Theology III

[Mari]

Eärniel, do you know of 'Staphorst', 'Urk', 'Spakenburg', 'Putten' or anything about the Dutch Biblebelt?
It refers to the geographical location of a trail of High Protestant Reformed (Gereformeerd of Hervormd) villages, very strict. They do not vaccinate their kids because that is considered to be interfering with Gods will.
Here it's only the secluded, strict "zwarte kousen" churches that are going that far.
They recently made a documentary on Staphorst. If you want I can send you the link to the trailer (which is in Dutch only, sorry)

[Earniel]

No, to be honest I didn't even know you had a bible-belt of your own. (You learn something everyday...)

[Mari]

(deleted)

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Okay, I had 22 posts copied for multi-quote reply.

As Inigo Montoya says, 'No. To sum up."

I agree with Earniel that the debate runs to Christianity because Christians of a certain type are more dedicated to debating it.

People who don't agree with the loud but limited POV just hang out on other threads. On the occasions that other religions have come in (and even this week there have been a few) the complete lack of understanding tends to run down the conversation fairly quickly.

However, Christianity also lends itself to being highly debatable. It has a long and colorful history, an interesting premise, and dedicated adherents. And it's very influential, so many people have encountered its reach, one way or another.

For a detailed discussion of Baha.u.llah or the Ruchira Avatar Adi Di Samraj we might need to look to another location.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Curufin

This entirely depends on which Gospel accounts you accept. Some of the ones that I find the most convincing and most accurate are ones that the Catholic Church considers heretical - e.g.., the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gos...spel of Thomas and the other Gnostic Gospels. And in many of these, Jesus never claims to be the Son of God at all, and he never mentions that he's 'dying for our sins'.

I'm very glad that we had a council of the most learned and well-positioned men on the subject in the fourth century, to figure out which ones were the most convincing and accurate. They had an "if in doubt, throw it out," position on the books brought to their attention. They only accepted the ones that were universally attested and accepted from the earliest days of the Church. They also had to have the support of apostolic tradition, or be in line with the teaching about Jesus that the original disciples (his best friends in life) passed on, and the teaching that those they appointed as their successors passed on (and part of their job was to truthfully pass on the teaching of the disciples- not to make teachings about the deeds of Jesus up on their own). There were several other criteria by which the council chose what Gospels they did also . . . I don't recall it all right now. It was rigorous, though, which is why only four Gospels were ultimately canonized, though dozens were looked at.

The Gospel of Thomas, specifically, the only one you mention by name, was excluded for a few reasons. One was that it openly opposed the church tradition (passed on from the disciples) about the character of Jesus. Jesus was loving and accepting toward women, treating them with unusual honor and dignity for his time. However, in the Gospel of Thomas, when Peter asks him about his mother, Jesus says that she must be transformed into a man before she can enter heaven.

The Gospel of Thomas also includes pantheistic statements that clearly diverge from the teaching he passed on to his disciples, and they to their successors (Apostolic Tradition).

Gospels chosen had to show complete integrity of doctrine to the character and teachings of Jesus as revealed by the Early Church Fathers and apostles. The apostles themselves, being Jesus' closest friends, were in the best position of anyone to know what Jesus' beliefs were. The Early Church Fathers, their appointed successors, are also some of the most reliable. The fact that many of these men (all the apostles except John and many of the Early Church Fathers) died for their devotion shows how sincere they were. They are the most reliable sources by far about the character and teaching of Jesus. And it was based on their testimony about Jesus' teachings that the Gospel of Thomas and other such apocryphal works were excluded.

Originally Posted by Curufin

Can you see how, from a non-Christian viewpoint, this can seem a rather big cop-out? Of course, it gives me absoutely no way to disprove it, so I won't try.

I can't see how it can be seen as a cop-out, as it makes perfect sense from Christian theology, but I can see how it becomes impossible to disprove. The evidence going for its truth is the coincidental timing of the incident to Azrael's two prayers. First the prayer about God having a sense of humor, then the little prayer incident that followed during the storm, make the timing of the storm shift awfully coincidental. Though it certainly isn't proof that God was acting.

Those kinds of coincidences happen a lot a lot a lot for devout Christians when they pray. That's a reason why I'm more receptive to the story.

Plus all the more inexplicable miracles:

Originally Posted by Curufin

Hence the reason I am not atheist.

Yep!

Though atheism really is completely irrational. Agnosticism, depending on its variety, makes a lot more sense. It isn't blind faith like atheism is.

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Historical? Person? That's more than I'd attribute to a figure I see as mythical, and a composite of 'myths' prevalent for the time.

Sorry, but this viewpoint lacks any basis if one looks at the evidence surrounding the origins of Christianity. Have you ever read The Case for Christ? I strongly, strongly recommend it. My very favorite book .

The standard scholarly dating for the Gospels, "even in very liberal circles," according to Craig Blomberg (who, to cite some of his credentials, has a doctorate in New Testament from Aberdeen University in Scotland, was a professor of the New Testament at a highly respected Denver Seminary, was a senior research fellow at Tyndale House at Cambridge University in England, where he was part of an elite group of international scholars that produced a series of acclaimed works on Jesus, and is widely considered to be one of the country's foremost authorities on the gospels of Jesus), the Gospel of Mark was written in the 70's, Matthew and Luke in the 80's and John in the 90's. Craig Blomberg points out furthermore that the Gospels were written within the lifetimes of the people described in the stories. Many of the miracles also were described in the Gospels as very public events, so these accounts could easily have been attacked by the Pharisees or hostile eyewitnesses if there had been a plausible case against them. The Gospel writers had a great deal of motive to pass on very true accounts. You can't very well preach your story to a crowd of people if people in the crowd might shout, "that's not true! We were there!" You have to be as reliable to the facts as you can be if you're going to argue with eyewitnesses. There were a lot of eyewitnesses (Christian and Non-Christian) still alive at the time the Gospels were written and accepted in the Church.

Here's another point (to quote again from Craig Blomberg):

Originally Posted by The Case for Christ (p. 33)

"The two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than four hundred years after Alexander's death in 323 BC, yet historians consider them to be generally trustworthy. Yes, legendary material about Alexander did develop over time, but it was only in the centuries after these two writers.

"In other words, the first five hundred years kept Alexander's story pretty much intact; legendary material began to emerge over the next five hundred years. So whether the gospels were written sixty years or thirty years after the life of Jesus, the amount of time is negligible by comparison. It's almost a nonissue."

The Epistles of St. Paul also refer to the Resurrection of Jesus, and they are often dated to the 50's. They also include reference to creeds, confessions of faith or hymns that were clearly written even earlier. The creed of Philippians 2:6-11 describes Jesus as "in very nature God," and Colossians 1:15-20 describes him as "the image of the invisible God," who created all things and by whom all is reconciled to God "by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross." The most important creed, according to Blomberg, is probably 1 Corinthians 15 which says:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

Originally Posted by The Case for Christ (p. 35)

"And here's the point," Blomberg said. "If the Crucifixion was as early as AD 30, Paul's conversion was about 32. Immediately Paul was ushered into Damascus, where he met with a Christian named Ananias and some other disciples. His first meeting with the apostles in Jerusalem would have been about AD 35. At some point along there, Paul was given this creed, which had already been formulated and was being used in the early church.

"Now, here you have the key facts about Jesus' death for our sins, plus a detailed list of those to whom he appeared in resurrected form- all dating back to within two to five years of the events themselves!

". . . This is enormously significant . . . Now you're not comparing thirty to sixty years with the five hundred years that's generally acceptable for other data- you're talking about two!"

[hectorberlioz]

There's more historical evidence for Christ's existence than for Socrates and Alexander the Great.

Now why doesn't anyone doubt their existence? Not as uncomfy, that's why.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

It's not a coincidence that there're so many other creation myths rather similar to the jesus-rising-from-the-dead one,

The evidence that I provided above should be enough to rebut the idea that he's an accumulation of legends over time. The central tenants of Christianity can be dated to a just a few years after the Crucifixion. Not an accumulation of legend, from any unbiased historical standpoint.

However, I agree with you that the parallels between the story of Jesus and other religious stories are not coincidence. I see them as God's voice speaking to all humanity about what is, what was, and what is coming. There's also a certain amount of common human memory at work, IMO, because of the common descent of humanity from Noah, who is a Christ-figure. One can argue other theories, if one wants, such as the psychological, archetype explanations, or other such. However, the major points of the story of Jesus, by the best historical dating methods available, can be dated to within a few years of his death. That makes it the teaching of the Church within the lifespans of the original disciples, just a few years after Jesus' death. It isn't enough time for legendary material to creep into the accounts.

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

and well... there's not much in a way of direct evidence that he ever actually existed.

I don't know where you're coming from with this. We have Christian documentation of the key points of his story from just a few years after his death, and detailed Gospel accounts dating from within the lifespan of the eyewitnesses. But even if we lacked all the Christian sources, both of the Early Church Fathers and the Gospels and Epistles (all of which are dated very early), we'd have a lot in terms of corroborating information from Non-Christian sources like the Talmud, Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger and others, according to scholar Edwin Yamauchi, PHD. Here are some of his credentials:
"The Case for Christ," pp. 75-76: After earning a bachelor's degree in Hebrew and Hellenistics, Yamauchi received master's and doctoral degrees in Mediterranean studies from Brandeis University.

He has been awarded eight fellowships, from the Rutgers Research Council, National Endowment for the Humanities, the American Philosophical Society, and others. He has studied twenty-two languages, including Arabic, Chinese, Egyptian, Russian, Syriac, Ugaritic, and even Commanche.

He has delivered seventy-one papers before learned societies; lectured at more than one hundred seminaries, universities and colleges, including Yale, Princeton and Cornell; served as chairman and then president of the Institute for Biblical Research and president of the Conference on Faith and History; and published eighty articles in thirty-seven scholarly journals.
Here's how he summarizes the available evidence about Jesus from corroborating, early non-Christian sources:

Originally Posted by The Case for Christ, p. 87

"We would know that first, Jesus was a Jewish teacher; second, many people believed that he performed healings and exorcisms; third, some people believed he was the Messiah; fourth, he was rejected by the Jewish leaders; fifth, he was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius; sixth, despite his shameful death, his followers, who believed that he was still alive, spread beyond Palestine so that there were multitudes of them in Rome by AD 64; and seventh, all kinds of people from the cities and countryside -- men and women, slave and free -- worshipped him as God."

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

There's more historical evidence for Christ's existence than for Socrates and Alexander the Great.

That's for sure. In fact, there's more evidence supporting the New Testament's account than there is for any other ancient historical manuscript.

Here's a table of ancient documents, showing historical reliability:
http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualevidence.htm

It's very cool to see that kind of comparison .

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I can't help but wonder that, regardless of whether we'd have more mooters from other religions, it's the Christian ones that just never seem to tire of religious debate.

Which reminds me, since there's a thing I've been wondering about, and you lot will no doubt know better. I always thought the view 'God helps those who help themselves' as prevalent in Christian belief. But lately I've seen many accounts of people who prefer to pray to their god for healing instead of (doing the obvious thing and) visit a doctor or continue their medication.

So I'm wondering, is the view 'God helps those who help themselves' perhaps more limited to one of the broken-off christian beliefs? If so, which one?

This thing about some Protestants refusing to go to doctors is a very tragic innovation of the Reformation. Not all Protestants do it, for sure, but the simple reason for this misinterpretation on the part of some of them is that the Reformers removed the Deuterocanonical books from the Bible at the time of the Reformation.

Sirach 38 says, "Hold the physician in honor, for he is essential to you, and God it was who established his profession. From God the doctor has his wisdom, and the king provides for his sustenance . . . God makes the earth yield healing herbs which the prudent man should not neglect; was not the water sweetened by a twig that men might learn his power? He endows men with the knowledge to glory in his mighty works, through which the doctor eases pain and the druggist prepares his medicines; thus God's creative work continues without cease in its efficacy on the surface of the earth."

The praise of doctors in Sirach 38 continues for some time more after that; I just don't feel like quoting it all. But the Protestant Reformers removed Sirach from the canon of scriptures. There are references to healing through normal medical techniques in other parts of the Bible too, which the Protestants kept, but they're nowhere near so clear cut and decisive as Sirach 38. That's why some reject the use of doctors.

Many Protestants think that God can heal through miracles or through doctors, and that he uses both. That's what I believe. But some Protestants reject this, thinking we should rely only on miracles. IMO, that's largely because they dropped the Book of Sirach and lost the chapter that in extremely explicit language praises the profession of doctors.

[Curufin]

Though atheism really is completely irrational. Agnosticism, depending on its variety, makes a lot more sense. It isn't blind faith like atheism is.

I'm not agnostic either, really. I just say that a lot of times because it's easier for people to understand, in general. My actual beliefs are quite complex and hard to explain, but if anyone is interested, I'm willing to try.

As for your interpretation of the Gnostic Gospels, it's the pantheist part that I like. I'm very much a pantheist. As for the rest, well, it all comes down to our opinions on the Catholic church and the decisions it made, which of course you agree with and others (such as myself) may not. But I'm not going to start bashing your church and your beliefs, so I think I'll just let that go for now.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Curufin

I'm not agnostic either, really. I just say that a lot of times because it's easier for people to understand, in general. My actual beliefs are quite complex and hard to explain, but if anyone is interested, I'm willing to try.

I'd be glad to hear . Do you have reasons for why you believe what you do, also? I know that many people have beliefs but no reason for believing them. I always like to know the basis.

Originally Posted by Curufin

As for your interpretation of the Gnostic Gospels, it's the pantheist part that I like. I'm very much a pantheist. As for the rest, well, it all comes down to our opinions on the Catholic church and the decisions it made, which of course you agree with and others (such as myself) may not. But I'm not going to start bashing your church and your beliefs, so I think I'll just let that go for now.

My point was that it came down to the most reliable testimony available from the time period about the beliefs of Jesus. His closest friends and their successors they appointed to pass on their teaching about Jesus' beliefs are the most reliable testimony. That testimony excludes the Gospel of Thomas.

I don't think it comes down to our personal opinions about the decisions of the Catholic Church at all. It comes down to what the most reliable information about Jesus' beliefs is, from that early time period.

[Lief Erikson]

I know this is a double-post, but I can't help it.
http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualevidence.htm
I love this link .

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

There's more historical evidence for Christ's existence than for Socrates and Alexander the Great.

Now why doesn't anyone doubt their existence? Not as uncomfy, that's why.

[Azrael]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Azrael, do you own The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel, by any chance?

yep read it deep stuff

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Azrael

yep read it deep stuff

It's my favorite book of all . I'm glad you read it- it's a superb read. I was recognizing the arguments from your post .

That book comes in handy in every debate on Christian apologetics I get involved in. If we debate using it enough, we start slowly to memorize facts and sources. Then it slowly becomes more and more possible to use that material in face-to-face debates, rather than only online. It's very good practice .

[Azrael]

Originally Posted by Mari

Hehe, I like reading this discussion.
Azrael, I don't know what your denomination is, but this website is an English Baptist one. They offer an explanation of a section of the Bible everyday with a contemplative session to accompany it.
http://www.scriptureunion.org.uk/23835.id?redirect=true
This is today's session:
http://www.scriptureunion.org.uk/2981.id

Should you decide to read it, read it while thinking. They have some rather good or interesting points and I learned a lot, but you don't have to agree with everything.
I think they use the King James translation of the Bible.
Have fun!

i go to a baptist church but i do not give myself a denomination but if i had to give a name to what I concider myself it would be Jesus Freak

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Well, I'd say 'debate' is a generous term to apply to a restating of a favorite list of 'evidence' without actually listening to the other side, but I've no doubt it's good practice.

[Azrael]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I can't help but wonder that, regardless of whether we'd have more mooters from other religions, it's the Christian ones that just never seem to tire of religious debate.

Which reminds me, since there's a thing I've been wondering about, and you lot will no doubt know better. I always thought the view 'God helps those who help themselves' as prevalent in Christian belief. But lately I've seen many accounts of people who prefer to pray to their god for healing instead of (doing the obvious thing and) visit a doctor or continue their medication.

So I'm wondering, is the view 'God helps those who help themselves' perhaps more limited to one of the broken-off christian beliefs? If so, which one?

hmmm good point I think I have a answer to part of that...its a joke too!!!!

there was once a man floating in the ocean. He prayed to God to save him before he drowned. A boat came by and asked if he'd like to get on and not drown and he replied "God will provide." Another boat came by asking him to get on and he still said "God will provide." A third boat came by and asked him and he still said God will provide. He drowned and went to Heaven. He went to God and asked "Why did you not save me?" God replied with "I sent you three boats! Do you expect me to do everything!"

its funny but it has some truth to it

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Well, I'd say 'debate' is a generous term to apply to a restating of a favorite list of 'evidence' without actually listening to the other side, but I've no doubt it's good practice.

This really is an absurd criticism. Everything I said was a direct response to the stated positions of other people. And everyone uses evidence from sources beyond themselves in debate.

[Azrael]

yeah what is the other sides view?

[Curufin]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'd be glad to hear . Do you have reasons for why you believe what you do, also? I know that many people have beliefs but no reason for believing them. I always like to know the basis.

I do have reasons, but explaining them and putting them into words is difficult. My beliefs are the result of years and years of soul-searching and research. This could be a very long post, so I hope you don't mind that.

I was born into the Quaker church. I don't know how much people know about it - but I find a lot of misconceptions about what it is. We're not Amish, we're not snake charmers...we're unique in a lot of ways, but not in any freaky cultish sense. I attended this church and liked it for the most part until I was about ten. I always found a great deal more spirituality and peace in the silence of our simple meeting house than I ever found in any fancy church.

When I was about eleven, we started attending a Presbyterian church in my hometown, because it was simply too far to drive the two hours to my Quaker church every weekend. I became quickly disenchanted with this church. Listening to the ladies behind me bicker about the quality of the crackers during communion was a real turn-off, as was the fact that people seemed to go to this church more to be seen than to find any real spiritual connection. I guess the final thing that angered me was when they spent $80,000 to put in an elevator (they already had ways for handicapped people to get in) when there were people starving and in need in my hometown. It seemed they were much more concerned with their image than anything spiritual. So, being rather disgusted with them, I stopped going when I was about fourteen and began a process of soul-searching that has, so far, lasted about sixteen years.

I quickly became disgusted with people in my school who told me that I was going to go to hell because I didn't go to church, or because I didn't believe that God was exactly the way they said s/he was. Lots of friends talked me into going to church with them in the attempt to 'save my soul.' I never really felt I needed saving. Even when I haven't had any serious religious identificaiton, I've always thought myself a moral person - and to be honest, I'm a lot more 'straight edge' than most 'straight edge' Christians. I'm squeaky clean. Really.

When I went to college, I started studying religion. I studied Hinduism and Buddhism, Quakerism, Islam, as well as the philosophies of Aristotle and Plato, etc. Nothing seemed to fit. Nothing seemed to touch that part of me that was searching for answers.

While most of my friends are atheist, I've never been able to go that route either. I've had too many experiences that make it impossible for me to not believe in something. I'd rather not go into them, because people tend to think I'm a bit freaky, but suffice it to say that they're not everyday experiences, or something that can be easily explained.

When I was about twenty-five, I made friends with some people who were Wicca, and started studying that as well. While some aspects of it appealed to me (the pantheism, for one thing), other parts did not (the ritualism). I learned to do meditation (which is wonderful), and had some very intense spiritual experiences, one of which I'll share with you, even though it sounds a bit odd. Back in 2003, a friend of mine at the time was going through some really hard times and attempted suicide. I did a prayer circle for her, and went into some very deep meditation. At one point, I could have sworn that I was being cradled in my mother's arms - but not my real-life mother, who was at the time nearly a thousand miles away. It was a beautiful and spiritual experience which I have never felt again, and it was very real.

Five years later, I would say that my beliefs are a combination of Quaker and Pagan. The Quaker influence removes a good dela of the ritualistic aspect from the paganism - I don't really feel the need for candles and pentagrams and all that - what is important is my direct connection to the Goddess that exists in the world around me. I very much hold to the pantheist belief that God is all and all is God. I also have a very strong set of moral values, although they're quite different than many Christian values. For instance, I do not believe that sex outside of marriage is in anyway immoral - to make it so is to turn one of the greatest gifts of our creator into something dirty, which I find, to be honest, rather sad.

Well, this is already a really long explanation, and I feel that I've said a whole lot and absolutely nothing at the same time. I'd be glad to answer questions. It might be easier that way.

My point was that it came down to the most reliable testimony available from the time period about the beliefs of Jesus. His closest friends and their successors are the most reliable testimony. That excludes the Gospel of Thomas.

I don't think it comes down to our personal opinions about the decisions of the Catholic Church at all. It comes down to what the most reliable information about Jesus' beliefs is, from that early time period.

I guess my feeling on this is that some of the Gnostic gospels were written in Aramaic (I don't know if I spelled that correctly) - putting them much closer to the time of Christ, and therefore, in my opinion, likely more accurate. But this is a matter of opinion, certainly, and not really one of my areas of expertise.