Willravel

I think this post is about explaining the story of Jesus to the marq. I don't remember him asking about transubstantiation-the doctrine that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are transformed into the true presence of Christ, although the appearance is the same (the process of Holy Communion). I suggest starting another post. I think that, and correct me if I'm wrong, the marq was simpy string to get more from the Passion of the Christ, information wise.
Thanks for all the thoughts, though.

shipofshame

Excuse my attention span, but I only read three-quarters of the way down the first page. But in response to the whole "God sent down Jesus, who is really God, to mingle with the crowd and teach us better" thing, here comes my $.02:

The thing is, Christians are really Jewish. Hear me out on this. What I've been taught and unerstand, having grown up in a Jewish school my entire life, is that Jesus was Jewish.

Now, in the Old Testament and in the Jewish religion, we anticipate the coming of a Messiah who will save the world and bring us into a new world of peace, harmony, etc., etc. for all those who take Judaism as their faith and practice it properly. This Messiah will be born Jewish and come into his role by communicating with God.

So Jesus was born and he was good. And then he - apparently - began talking to God and preached His words and practiced His advice. Some Jews said, "Huzzah! This is our Messiah! This is the guy we've been waiting for for 3000-some-odd years! Yay!" So they proclaimed Jesus as their saviour.

However, other Jews were doubtful and did not think that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah they had all been waiting for, and there was a clash between the two groups. Believers vs. Non-believers. One group remained Jewish and the other grouped changed their names to Christians - accepters of Jesus Christ as the Messiah.

And Jesus never pulled through on that whole "saving the world bit." Methinks the Christians were wrong about him. He was just such a nice guy, it's a real pity.

However, I'm young and not as educated as I would like to be, so please, if you know better, I'd like to discuss.

And I'm agnostic for those who care to know.

Willravel

I think it's a bit more complicated then that. Without running the risk of writing another post that takes most people a lifetime to read, I'll just leave it at that. Again, this post is to explain the beliefs surrounding the story told in The Passion of the Christ. If you'd like to add some information that has been left out, plase feel free to do so, but let's not start acompletly different discussion. You will have a better response, and thus a batter conversation or discussion, if you start your own thread. I'd be sure to discuss my thoughts on the matter there, for sure.
Thanks.

SecretMethod70

I don't have time to look through my class notes at the moment to see if I wrote down the specific document or passage, but I was taught by a Catholic theologian at a Catholic university (I know you know this but I'm saying it for others to be aware I'm not just making this up) that it was stated in Vatican II that the FULLNESS of Truth subsist only in the Catholic Church, but there is REAL Truth in other religions as well, thereby making it so that, naturally, Catholics are considered to have the full amount of tools if you will that lead to salvation, but that salvation can be found through other religions as well - it's only more difficult. Like I said before though, even in my short lifetime and limited experiences within the Catholic Church - one congregation my whole life and 2 Catholic schools, as well as reading various things - I can see that there is great variation in any one person's understanding of the Church and its teachings. Different people within the Church place different degrees of importance on different Church decisions. So, it never surprises me to hear of any person within the Church who still may hold on to something like the tradition explanation of Original Sin and so forth. Personally, however, I prefer and my conscience leads me to agree more with the progressive thinkers within the Church such as Thomas Merton and Andrew Greeley.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

raven12

I was educated in a catholic church, and i was always told that it didnt really matter what religion you followed, as long as you were a good person. Then again a lot of catholics i know do know believe the same thing as other catholics.

SecretMethod70

I think I should clarify by the way that what I mean by my statement regarding Truth being found in most religions is not that Buddha provides salvation for a Buddhist, just that a Buddhist can find salvation - yet it still comes through Jesus. Meaning a person who is Buddhist has access to real Truth (although not the "full" truth) and is therefore ale to find salvation - although he or she may not refer to it in Christian terms, Catholics naturally still believe that the salvation comes through Christ - or else the doctrine would be relativism which it surely is not.

EDIT: (primarily for asaris) Vatican II's Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (Nostra Aetate).

Catholicism by Fr. Richard McBrien summarizes on page 386:

And from the First Plenary Council of India (1950) - and approved by Pope Pius XII in 1951:

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

roachboy

on original sin:

the most fleshed out attempt to explain original sin is in augustine's city of god. the argument comes down to this:because you are human and descended from adam and eve, you have a kind of sin chip built into your circuitry. that chip means that you, as a human being, are completely, hopelessly fucked. augustine seems to have some fun outlining just how fucked you are and how much it is a function of a divine justice blah blah blah, so he can talk with great wonderment about how jesus took care of all that. the logic seems to work off itself. i dont think the "logic" of original sin gets addressed anywhere in the main texts--it doesnt make sense, and kind of makes the god in question into something of a tyrant, so its better just to believe. a shut up and swallow kind of thing.

one the gospels: what you read are the gospels selected by the council of nicea in the early 4th century--once constantine converted, and began assimilating christianity to the roman state bureacuracy, tweaks were required to make christianity more hierarchical--it was functional to assume that divine inspiration effectively stopped at a certain, arbitrary point in the past and that gospels stopped being produced that were "real" (some gnostics were still producing gospels, you see) because if divine inspiration was still racing about in 328 or something there would be nothing for the church to mediate....
it was functional to prefer stories about jesus, who seems to have been the main character in what amounts to a minor short fiction industry, that came from a more neoplatonist viewpoint than from other perspectives (for example) because this seemed symmetrical with a bureacratic church.

since it is kind of risky to do this and leave much in the way of traces lying about, the rejected gospels were in the main destroyed (including the gospel of thomas, the story of the teenage jesus, thunder pefect kind and other gnostic texts--they survived in some copies, you can read them in editions like the one elaine pagels put together)....

there are two things that surface even through this readers digest condensed milk version of the council of nicea story:

the gospels you read are as they are not because of any particular accuracy, but because of they were older when the council met, and this alone fit with the idea that divine inspiration had somehow stopped. so you need a church, you see. and because the viewpoint built into the texts were hierarchical or justified hierarchy at some level-----so you can have this kind of church.

second the gospels were not written with reference to empirical acuracy, nor would that have been required: instead, they seems to have been generated with reference to each other, mixed with a kind of divine "inspiration"--so you get a kind of hall of mirrors, something like the french hardboiled detective fiction series le poulpe (the squid) in which lots of different writers make scenarios that conform to certain rules that involve the main character, exploring different aspects of his or her character, etc.

how you resolve your relation to this hall of mirrors around the question of faith is your perogative--i figure there is a way to do it such that the fragments will organize into a three-dimensional image (maybe you need special glasses)---but i am no more or less interested in the stories of jesus than i am in stoires or metastories outlined in any number of other novels.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

asaris

On Jewishness and Christianity: There is a sense in which Christians are Jews; we do indeed see Jesus as the promised Messiah. Of course, most of us are not ethnically Jewish. But we teach that, for the most part, Jews have misunderstood what scripture teaches concerning the Messiah. He came, not to usher in peace and prosperity, but to suffer and die for our sins. He will come back to usher in peace and prosperity.

On Salvation outside the R.C. Church. Of course, I'm very happy that the Catholic Church no longer teaches that I'm going to hell. And what I say here is something of a repetition of what SecretMethod said, but it's an important nuance. There is truth in other religions, but not saving truth; no one is ever saved because they're Buddhist. Similarly, no one is saved because they're a good person. All who are saved are saved by the sacrifice of Christ. But, the RCC teaches that one does not need to know that one is part of the Catholic Church in order to actually be part of the Catholic Church. So, people who, according to our limited view, are not members of the RCC, can still be "secret members".

As a final point, McBrien is slightly outside the mainstream -- not way outside the mainstream, I mean, he teaches here -- but enough outside that one should be leery of taking what he says to be exactly the teaching of the RCC. His emphases and deemphases are odd. It's worth noting that the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops never gave his book their approval.

RoachBoy -- the picture you give isn't really accurate. Sure, the canon wasn't fixed until the 4th century, but it was widely accepted before then. And books like the Gospel of Thomas weren't rejected because they didn't give the church the power it wanted, but because they were later in date and of more dubious authenticity than the canonical gospels. And what do you mean that the Gospels weren't written with reference to empirical accuracy? As far as I can tell, the writers go out of their way to write realistic stories, things with facts that can be checked up on. Where do you get this idea from.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

roachboy

asaris
i think because i do not believe, the problems of text-generation and select criteria applied at the council of nicea interests me in a different way than it might someone who believes--it would make sense that for someone who believes putting a stop conceptually to the chaos of text-generation--or at least limits on it--is necessary. i just think about it without the requirement that there be any "true" gospels floating about in all of this.

what is evident: christianity in its earliest period was not a unified movement, it had no particular center, if i remember--the imposition of a doctrinal center was another fine result of the council itself (this much is obvious)--so when you talk about anything being "generally accepted" before the council, i think you might be indulging a bit of ex post facto rewriting...

i used the gospel of thomas as an example, nothing more--that because i remembered it for some reason---sorry if i created the impression the argument turned on it.---i dont think there is much argument about the general argument, but if you think i am wrong in this, point me at stuff and i'll check it out (am curious)

maybe underneath it all, the way i see this history is as it is because i have more sympathy for the gnostics than i do for the dominant forms of christianity.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

asaris

And I have very little sympathy for the gnostics; not just because I'm pretty orthodox, but also because I like my body. That's, to me, one of the high points of Christianity -- that, at its best, it treats the body as something good given to us by God for our pleasure. There's a reason the creeds teach the "resurrection of the body".

But more on topic. I agree that there was no unified center in early Christianity, and that the papacy was a later development. This is one of the chief points we Protestants disagree with RCs on. That's why I said 'generally accepted', rather than speaking of the teaching of the early church. We might disagree on exactly what the scope of 'generally' is, but it seems clear that there was some agreement about the canon among Christians; for example, no one wanted Sappho's poetry in, and no one wanted the Gospel of Luke out. There was, apparently, difficulties regarding Hebrews and Jude; I don't know the history to know well enough what books almost made it.

The end of text generation was not an arbitrary point; the idea of the council was that books written by apostles were in, others were out. From what little I know of contemporary theories, a number of the NT books are no longer thought to have been written by apostles. But the idea that the books written by people who wrote while Christ's contemporaries were still alive are more authoritative seems to me to make sense yet.

Part of it (and looking at the new individualism thread made me think of this) is that I view part of being a Christian as being part of a tradition, and that tradition has a great deal of weight for me. I don't blindly follow it; some of my beliefs are fairly heterodox. But if tradition tends to think a certain way, I won't depart from it without good reasons. It's part of epistemic humility; I might think a certain way, but if lots of people, many of whom are as wise or wiser than I think otherwise, it's only befitting to give their opinions a great deal of weight.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

lukethebandgeek

Jesus was a hippie. He just wanted folks to get along. Then people made a religion out of it.

__________________
Yes, band camp is all it's cracked up to be.

So I like Chrono... So what?

the_marq

Oh my, I should have paid closer attention to this thread after it took off. As willtravel said above, I was really just interested in the story of Jesus from an academic POV.

I still don't really get what sacrafice He made or what it all meant in the long run. That being said, I have learned somethings about the interpretation of the Bible and as a lapsed Christian I have found it all very informative. I still seem the lack the requisite "faith" that the God seems to demand, but I am getting closer and that is a discussion for another thread.

__________________
The Truth:

Johnny Cash could have kicked Bruce Lee's ass if he wanted to.

#3 in a series

SecretMethod70

Trying to get back to the original intent, even what you ask is a matter of interpretation. Some might say that human beings are "afflicted" with Original Sin and Jesus had to die to forgive us of this "Origianl Sin." This is from the decidedly negative (and more increasingly clearly misguided) philosophies of Augustine regarding the nature of humanity.

Another argument can be made that Jesus' death was the ultimate culmination of a life of example. He showed how to live free from fear of reprisal while doing what one knows to be right - loving all of creation - and that even the prospect of death could not prevent him from this love. Add in the resurrection and it makes this argument even strgoner - that even death can not hold down spirit of the good person.

In my opinion, the doctrine of Original Sin is a holdover from a less mature theology and I tend to embrace the reworking of the concept, redefining original sin in more general terms such as the inherent flaws that come with humanity, i.e. selfishness.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Kalnaur

For the marq:

This is not christian ideals. This is a theory I have after many years in church and other places, nothing more.

It is usually taken for granted by most people that God all knowing. What I have never seen is anything saying he was all understanding. I could have knowledge of everything ever thought of, and without the context to understand it, it would not be worth much. So, let's say God was all knowing, but did not truly understand what it was like to be one of his creations. He feels like we're pissing him off on purpose, killing each other and causing general havok. after several attempts to fix this problem, he sends down his "son", who is one with god (I think of the Triune god like a family; there are the three parts of god, all together making the christian God. I do not believe any religion is truly monotheistic.) whom we humans named Jesus. Jesus is sent to give God an understanding of what it is to live in a human body, and die for "sins" against the church. In this way, God gains the needed understanding of who and what we as humans really are, and is able to forgive any shortcomings we have as his creations. He also understands what these sins are in context to who we as humans are and how whatever force of hurtfulness exists in the world will attempt to trump up charges against the truly good people. Where he was once frusterated with us, he now asks us to believe in his vessel of understanding, his "son". In this way we accept his understanding of us, and it is this mutual acceptance of God's understanding of our suffering that "saves" us. He will accept us as long as we chose to accept him (thus I do believe that other religions that have the same idea, god asking us to accept him, will be "saved" as well.) His son is not flesh, but was put into flesh, and is resurected as who he was before he became put into flesh. He then rejoined his dad back "up" where they live. The idea is he will come back and ask all the good little people to go up to heaven with him, eventually.

So that's my answer to questions 1-3, marq. Tell me if I went way over what you wanted, or left something out.

__________________
PC: Can you help me out here HK?
HK-47: I'm 98% percent sure this miniature organic meatbag wants you to help find his fellow miniature organic meatbags.
PC: And the other 2 percent?
HK-47: The other 2 percent is that he is just looking for trouble and needs to be blasted, but that might be wishful thinking on my part.

analog

Kalnaur: That's a very well-thought-out theory, and I can see where you're coming from, very intriguing.

The questions I would have though, would be: Can you really "Know" something to its full and all-encompassing degree without understanding it?

Plus- and I really hate to do this- but...

Therefore, to have knowledge of something means that one must also understand it. I think that would have to mean that God must also understand everything He "knows".

roachboy

analog: there is a long tradition in christian theology, formalized in the 12th century by folk like william of ockham--nominalism--the idea is that human understanding, being finite, cannot know or understand god, being infinite. the organized church would be less than happy with this position as it would not give them a postiion to work from--the 12th century counterposition to ockham's was outlined at great great length by aquinas.
many heretical movements were effectively nominalist. martin luther was a kind of nominalist-lite (you cant read or understand the bible except through "grace" which leads you to a kind of unknowing knowing...) pascal was much more hardcore. kierkegaard as well, but he never goes as far as pascal.

most protestant denominations that i am familiar with would reject nominalist positions outright--thge closest i know about would be pentecostals, who emphasize the role of direct spiritual illumination--but they wrap it up in a limited literal general interpretation of the bible, which i have never understood.

if there was ever anything about chrisitianity that appealed to me, it is nominalism. you see some of its implications in nietzsche...the position would lead you to a kind of remaining open to possibilities beyond human understanding while at the same time reducing most existing movements to collections of phrases that refer to the ability to generate phrases and not to anything outside of that.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

asaris

Just an off-topic point roachboy, but you're misusing the term 'nominalism'. Nominalism is, quoting www.philosophypages.com (because I suck at giving definitions), To the best of my knowledge, no Christian thinker has ever asserted that the human mind can comprehend God; the argument about our knowledge of God has centered around whether it's equivocal (what we mean when we say 'God is good' is not the same as what me mean when we say 'Bill Clinton is good'.) or univocal (when we say 'God is good' we mean the same thing as when we say 'Bill Clinton is good').

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Kalnaur

True analog, however, notice that that is also our definition as humans. As well, it says that knowledge can be "Familiarity, awareness, or understanding". God could have been aware and familiar with the information without fully understanding it. It is also said that it is gained through experience, thus he would have gained a store of knowledge that he was aware of, knew it inside and out, and yet did not necessarily understand it.

Just a thought.

__________________
PC: Can you help me out here HK?
HK-47: I'm 98% percent sure this miniature organic meatbag wants you to help find his fellow miniature organic meatbags.
PC: And the other 2 percent?
HK-47: The other 2 percent is that he is just looking for trouble and needs to be blasted, but that might be wishful thinking on my part.

SecretMethod70

Guess what, the Bible wasn't written in english so none of this matters. For all we know, the Hebrew word that was used meant "all-understanding." (I'm sure someone DOES know, but I do not)

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

roachboy

asaris: the theological definition of nominalism comes from ockham--if you tranpose:

into a mideval theological context, you end up with god.
for the christianized platonism of folk like aquinas god is like the container within which the ideas or forms operate--in other words, categories exist because the idea/form exists in god's mind. this framework is why the ontological proof in aquinas at first glance looks bizarre: "that god is is a tautology".....work it out, if you havent already, and you'll see what i mean.
ockham made counterargument, some of which is summarized in the dicto-paragraph you cited above--all you need to do is make the tranposition, and things fit together neat-like.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

asaris

Boy -- you're really testing my memory here, roachboy. I haven't studied medieval philosophy in years, and when I did, my focus was Philosophical Anthropology, not Metaphysics or Epistemology. But you do seem confused.

1. A further comment on your earlier post: Aquinas did not outline the counterposition to Ockham; at least, not in the sense that he was responding to Ockham. Aquinas lived about a generation before Ockham. Additionally, it was Duns Scotus who was more influential until around the time of the reformation, so to the extent the Church tended towards a position other than Ockham's, it would have been Scotus's.

2. The statement "God exists" is a tautology for Aquinas, but not for the reasons you aver. God is perfectly simple, according to Aquinas, so he is his own existence. Therefore, the predicate in that statement does not add any meaning to the statement. That's why its a tautology.

3. Aquinas was not a Platonist, he was an Aristotelian. I can't remember exactly how he describes the relation between particulars and universals, and my books on this are at home. I hope to give you a further response later.

As far as most Protestant denominations rejecting nominalism; well, I think this would be hard to say. I do know that my own denomination would count among its Catholic forerunners Duns Scotus, who was more nominalistic than Aquinas (though not as much as Ockham).

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

roachboy

ok now we are also far back in my memory banks as well:
on aquinas/ockham: maybe an anachronistic juxtaposition--it helps me keep the alternatives seperate. i taught this stuff but not for a long time, so if my brainhaze has clouded things outside itself, my apologies.

2. or god could be the being that contains the logical conditions of possibility for all beings, which would include the category of being itself, so its tautological. works basically the same way in either case.

3. i know that in general aquinas is an aristotlean, but in this particular case the line is basically platonist. the two are not at all points mutually exclusive.

this memory test thing is kind of fun.
it is hard, though. i wonder if i have reservoirs left on this. i suppose we'll see.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Sign Related

Why is it called the second coming if Jesus already came back if he was resurrected?

smooth

hmm, I guess I didn't come to late to the party:

As I understand it, the crucifixion had to occur because the deity's law mandated blood sacrafice for sin. The savior being sinless, violated the contract and nulled it between man and deity.

That's how the teachings go, as I understand them.

Alternatively, as I understand them:

The savior was a fleshly manifestation of the deity. Maybe just an enlightened person--but I suggest that the belief was and is more important than what occurred in that particular point in time and space. While in this fleshly counterpart, he taught people the true meaning of being resurrected--the rabbinical lie that people were locked into sin from birth. As he began to resurrect people in this metaphysical sense, allowing them to directly communicate to the diety (possibly; also I think a reoccuring theme in pentacostals and Lutherans and some similar types of denominations that eschew power solidified in the bureaucratic wings), the religious leaders (also, I understand, synonymous with power we might recognize now as political) set him up and allowed the roman occupiers to execute him for political rabble-rousing.

I've even read some books that make an even further asssertion in regards to evidence that the yeshua was a mason spilling secrets to the commoners. The rest of the bio falls into place as a political manuever to have some other authorities to take him out.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

cooperricko

Hi all,

I'm impressed with everyone's "knowledge" and knowing of the "facts" as laid out in the Bible. Similar knowledge of "facts" of a group of followers ( based on their interpretation ) existed in 30,000 BC ( Before Caesar - not Christ ) by the Aboriginies of Australia. This predates many religions and serves up a wonderful story that was passed down by generations of elders who committed the story to memory. Some of the translations were lost in "Chinese Whispers" but the story was feasable - not.

Perhaps any thoughts on whether or not someone or something existed might be better based on 1. Logic, 2. Pure fact, 3. Universal laws ( gravity, life, death etc ) and not on the interpretations by a group of self important clergy in 392 CE of a widely varying "story" of a fictional character 300 years before.

These wise men saw fit to leave out several pertinent facts - such as proof of death of JC ( dismemberment of body and subsequent resurrection would REALLY be impressive - not recovering from a fainting spell after a hard day in the sun. )

Up until the 1400s they all thought that the world was flat. Why wasn't this taught 1,950 odd years ago?

Where does this thread stop?

asaris

Cooperricko-- your post is so full of falsity I just have to pick it apart.

The Aborigines believed in similar facts in 30,000 BCE? How interesting. Not that you mention what these 'facts' are, or how this is relevant to the thread in any way whatsoever. And I hate to dash your hopes, but 30,000 years before Caesar is pretty much 30,000 years before Christ.

You are aware, aren't you, that history doesn't proceed by either logic or universal laws? Unless you're a Hegelian or a Marxist, the only way to know what happened in history is to look at historical documents. Logic and universal laws don't really have much to do with it. And pure fact is generally pretty hard to find.

So you claim that Jesus was a fictional character? Gee, you'd think someone would have noticed. Nevermind the fact that there's more historical evidence for his existence than for just about any other historical person of that time period; four biographies written during the lifetime of his contemporaries is about as good evidence as you're going to get.

While we're on this, the council of Nicea, which is, I assume, what you're trying to mindlessly bash, was towards the beginning of the 4th century CE, not the end.

What do you mean by proof of death? You don't think the Roman soldiers executing him for treason would have made good and sure he was dead? Or do you think that after being tortured for most of a day, and laying without food and water, not to mention without medical attention, for about a day and a half, wouldn't have killed just about anyone? And exactly why do you think the disciples would have provided evidence of his death? Once he's dead there's no point -- no one thought he was going to rise again. And, of course, once he's risen it's going to be hard to find evidence of his death.

Up until th 1400s, they thought the world was round. People have known that the world was round for a very, very long time; at least back to the Greeks. It's pretty obvious when you look at a ship going over the horizon. Sure, Joe on the street might have thought the world was flat; but then again, so would you if you hadn't been taught otherwise.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Willravel

ZING! Thank you so much asaris for pointing out the amazing faults in cooperricko's post. It always throws me off when people start talking about something they think they know about. Don't post unless you have relevent knowledge on the subject or are searching for said knowledge. I mean cooperroclo kinda made a fool of himself. I'm sure this was not his intention, but here we are.

To answer Coop's last question: this post will stop when people realize that this thread was not asking whether the bible was true or false. The original question was about the story or history of Jesus Christ and God. The person had some question about Christianity. I think my answer back on the 9/2 was a decent example of an answer to the question. I check back every few days hoping that someone can have further insite into the answers to the questions posted by marq. If you mean by 'this' the constant battle between those who believe and those who don't it probably won't end until the end of days. We'll see, if God returns or the sun finally snuffs out.

Mr_Wall

I saw on a documentary the other day where they actually think Jesus was a buddist and they said he is believed to have travelled to India as a baby where he was named the buddah. They (the Indians) have scripts that say that a holy one came from the west he went away and came back 30 years later and became buddah. Makes sense as Jews believe in eye for an eye and etc, and buddist's love all living things

Jesus Pimp

I heard a theory that Jesus studied with the Yogies while in India and learned meditation techniques such has burying yourself underground for days without food or water. Thus he dug himself out after he was crucified.

__________________
Never date anyone who doesn't make your dick hard.

analog

Dammit, man. I THOUGHT this, and didn't TYPE it out... i thought, "ah, i'll just leave it"... but you're right, it is very important.

Willravel

Not all of the bible was written in Hebrew. The bible could have beeen written by aliens visting earth for our bounty of heroin. The bible might have been written by steven king in 20 years, and he used a time machine to go back in time to plant it on some dude.
This thread is about explaining in better detail the life of Jesus Christ and His relationship with God the Father. This is not about the orgins of the bible. It's about what's in the bible.

analog

very good point, willravel, thank you for taking us back on track.

shipofshame

I do agree with the point of getting back on topic, however I disagree with the point that it does not matter what language the New Testament was written in.

Parts were written in Greek and parts written in Hebrew. In my studies, I've come to find that the translations to English were extremely generous, and helped make Jesus seem more incredible than he might of been.

One example that comes to mind is the "miracle" he performed of walking on water. In the original Greek text, the word 'epi' was used to describe Jesus' action of walking 'epi' the sea. It was translated into "on the sea." However, 'epi' would more commonly and logically be translated into 'alongside' as in "Jesus walked alongside the sea."

Just sayin' is all.

Willravel

Still talking about the bibles background, eh?
The background is a matter of faith. I have faith that people will move their opinnions about the bibles orgins to the 'is the bible a valid source' thread.
Marq asked this:
"First. According to what I have learned from "The Passion of the Christ," God so loved mankind that he gave his only Son to save them. Save them from what, sin? Couldn't God just say, I forgive you?
Second. What do they mean by "gave his only Son?" Mel Gibson made it abundandly clear that Jesus certainly suffered before he was murdered, but 3 days later he was fine. So it isn't like you or I giving up a child permenently.
Third. What happened to Jesus after the resurection? I have a vauge understanding of an impending "second coming" but what's that really all about?
Any insight would be appreciated."
Good questions, all.

SecretMethod70

As much as I'm a fan of on-topic threads, I think the questions raised in this thread are ALL relevant to the original post. See, the fact is there is no single answer to the original questions. In fact, the answers one gives depend largely on one's understanding and belief about the background of the Bible. For example, there are just about as many different interpretations as to what "second coming" means as there are people who believe there will be or has been some sort of "second coming."

Personally, I'd like to leave it up to the_marq to tell us whether or not we're wasting his time with the discussions of background. There's no such thing as a simple answer regarding religion, and it's disingenuous to try and give one.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Cynthetiq

God could not just say "I forgive you." because of Free Will. Understand that Free Will was also given to Adam and Eve. They chose to disobey God and they needed to ask for forgiveness but were banished from the garden of eden.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

Secret Method: The original questions are in pertaining to the stories the bible tells. The questions were, seemingly, asked after viewing of the Passion of the Christ. The Passion was based on Christianity. Therefore, in Catholocism and Protestantism lies the answers to his questions. That eliminates all the posts about Gnostics, Judism, etc. The language of the bible is important, but as far as this thread is concerned it is delving way too deeply into something that will start thousands of side arguments. This thread can be answered simply by reading the NKJV or NIV of the english bible, translated from German, translated from Latin, translated from Hebrew, translated from whatever.
the_marq said this: "Oh my, I should have paid closer attention to this thread after it took off. As willtravel said above, I was really just interested in the story of Jesus from an academic POV."
That's pretty clear, IMO.

the_marq

I'm hesistant to post again in this thread for fear of killing it. This kind of rational healthy debate is not only informative to me, but highly entertaining. It's also this sort of thing that I like best about the TFP. I started the thread just because I was curious about where Jesus went after the resurection. That was purely academic, and if you will allow me to say so, factual. IE: The bible says he did ....'whatever.'

My other 2 questions were more POV orriented. Depending on where you stood on Christianity and basic religious principles, why or how God and/or Jesus did what they did is highly debatable.

From where I stand Jesus is no different a figure than Hercules or Thor. Yet I doubt a debate about the reasons Hercules did what he did would generate nearly has much debate.

So don't stop that debate on my account. I have a clearer understanding of what might have happened 2000 years ago, but every post and different POV on Chrisitanity teaches me a little more, and that's why I am here.

__________________
The Truth:

Johnny Cash could have kicked Bruce Lee's ass if he wanted to.

#3 in a series

Willravel

Hahah okay. Gotcha. I think you gave the thread a longer life by posting actually.

Rodney

Some people think he survived (never died) and went on to India. Others think he survived and went _back_ to India. Some scholars point to a particular tomb in North India's as being Jesus'.

For a whole lot of speculation, click this Google search:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...=Google+Search

And this article from the fairly level-headed Fortean Times is a good introduction to the whole matter:

http://www.forteantimes.com/articles...suseast1.shtml