early Christians spun the story to put the blame on the Jews instead of on Pilate, where it belonged. They make Pilate out to be this kind, generous, unwilling governor when in fact history tells a VERY different story about him. Pilate had Jesus executed because he was a rabble rouser, and an example was made out of him.

4. That even his enemies claimed to speak to him after death.

If your source is the Gospels, you can just stop. None of them were written by an eyewitness. All of the authors were anonymous, and the stories were written decades after the fact. At best, they are all hearsay. Incidentally hearsay testimony is not allowed in court because it is unreliable. In other words, much of the Christian faith that is centered around Jesus is based on he said/she said 3rd party story tellers.

There is a reason the Gospels do not agree on several accounts...it's all hearsay!

Bonus: That his apostles had no other possible motivation to record their conclusions beyond their sincerely believing them and (there being no other human being in history to know their validity).

Or, and most likely, they did not want to feel like they had wasted several years of their life, so they worked with their little underground movement and tried to make a martyr out of Jesus.

 

[Neo Deist]

I do not doubt that Jesus existed. I do not doubt that he preached a positive message about love, forgiveness and morality. If more people would follow his message, the world would be a better place.

By the same token, Jesus was just a man, nothing more. I think on a cosmic scale, and so my thoughts drift beyond our little world and look at the bigger picture. The Bible was written in an era that had very little scientific or medical knowledge. They did not have telescopes or microscopes. They did not have satellites, space shuttles, x-rays, MRIs, automobiles, computers, guns or airplanes. Humans are far more advanced than our predecessors that wrote the Bible, and so it is time to bring religion into the 21st century as well.

If God truly wanted everyone to believe in Him, then I am quite sure He could have knowledge of Him hardwired into our DNA. But how boring would it be to have a bunch of automatons running around doing His bidding 24/7. Instead, He gave us free will and leaves us to our own vices. Some people choose the path of light, some choose a path of darkness. Many straddle the middle.