Theological Opinions , PART II

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Aquilonis

I am more comfortable admitting that I don't know, rather than believing something out of pure faith which I can never be sure of. Take that as you will.

That's fine by me That's the way I operate, too (if by "pure faith" you mean ONLY faith, that is).

Just a quickie (darn all these annoying paperwork things related to moving to Arizona!) -

I still note- chimpanzees and humans being of the same line is a huge bone of contention in these types of arguments, but to accept Noah's Ark, you would have to accept the family theory...

No, one wouldn't have to accept the family theory - that's an artificial (tho handy) structure imposed upon nature by scientists in order to classify/study it better.

Lief - of course I don't mind! *bops Lief on the head with his saber* (how's that going, btw?) Just because I've been gone awhile doesn't mean I've changed into some annoying thread Nazi!!! Looks like you saved me the trouble of a long answer - you had a nice post on what I was going to say! Now I can go off and sign those escrow papers - 'bye, all! I'll be back hopefully tomorrow with some more time.

And I think the literal days thing is likely, but I'm not bound to it.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Aquilonis

Not as popular novels, but they didn't write them knowing that in 325 AD the Council of Nicaea would decide "Hey, I think we'll put this in!". Many of them are standalone books, they were written by different people. While I agree that they were likely religiously-based when they were written, I personally would not be so sure that they were absolute gospel. Again, we'd probably disagree. My only point with the LOTR thing was that in 2000 years if someone found a copy of that book, it could very well be jumped on as religion and two people would have this kind of discussion. Instead of "Theological Opinions II" it would be "Was this Tolkien guy a Prophet?"

Don't be silly; the Bible was not constructed at the Council of Nicaea (though you did get the year right). I believe the first official list was actually formulated after it, at a local Roman council in 382. The canon was dogmatized at Trent. Unofficial lists were published well before Nicaea, and it is clear that certain texts were Scriptures. As to not knowing they would be canonized, St. Peter's writings indicate that he considered St. Paul's to be Scripture. Hardly Nicaea, now is it?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Lief - of course I don't mind! *bops Lief on the head with his saber* (how's that going, btw?) Just because I've been gone awhile doesn't mean I've changed into some annoying thread Nazi!!!

*Pokes an ice pack to his head, gingerly.* Is that so?

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Looks like you saved me the trouble of a long answer - you had a nice post on what I was going to say! Now I can go off and sign those escrow papers - 'bye, all! I'll be back hopefully tomorrow with some more time.

And I think the literal days thing is likely, but I'm not bound to it.

If you view the available scientific data as leaning toward a literal seven day answer, then it makes the most sense to view that interpretation of scripture as also the most likely.

[trolls' bane]

Subscribing...

[Aquilonis]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'd like to submit a warm welcome to you, as well .

Thank you very much, as well (this forum has given me the warmest welcome of all )

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You're right about the dates, it was about 60 AD that most of those manuscripts were made, give or take a few years. But that is only a 30 year gap from Jesus' crucifixion. That time gap is way smaller than it is for ANY other ancient historical text that scholars have. Most times, texts that tell different interpretations and contain substantial errors and mythological type elements come up about two to three hundred years after the original events. The fact that there is only a 30 year time gap between the time of the Gospels were written means that the possibility of a telephone game is unsupported.

Very good point. However, you'd have to assume there were plenty of witnesses involved in this to completely refute anything the disciples wrote that happened to be, umm, embellishment. There is a religion (forgot the name off the top of my head) which believes Haile Selassie of Africa (who lived very recently) is the Messiah. It all depends on who and how many. Nobody in the world disputes that Jesus died on the cross. How long it took him to die may be the result of many things (the spear wound, for example, is a main one), but by 60 AD, that would be immaterial. His "40 days" thing (which I won't accept or deny...I just don't know) was witnessed by his disciples and Mary, as well as a few other people, all of them biased sources. If, say, the Roman proconsul or a legionary or a Jewish citizen (non-previous follower) wrote something saying "hey, I saw Jesus today" then that would be a little bit more believable from a historical standpoint.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Also, you talk about the possibility of inaccuracy and error. But there are many, many early texts, particularly from the 4th century AD. In these vast numbers of texts, which are more numerous than that supporting just about any other ancient historical text, there is only a small degree of error and deviation from one to another. No major doctrine is different between one text and another. If one expected there to be mistakes and changes over time, you would expect a far higher degree of error between different texts. The degree of accuracy between texts sets the New Testament a long way ahead of other historical texts from around the same time period, and it, just as does the very small 30 year gap between the time the manuscripts were written and the events that they described.

The Church, or the councils representing it (the 300s were HUGE for those) only selected books as canonical if they agreed with the established dogma. There were many, many, many books circling around at the time, but only one group of people believed the way that the Catholic Church wanted them to. That group got recognized, the others were heretical or just plain wrong.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Remember also, there are other aspects to the 30 year gap issue that support the validity of the New Testament texts. The authors of those texts originally were seeking to convert the Jews. They were trying to do this a mere 30 years after those events, so if they had made untrue claims, they would have been making those untrue claims in the presence of people who knew firsthand that they weren't telling the truth. Historians from the time period such as Josephus do corroborate the New Testament claim that Jesus attracted large crowds in Israel- he was a very charismatic and popular figure. There would have been a lot of Jews who knew what actually happened in his life. So these people would have invalidated what the Gospels said over and over again. Also, the Pharisees were looking for any opportunity to invalidate the message the disciples were presenting, and if the disciples were making things up, this would have provided them with ample opportunity to do so. It would have been implausible in that time period.

"Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven" is easily convinceable- he wasn't inside the city walls, and the only people who saw him were his followers. You can say anything you want if you're one of those people, everyone "with you at the time" will corroborate you. With regard to his historical life, 60 AD is the earliest of the Gospels, and in many respects what came after would have been hard to refute for several reasons-

1. The Temple was destroyed and the Jews scattered in AD 70. Anybody still alive who witnessed the crucifixion of Jesus was run out of the city.

2. Refutations could easily be explained by "you didn't actually see Jesus perform these miracles, you weren't there". Jesus healed the poor and destitute, and in the Empire, those people were almost universally illiterate. Life expectancy was also lower- you could expect to live 30-40 years, then you were lucky for any more. In 60, most everyone who was old enough to know about Jesus was dead or quite old, and the writers of the Gospels wrote based on oral tradition. That makes it the beginning of a telephone game, and if you're well disposed already...it's not hard to convince you. Finally, this wasn't the present day, where if you wrote a good book, people would see it far and wide and Penguin would publish it. The Gospels, though put down then, were conveyed through speeches to people who had no idea by people who claimed to.

With regard to any living Jews who knew and could read and could refute...most of the things said about his life were historical. What he said, who he was, what he did non-supernaturally were never in question. The only question I could see the Jews having was his ability to heal the sick, and we've heard from nobody except the Gospel writers about that. Odds are, we never will, because the early Church was quite ruthless in suppressing dissent (I'm sure the Arians and Pelagians wrote something, didn't they?)

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Also, there are elements intrinsic to the Gospels that indicate validity. For one, there is the fact that women were the ones who originally discovered Jesus' resurrection, and it was a woman who first saw Jesus resurrected. Women, in the time of Jesus, were considered one of the least reliable forms of evidence, so if the disciples had been inventing things in the tale, they would have made the disciples themselves find the empty tomb. The fact that they said otherwise indicates that they were trying to stick as close to the facts as they could.

Or that they were going for the symbolism of the weak and oppressed. Decades later, the facts are not quite as important as how they are portrayed, and a meek, innocent woman with a pure heart finding the stone rolled away seems to me to be much more of a profound thing. Also, once Jesus "revealed" himself to the disciples, the reliability issue is over, because Mary wasn't the only one to know that he was buried in that tomb. If he's out talking to his disciples, he got out somehow.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

So does the fact that the issue of circumcision is not raised at all in the Gospels. That was an issue that was tearing up the church's insides at the time of Jesus, and there would have been strong motive to put something in Jesus' mouth about it. But the Gospels are silent, which again indicates a strong desire to cling to accuracy.

There was no Church at the time of Jesus (the first Church was made by his disciples), and I doubt there was a problem at the time, either, as Jesus was circumcised and all the Jews around him as well. I'm guessing you mean the Early Church, but remember, there are two sides of the coin. The other side could say something too, and Jesus was a Jewish leader in a sense. He would never take away circumcision (that was Paul that discouraged it) and advocating it was unnecessary. By the time of the Church Councils, you couldn't just "write a book" saying that Jesus said something, either. They had to pick the "right" ones, and nobody back in the 1st Century considered it a big enough deal.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You know, as far as I'm concerned, the debate over whether or not evolution is possible has been made way too much of a religious issue by fundamentalist Christians. I'm a fundamentalist Christian myself, and I interpret the Bible literally, but the scripture really doesn't require a literal seven days. In fact, there is one verse in Genesis that seems to support evolution.

I guess we're in agreement on this point, then. My question is how you define a "day" if Day and Night haven't been created yet, or if the Earth isn't rotating.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Fundamentalist Christians are all agreed that one doesn't have to interpret dreams and visions in the scripture literally. It is well known and accepted that God presents his truth through picture imagery. Now in the book of Revelation, the number 7 is used many, many times in that great vision, and this is broadly accepted as symbolic imagery. The events of creation in the Book of Genesis had to have been related by God to man, since man was only created on the 6th day, after all the rest of creation. He could not have witnessed what happened before him firsthand.

God very, very frequently speaks to mankind through dreams and visions- these are two of the most frequently used means of communication he uses in the Bible. It is completely possible that when God spoke to Adam and Eve, he used the symbolic language of a vision or dream to describe the creation process.

Which allows people to debate to no end on exactly how things came about. The Old Testament, in my personal experience, is no evidence to anything, as it's completely refuted on many points by math and science. Visions are very vague, and "dreams" could be anything.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

There also is a verse in Genesis chapter 1 that says the land created the animals according to their kinds. This happened in the most literal way, according to the theory of evolution. The changing environment created the different animal species in the way they are now.

As long as it's the land and not God (BIG distinction there) then I agree. I should also say though, that it is also a possibility in my mind that the original specie(s) were created (I mean bacteria) and it went from there. I believe, relatively surely, that we are a product of evolution, but the beginning is still a curiosity for me.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I know RÃ*an believes in the literal 7 days, so she'll give you a different answer. But my main point is that evolution should not be a major bone of contention as regards Noah's ark. It shouldn't be raised as a matter of religious debate at all, at least for Christianity. If the Bible clearly intended a literal 7 days, then it would be an issue worth a religious debate. But as the Bible didn't, as it may very easily have been through a dream or vision that the Lord spoke, it really should be an issue left solely to scientific debate and not forced into the fake position of being a huge confrontation issue between science and the Bible.

My point was that I just believe Noah's Ark to be scientifically impossible in the literary sense we're given. With or without evolution, the Earth has too many animals and too many species. The Ark could not fit them. Thus my problem with the Bible...this particular aspect I find hard to believe on many levels, and thus the whole thing becomes suspect in my mind. I guess if you localized it to something like a valley and not the whole world....eh....I don't know. Debate will continue on this, I am sure.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

This is completely reasonable and makes perfect sense. The fact is, though, that while many non-Christians and a fair number of Christians think that the Bible requires blind faith, this is not what the Bible teaches. Look at the lives of the apostles and early Christians as described in the scripture, and you'll see that they interacted strongly with God. They had a great deal of evidence, based upon which it was easy to believe. When you are talking with the Lord and seeing the acts of his power in clear ways, when you are seeing your prayers answered and taste of the divine love in an experiential way, then you aren't basing your beliefs on blind faith but upon reasonable faith. Then your faith is that of a child who waits at a table for his mother to give him food. He expects his mother to give him food, he has faith that his mother will give him food, for a couple very sound reasons.

1) She always has given him food. She can be trusted to give him food again, because she has provided for him so consistently in the past.
2) He has a loving relationship with his mother, and as he knows her love and has experienced a relationship with her in many ways, he knows her and hence can reasonably expect her to give him food.

In the same way, a Christian who knows the Lord, and I mean really knows the Lord in experience and interaction, has the same kind of reasonable faith. It isn't blind faith. I suspect you've read the Book of Acts. Then you know what the relationship with God can be, according to the Bible, and to a large extent what it should be. And you also have an insight into what a large Christian population still experience in their lives.

With all respect, I think I agree with the premise but not the content of this part. Of course, you don't mean talking in a language, but more with a feeling-type thing (correct me if I'm wrong). I've always considered that a human effect based on previous experience with something (like burning your hand on a stove or running blindly into a tree branch). In those cases, you will feel an apprehension when jogging near tree branches or cooking. In my mind, the Bible is a useful tool to teach lessons, like the Golden Rule, etc, but should not be used as a totally historical book. My view is quite complicated...I believe that the universe had to have come into being somehow, God is the answer in my mind, but I don't think it's a micromanaging thing, I think it's a much broader thing. I think (this is all conjecture, I don't know) that God set the beginning in motion, and the world "occurred". We have free will, we are our own people, and we find what we find in ourselves. I don't think I wrote that very well, but I'm sure I'll be able to elaborate sometime....

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

There are many other evidences supporting Christianity and the validity of the scriptures, though. description of why disciples wouldn't die for something that wasn't true
There are other evidences too . . . the prophecies of the Old Testament are a key one, but I'm running out of time now.

I broke that down for space purposes...the disciples that were killed in the persecutions led a large group of converts that they helped create. I liken that to the Titanic, whose captain went down with the ship, so to speak. Better for them to die and the faith to live than them to recant just for their lives and the Christian faith falls like a stack of cards. Whether it was totally true at that point became irrelevant. Maybe at the beginning, but definitely not then.


EDIT- Re. Rian-

How would they fit, then? There is no way in the world that two of every species of land animal would have survived on something that small...it had to be something different. Ability to reproduce the same organism is a key part of that, and without it you'd have mass extinction.

On the other point, you and I will inevitably disagree here, but my level of faith is dependent on my level of provable evidence. If I have a lot, then ok. God, in my mind, exists somehow, I believe there's got to be some kind of unexplainable beginning, but I'm not quite sure I would say that I believe most of the Bible. I guess I'm more of a skeptic...

Re. Gwaimir -

I have checked that, and you are correct. Nicaea tried to standardize dogma, not the Bible. The Vulgate was put together by Jerome roughly ca. 400, and the "final" Bible was the Council of Trent. With regard to St. Peter, if I was trying to put together a point of divinity, and my fellow disciple and friend wrote something, I'd do my best to help him out, too. That doesn't say much with regard to the Bible per se, because most of the relevant books were written after both of their deaths. Either way, though, the point I was trying to make (that Scripture was not Scripture to all interested parties until well after the events) stands whether it was Nicaea or Trent or any Church Council.

[hectorberlioz]

Just one thing about that Selassie thingamabob, Aquinolas: they are in a probability just trying to get some attention, seeing as how worldwide Jesus has become

[Aquilonis]

Maybe they are, maybe they're not....the Bahai operate on the same principle, use that example if you don't like the Selassie one, haha

[Alcuin]

Time to stop? Reconsider? Change directions in this thread?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Alcuin

Time to stop? Reconsider? Change directions in this thread?

That's some pretty professional pic there, Alcuin

[trolls' bane]

See, you forget that is referring to reply number 666, when it is, in fact, post number 667.

[hectorberlioz]

Oh dear, I hadn't noticed!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Aquilonis

Very good point. However, you'd have to assume there were plenty of witnesses involved in this to completely refute anything the disciples wrote that happened to be, umm, embellishment.

And as I said before, according to Josephus as well as the Gospels' own accounts, there were huge crowds following Jesus everywhere. Thousands of witnesses of many (though certainly not all) of the teachings and miracles attributed to him.

Originally Posted by Aquilonis

There is a religion (forgot the name off the top of my head) which believes Haile Selassie of Africa (who lived very recently) is the Messiah. It all depends on who and how many. Nobody in the world disputes that Jesus died on the cross. How long it took him to die may be the result of many things (the spear wound, for example, is a main one), but by 60 AD, that would be immaterial. His "40 days" thing (which I won't accept or deny...I just don't know) was witnessed by his disciples and Mary, as well as a few other people, all of them biased sources.

According to Paul, Jesus appeared at one time to hundreds of people at once, and Paul further claimed that many of those people were still alive at the time he was writing his Epistle.

Originally Posted by Aquilonis

If, say, the Roman proconsul or a legionary or a Jewish citizen (non-previous follower) wrote something saying "hey, I saw Jesus today" then that would be a little bit more believable from a historical standpoint.

Why doesn't Paul count, in this case? He has affirmed strongly in the Epistles that he saw more than a bright light- he saw Jesus himself, and because of this, he claimed that he had authority as an apostle. He was one of the fiercest enemies of the Church before his conversion.

Originally Posted by Aquilonis

The Church, or the councils representing it (the 300s were HUGE for those) only selected books as canonical if they agreed with the established dogma. There were many, many, many books circling around at the time, but only one group of people believed the way that the Catholic Church wanted them to. That group got recognized, the others were heretical or just plain wrong.

When scriptures were being selected, those that were chosen were strongly affirmed by the Early Church and were well supported. Those Apocryphal texts that have been excluded have often been shown to be wrong on many factual points, as well as sometimes just absurd. In one of them, Jesus comes out of the tomb in front of all the Pharisees and is standing so tall that his head is touching the clouds. Other such texts contain comments by Jesus that are just strongly opposed to the character of Jesus, such as the Gospel of Thomas, in which Jesus said that his mother Mary would have to be turned into a man before she could inherit the kingdom of God. This comment differs very strongly from Jesus' character in the Gospels, in which he reaches out in love even to a Samaritan woman, and the teachings of Paul, who said that there is neither male nor female but all are simply one in Christ Jesus.

They were very strict and rigorous in what scriptures they accepted as scriptures. They chose on the pattern of, "If in doubt, throw it out," and thus the remaining texts (which had strong backing from the Early Church, unlike the Apocryphal texts) have been shown repeatedly by corroboration from other historical documentation, as well as archaelogical evidence, to be highly accurate.

Originally Posted by Aquilonis

"Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven" is easily convinceable- he wasn't inside the city walls, and the only people who saw him were his followers. You can say anything you want if you're one of those people, everyone "with you at the time" will corroborate you.

Granted, this line of reasoning works with this incident. It doesn't work with other incidents from the scripture, though, which you haven't mentioned.

For instance, there is also the miraculous feeding of the 5,000, and the feeding of the 4,000, each of which miracles were witnessed by thousands of people. There is also the fact that he performed miraculous healings and demon banishings all over the place, which there actually is strong historical evidence for from highly valuable outside sources as well.

You see, we have texts from the Pharisees at the time. They wrote that Jesus was a sorcerer who performed "black magic." The Pharisees had every reason to deny Jesus' miracles if they could. Instead, however, they, his staunchest critics, were forced to admit that he was doing astounding things. They just attributed it to the devil, as the scripture confirms also, in which his enemies declared, "Your miracles come from Beelzebub!"

Originally Posted by Aquilonis

With regard to his historical life, 60 AD is the earliest of the Gospels,

I believe this is inaccurate. I think that some of the possible dates proposed for the Gospels range into the 50s. I'll look that up, when I get the chance.

Originally Posted by Aquilonis

and in many respects what came after would have been hard to refute for several reasons-

1. The Temple was destroyed and the Jews scattered in AD 70. Anybody still alive who witnessed the crucifixion of Jesus was run out of the city.

They preached originally to the Jews, as was recorded in the Book of Acts. This got them heavily persecuted, and they continued to preach in spite of it. As I recall, the Epistles are dated as having been written a decade before the Gospels, and unless I'm mistaken, they also provide evidence for the early preaching to the Jews. They were originally preaching all this to the people who had witnessed it. See Peter's speech to the crowd around Acts Chapter 2 . . . maybe Chapter 3. Look at how direct his words are (And Luke, the author of Acts, has proven a highly reliable source). I'll find quotes soon to establish my points- I don't have a Bible handy.

Originally Posted by Aquilonis

2. Refutations could easily be explained by "you didn't actually see Jesus perform these miracles, you weren't there".

You're talking about in the Empire, so as regards Jesus' miracles, you're right. But the scriptures say that his followers will do the same. So there's that sticking point. They didn't have to make excuses about their claimed past- they could use evidence (their miracles) to prove their case. That's one of the reasons for the ultra-rapid spread of the Early Church, and it still happens a lot in modern times.

Originally Posted by Aquilonis

Jesus healed the poor and destitute, and in the Empire, those people were almost universally illiterate.

Recall that he also healed a Roman centurion's slave; he also very frequently healed in front of vast crowds, and the healings were admitted by his most dire opponents.

Originally Posted by Aquilonis

Or that they were going for the symbolism of the weak and oppressed. Decades later, the facts are not quite as important as how they are portrayed, and a meek, innocent woman with a pure heart finding the stone rolled away seems to me to be much more of a profound thing.

It does to you, because you come from our modern age. They, on the other hand, didn't allow women to speak in court because women's evidence was to them worthless. And women weren't really viewed as "oppressed," at that time either. The people to whom the early Christians were talking thought women were being treated just fine in their societies. There wasn't any feminist movement, and the Medieval concept of the pure, innocent virgin had not been born yet. That came centuries later, and was probably based upon people like the Virgin Mary, from the Bible. That kind of stereotypical perspective on women didn't exist at the time the Christians were trying to argue their case.

Originally Posted by Aquilonis

Also, once Jesus "revealed" himself to the disciples, the reliability issue is over, because Mary wasn't the only one to know that he was buried in that tomb. If he's out talking to his disciples, he got out somehow.

True, but it still would have been a sticking point in Christian claims. The glorious resurrection first presented to women . . . of all people. People would have wondered, "if he was God resurrected from the dead, why would he choose to show himself first to women?" Imagine you're coming from that society. Imagine someone claiming to you that God coming down from heaven, went and interacted for a while with the cows in a field, and then revealed himself to him. The cows part of it would undermine the rest.

It's just like Jesus' birth being heralded by angels that were witnessed by a group of shepherds . Highly unreliable in that culture, and not impressive at all.

Originally Posted by Aquilonis

There was no Church at the time of Jesus (the first Church was made by his disciples), and I doubt there was a problem at the time, either, as Jesus was circumcised and all the Jews around him as well. I'm guessing you mean the Early Church, but remember, there are two sides of the coin. The other side could say something too, and Jesus was a Jewish leader in a sense. He would never take away circumcision (that was Paul that discouraged it) and advocating it was unnecessary. By the time of the Church Councils, you couldn't just "write a book" saying that Jesus said something, either. They had to pick the "right" ones, and nobody back in the 1st Century considered it a big enough deal.

I'm not talking about the Church Councils; the evidence I'm presenting is about the writing of the Gospels and who they were presented to at the time they were written. They were written at a time when circumcision was a major issue for the Early Church, and yet they didn't put their view in Jesus' mouth to resolve it.

Originally Posted by Aquilonis

I guess we're in agreement on this point, then. My question is how you define a "day" if Day and Night haven't been created yet, or if the Earth isn't rotating.

You could ask the same about many things in Revelation. There are passages that say there are seven lampstands . . . how do you define a lampstand? There is a beast with seven heads . . . how do you define that? It's symbolic imagery. The rising sun that occurs in the beginning of a new day is like a new beginning to me, and so might imply the beginning of different stages of creation. The rising sun also implies light spilling out over everything, and as God is connected with light all the time in the Bible, that would imply his hand in creation. That's my take on it, though there's undoubtedly more there that I'm not seeing yet.

Originally Posted by Aquilonis

Which allows people to debate to no end on exactly how things came about. The Old Testament, in my personal experience, is no evidence to anything, as it's completely refuted on many points by math and science. Visions are very vague, and "dreams" could be anything.

Actually, there are very, very strong ties between different events shown in dreams and visions and real events. I will probably get into that soon on this thread, as the ties are very powerful and they compose a strong evidence, actually, for the accuracy of Christianity as a religion.

Originally Posted by Aquilonis

As long as it's the land and not God (BIG distinction there) then I agree.

Well, we're agreed then.

Originally Posted by Aquilonis

I should also say though, that it is also a possibility in my mind that the original specie(s) were created (I mean bacteria) and it went from there. I believe, relatively surely, that we are a product of evolution, but the beginning is still a curiosity for me.

It's a curiosity to all scientists right now. The beginning is one of the points that creationists pick on the most, because that's the weakest link of all in the evolutionists' claims.

Originally Posted by Aquilonis

My point was that I just believe Noah's Ark to be scientifically impossible in the literary sense we're given. With or without evolution, the Earth has too many animals and too many species. The Ark could not fit them. Thus my problem with the Bible...this particular aspect I find hard to believe on many levels, and thus the whole thing becomes suspect in my mind.

I don't know much about the specifics of the Ark, so unhappily I'd be the wrong Christian to talk to on this point.

I'll respond to the rest of your post soon.

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

And as I said before, according to Josephus as well as the Gospels' own accounts, there were huge crowds following Jesus everywhere. Thousands of witnesses of many (though certainly not all) of the teachings and miracles attributed to him.

According to Paul, Jesus appeared at one time to hundreds of people at once, and Paul further claimed that many of those people were still alive at the time he was writing his Epistle.

It is a bit curious then, that Christianity never gained much support among the people it was initially started and that so many remained jews. In such a large area with so bad communications it would be easy for these authors to claim anything, there weren't anyone to check their sources - certainly not the common people who made up the majority of Jesus' followers, who could neither read nor write and would perhaps not even be sure of what they had seen (also the people with the shortest life expectancy).

[brownjenkins]

The prophet muhammad also had many miracles attributed to him that were witnessed by thousands.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Falagar

It is a bit curious then, that Christianity never gained much support among the people it was initially started and that so many remained jews.

That's not entirely true. Jesus didn't fit entirely with the expectations of the Messiah that were broadly held at that time. You see, the Book of Zechariah describes Christ annihilating Israel's oppressors, and Jesus wasn't interested in doing that to the Romans. They were looking for a political Messiah, and they didn't at that time have the concept of a Second Coming, so although Jesus fitted in perfectly with a very, very large amount of Biblical prophecy, there were other parts that he just wasn't going to fulfill at that time. This was part of the reason for the absolute hatred that many Jews unleashed on him at the time of his crucifixion. He had been the figure all their hopes rested on, but then let them down. Some people have suggested that this also is a key reason why Judas turned on Jesus.

Originally Posted by Falagar

In such a large area with so bad communications it would be easy for these authors to claim anything, there weren't anyone to check their sources - certainly not the common people who made up the majority of Jesus' followers, who could neither read nor write and would perhaps not even be sure of what they had seen (also the people with the shortest life expectancy).

Jesus performed numerous public miracles before thousands of people, and then his disciples went and preached about Jesus to the same people who had witnessed all of that. They could have easily been taken down and stoned if they had been speaking a bunch of lies. This is especially obviously true when one takes into account the fact that the Pharisees were watching them like hawks, had been present for much of what Jesus did, had the education and capability to examine the disciples' sources and attack their story, and would have seized upon any opportunity they could to take the disciples down. Indeed, the Book of Acts, logically enough, describes the Pharisees fighting fiercely against the disciples and their message. Would they have been likely to want to be known as the people who crucified the Son of God?

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The prophet muhammad also had many miracles attributed to him that were witnessed by thousands.

I've not seen what the evidence surrounding his miracles is or what the sources and testimony about them are, so I don't know whether this is true or not. But I have no problem accepting the possibility that it's true. False prophets have performed miracles in the past, and still continue to perform miracles in the present.

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

That's not entirely true. Jesus didn't fit entirely with the expectations of the Messiah that were broadly held at that time. You see, the Book of Zechariah describes Christ annihilating Israel's oppressors, and Jesus wasn't interested in doing that to the Romans. They were looking for a political Messiah, and they didn't at that time have the concept of a Second Coming, so although Jesus fitted in perfectly with a very, very large amount of Biblical prophecy, there were other parts that he just wasn't going to fulfill at that time. This was part of the reason for the absolute hatred that many Jews unleashed on him at the time of his crucifixion. He had been the figure all their hopes rested on, but then let them down. Some people have suggested that this also is a key reason why Judas turned on Jesus.

I knew that. But I can't see how this makes what I said less true, this is just an alternative explanation - neither of us can know what exactly was going on in the minds of the jewish community at that time. Anyway, surely such great miracles, in the daylight and in front of thousands of people would have dispelled the doubts of even the most hardline phariseer? And as the diciples were guided by the Holy Spirit it shouldn't have been much of a problem for them to convince the jews who turned away that Jesus in fact was the Son of God. Instead, they turned outwards and the few jewish Christians, shunned by both factions, died away (drawing on my memory of a book I started called "The Early Christianity" here).

Jesus performed numerous public miracles before thousands of people, and then his disciples went and preached about Jesus to the same people who had witnessed all of that. They could have easily been taken down and stoned if they had been speaking a bunch of lies. This is especially obviously true when one takes into account the fact that the Pharisees were watching them like hawks, had been present for much of what Jesus did, had the education and capability to examine the disciples' sources and attack their story, and would have seized upon any opportunity they could to take the disciples down. Indeed, the Book of Acts, logically enough, describes the Pharisees fighting fiercely against the disciples and their message. Would they have been likely to want to be known as the people who crucified the Son of God?

Where does it say they preached for the very same people that witnessed the miracle? Do we know that they said the same things to those people as tat which was written down 30 years later? Do we even have any other sources than the diciples themselves that these miracles had been witnessed by thousands of people? The phariseers (which I don't remember being described as on location of any of the miracles - indeed, Jesus even once denies them a sign - but you probably have greater knowledge of the Bible than I do) may have seen that Jesus act was 'fake' and written down some objectionss (which would then probably have been destroyed later when the Christians came to power), or at least held oral speeches - perhaps one of the reasons why so few jews decided to follow Jesus. Jesus moved from place to place and managed to gather a following (perhaps because his preachings were popular in some circles), and thus eluded attacks - for a while.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The prophet muhammad also had many miracles attributed to him that were witnessed by thousands.

As did Harry Houdini. What does that tell us?

[Insidious Rex]

And dont forget Franco Harris!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Falagar

I knew that. But I can't see how this makes what I said less true, this is just an alternative explanation - neither of us can know what exactly was going on in the minds of the jewish community at that time.

What I said about their beliefs about a political Messiah is commonly accepted among scholars. I'm sure I can find you sources, if you want them. And it does provide an explanation for why the Jews rejected Christianity. So in view of that, it needn't seem "curious," that the Jews rejected Jesus.

But the reason that I disagree with your claim that bad communications and ignorance of the people of the time could be reasons for the disciples' being successful, I have already stated. The Pharisees were breathing down the disciples' necks (and beating their backs with rods) for giving the message they were, and they would have seized upon any inaccuracy. Plus, thousands of people had witnessed for themselves the truth or falsehood of what the disciples were saying. In view of these things, they couldn't plausibly have been making it up.

Originally Posted by Falagar

Anyway, surely such great miracles, in the daylight and in front of thousands of people would have dispelled the doubts of even the most hardline phariseer?

Nope- they had an alternate explanation. We have records from them from around that time period, in which they label Jesus as a man that practiced black magic. Furthermore, the Gospels corroborate that. Jesus' enemies, according to the Gospels, claimed that his powers came from Satan.

Originally Posted by Falagar

And as the diciples were guided by the Holy Spirit it shouldn't have been much of a problem for them to convince the jews who turned away that Jesus in fact was the Son of God.

God won't force people to believe, when they refuse. But the Holy Spirit did lead his followers to very dramatic victories in the Roman world.

Originally Posted by Falagar

Instead, they turned outwards and the few jewish Christians, shunned by both factions, died away (drawing on my memory of a book I started called "The Early Christianity" here).

In Acts, the apostles turned to the Gentiles because the Jews rejected their message. They did try their best with the Jews first. Also, the Book of Acts says that Paul went to Jerusalem in spite of terrible danger to his life, and experienced suffering and imprisonment for the sake of the Jews.

Originally Posted by Falagar

Where does it say they preached for the very same people that witnessed the miracle?

Here are the words of Peter, from Acts 2:22-24. His audience, according to verses 5, 6 and 14, was a great crowd of Jews.

"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him."

And as you point out, the Holy Spirit was with Peter as he gave his message. 3,000 people, according to verse 41, became Christians that day.

Acts 5:16 says crowds also gathered from the towns around Jerusalem. There was a Christian community in Damascus and in Samaria. The disciples preached to the Jews of Cyrene, Alexandria, and those of the provinces of Cicilia and Asia (6:9). Those are the scriptures involving the extent of their preaching which have come up to me so far, as I check, and their preaching clearly was widespread in Israel.

Originally Posted by Falagar

Do we know that they said the same things to those people as tat which was written down 30 years later?

In my post to Aquilonis, I already responded to that. There are internal evidences from the texts themselves that strongly indicate that the writers made every effort to preserve accuracy. One is that Jesus didn't mention circumcision in the texts. Another is that women were the first to witness the resurrection. I went into those points in my post to Aquilonis. A couple points I didn't mention to him were that Jesus also said some things that wouldn't have made sense to include in the texts, if you were willing to play with their content at all. For one, they brought up Jesus claims that people must eat his flesh and drink his blood to inherit eternal life. Those were a big turn off to the Jews, and though many Romans were violent, cannibalism didn't appeal their general populace either.

Originally Posted by Falagar

Do we even have any other sources than the diciples themselves that these miracles had been witnessed by thousands of people? The phariseers (which I don't remember being described as on location of any of the miracles - indeed, Jesus even once denies them a sign - but you probably have greater knowledge of the Bible than I do) may have seen that Jesus act was 'fake' and written down some objectionss (which would then probably have been destroyed later when the Christians came to power), or at least held oral speeches - perhaps one of the reasons why so few jews decided to follow Jesus. Jesus moved from place to place and managed to gather a following (perhaps because his preachings were popular in some circles), and thus eluded attacks - for a while.

I think I already told you . . . or maybe it was Aquilonis, that we have texts from the Pharisees that date from that time and tell what they thought. They didn't deny Jesus' signs, though they had every reason to do so, but in fact they said that Jesus practiced black magic. The scriptures corroborate this, for they also say that Jesus was accused of driving out demons by the power of Beelzebub. They couldn't deny his power, so they said it came from the devil.

There are places in the scripture where Jesus performed miracles in the presence of the Pharisees, though you are right that there is one place where he denied them a sign.

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

What I said about their beliefs about a political Messiah is commonly accepted among scholars. I'm sure I can find you sources, if you want them. And it does provide an explanation for why the Jews rejected Christianity. So in view of that, it needn't seem "curious," that the Jews rejected Jesus.

I know what you said about the political Messiah - I claimed it to be curious because such acts in broad daylight should be enough to encourage long-time devotion from the masses (especially as those that according to the NT was the most widely observed, the feeding of the 5000 if I'm not much mistaken, could hardly be considered the work of a demon)

But the reason that I disagree with your claim that bad communications and ignorance of the people of the time could be reasons for the disciples' being successful, I have already stated. The Pharisees were breathing down the disciples' necks (and beating their backs with rods) for giving the message they were, and they would have seized upon any inaccuracy. Plus, thousands of people had witnessed for themselves the truth or falsehood of what the disciples were saying. In view of these things, they couldn't plausibly have been making it up.

People didn't travel around to check whether what the diciples said in another town was the same thing they'd experienced. No one would check whether there actually had been 5000 people observing Christ serving food, or how he had gotten hold of it. Christianity had a message that attracted a lot of people (especially a few of the judaic groups in opposition to the Pharisees, like the Sadducees, and jews that felt the formal, rigid traditions of the Pharisees missed the point of the religion), but not many enough in the Jewish world.

Nope- they had an alternate explanation. We have records from them from around that time period, in which they label Jesus as a man that practiced black magic. Furthermore, the Gospels corroborate that. Jesus' enemies, according to the Gospels, claimed that his powers came from Satan.

God won't force people to believe, when they refuse. But the Holy Spirit did lead his followers to very dramatic victories in the Roman world.

"From that time"? After Jesus' death, I presume, the only jewish document that mentions him while still alive only mentions his followers. The earliest texts mentioning him directly are the Pauline letters, if I'm not much mistaken.

Claiming your enemies were practicing dark magic was a pretty common way of denouncing them in those days.

In my post to Aquilonis, I already responded to that. There are internal evidences from the texts themselves that strongly indicate that the writers made every effort to preserve accuracy. One is that Jesus didn't mention circumcision in the texts. Another is that women were the first to witness the resurrection. I went into those points in my post to Aquilonis. A couple points I didn't mention to him were that Jesus also said some things that wouldn't have made sense to include in the texts, if you were willing to play with their content at all. For one, they brought up Jesus claims that people must eat his flesh and drink his blood to inherit eternal life. Those were a big turn off to the Jews, and though many Romans were violent, cannibalism didn't appeal their general populace either.

I'd claim several of the internal evidences you present there seem pretty suspect to me, and only makes sense within a certain context. Cannibalism may not have appealed, but the zeal of the apostles, the doctrine of an after-life, the passifist theology (the Roman Empire had prevously been riddled with civil wars, and their religion didn't have the same "force" as Christianity - the Romans and Greeks were ready for something new), etc. did.

I think I already told you . . . or maybe it was Aquilonis, that we have texts from the Pharisees that date from that time and tell what they thought. They didn't deny Jesus' signs, though they had every reason to do so, but in fact they said that Jesus practiced black magic. The scriptures corroborate this, for they also say that Jesus was accused of driving out demons by the power of Beelzebub. They couldn't deny his power, so they said it came from the devil.

There are places in the scripture where Jesus performed miracles in the presence of the Pharisees, though you are right that there is one place where he denied them a sign.

And as mentioned I find that quite suspect as I haven't heard of there existing any documents from the phariseers of Jesus' time, nor much else directly mentioning Jesus before Paul.