Offshoot discussion of "what religion are you" thread

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I'm not going to quote your whole thing because it waste bandwidth.

Anyway - first - new evidence shows that Revelations was not written by the Jonh they thought it was.

I only know what I have read on this topic. I heard in "The Case for Christ" that there was some dispute over which John had written it. It seemed at that time however, that the evidence was strong that it was the same John they thought.

If there is further evidence since then, I'll need to hear both it and the counter evidence that Christians quote in defense of the historical perspective. Neither you nor I have enough information at this point to debate, because you don't know what the new evidence is (having seen it on television) and I don't know it either.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Also - who says the people who wrote the bible were upstanding people? Have you met them? I can say anything and in a thousand years no one can say whether I was telling the truth or not. I'm sorry - but people have a reason for saying the people were to be believed.

You know perfectly well that we don't have to know a person personally to learn what they're like. From the information we have about Prince John and what we know about his actions, we can safely discern what his character was. He is a far more recent historical figure than the apostles were, and our information about him is better. Nevertheless, no reasonable evidence has arisen that portrays them as anything less than men of great integrity.

Look at what we do see of them. (In the words of Craig Blomberg, a Bible scholar, a professor and a mathmetician) "We see them reporting the words and actions of a man who called them to as exacting a level of integrity as any religion has ever known. They were willing to live out their beliefs even to the point of ten of the eleven remaining disciples being put to grisly deaths, which shows great character.

"In terms of honesty, in terms of truthfulness, in terms of virtue and morality, these people had a track record that should be envied."

Jerseydevil, if you want to dispute their characters, please give some evidence.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You can blindly follow it and I'm sorry - but it IS blindly following a book, but I want some evidence.

I believe I have been giving evidence. If you want something a lot stronger than me though, read "The Case for Christ," or "Jesus under Fire," or "Evidence that demands a verdict," the works of the great Christian apologetics writers. If you really want to see evidence, go to that, rather then to TV shows that try to explain away elements of Christianity.

[Lief Erikson]

GrayMouser, I want to thank you for responding to my posts. I also apologize that I can't find at this moment the precise place in "The Case for Christ" in which it talks about the sayings of Jesus that were recorded in Jewish manuscripts. I believe I was correct when citing that evidence, but I guess you don't have to take my word for it until I find the place.

[GrayMouser]

Whew!! Just checked out "Jesus" and "Talmud" on Google, and the wave of anti-semitic filth is overwhelming. Be very, very careful what you find there- a lot of these people apparently believe that J.C. sitteth on the right hand of Adolf Hitler Almighty!

There's a lot of loonies out there!

From the Jewish sites I found, most seem to agree that there was a teacher called Jesus, he was executed by the Romans on or close to Passover for blasphemy- and that's it.

Concerning Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny, the same- a report on what Christians believed about their Messiah.

But you're forgetting one of the really important things. These people claimed to have met the resurrected Christ. That means that they themselves knew whether or not what they said was true, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Would they have been willing to die horribly for something that they knew for a fact was a lie?

In the accounts passed down to us, written down at second or third hand, these people are quoted as claiming to have met the risen Jesus. A lot of people claim a lot of things; a lot of people believe a lot of things, and die horrible deaths because of that.


As for prophesies, here's a simple one: the Messiah was supposed to be descended in the paternal line from King David.

[GrayMouser]

Found the quote:

Did Jesus' descent from King David entitle him to the throne?

Two descents of Joseph from King David are given in the Gospels. The
1st in Matthew, which traces Joseph's descent from King Solomon through
King Jehoiakim, would not entitle Jesus to the throne because of a
prophecy in Jeremiah 22:30:

30 The Lord says this, list this man (King Jehoiakim) as
childless; a man who made a failure of his life, since none
of his descendants will have the fortune to sit on the throne
of David or to rule in Judah again.

The Prophet Jeremiah clearly rules out any descendant of King Jehoiakim
from ruling as King David's heir.

The second descent, which is given in the Gospel of Luke lists Joseph's
descent from Nathan, the son of King David. However, though Nathan was
the son of King David, his descendants are not entitled to the throne
because of a prophecy given to King David by God Himself in I Chronicles
22:9-10 which limits the kingship to the descendants of Solomon:

9 Behold, a son shall be born to you who shall be a man of peace.
I will give him rest from all his enemies round about; for his
name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quiet to Israel
in his days.
10 He shall build a house for My Name and Presence. He shall be
my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish his royal
throne over Israel forever.

Therefore, Jesus could not inherit the throne due to either of Joseph's
descents from King David. The Messiah must be a descendant of King
Solomon, but not through Jehoiakim.

The fact that these two lineages of Joseph are contradictory as to
Joseph's forefathers calls both into question and clearly shows that
the Gospels contain errors and were thus the work of fallible men and
not God.

It has been claimed that Luke was giving the ancestors of Mary, but
this is spurious, since she is not even mentioned. Further, Luke
mentions clearly in Luke 3:23 that Jesus was not the son of Joseph saying
that "he was supposed the son of Joseph". If Luke was not giving Joseph's
paternal ancestry, he could easily have said so as he did in the case
of Jesus.

Some claim that Jesus had a claim to the throne based on a descent from
David via his mother, Mary. But this ignores Ps. 132:11-12 which talks
about the right to the throne being passed via the male line:

"The Lord swore to David and will remain true to his word, 'I promise
that your own son shall succeed you on the throne. If your sons observe my
covenant, the decrees that I have taught them, their sons too shall succeed
you on the throne for evermore.'" Ps. 132:11-12

[Silme*Christian]

Hello everyone! I have long been on this 'Moot site, but just a week ago, I accepted Jesus Christ as my savior!(I hope I spelled all that right )

[HOBBIT]

Originally posted by Silme*Christian
Hello everyone! I have long been on this 'Moot site, but just a week ago, I accepted Jesus Christ as my savior!(I hope I spelled all that right )

Well, it is none of my bussiness, but I am a bit confused. I have seen you posting in this topic very pro-christian long before a week ago, and well your name is Slime*Christian

I'm just curious, can you elaborate on what you meant by that?

Savior is the correct American spelling. It's saviour the British way.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

While I must say it surprises me, it isn't really confusing. Many, many, and I mean many people who ascribe to Christian faith (particularly Catholic, I think, (as one who is planning to join the Roman Church, not an anti-Catholic Protestant)), do so for an infinite variety of reasons. Some just go through the motions because it helps alleviate guilt. Some think that because they're parents were Christian, that means that they were too. But of the millions and millions of professing Christians, a low number (I would a guess of between 5 and 20%) are actually "born again"; that is, confess with their mouth and truly and deeply believe in their heart that Jesus Christ is Lord. So much of Christianity is an empty shell, and without that special spark, that special communion with God, that certain special something, it is nothing but a dead faith.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

By the way, congratulations, Silme, and welcome. May your new-found communion with God be as fulfilling as that of the Apostles of Old.

[Arien the Maia]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
While I must say it surprises me, it isn't really confusing. Many, many, and I mean many people who ascribe to Christian faith (particularly Catholic, I think, (as one who is planning to join the Roman Church, not an anti-Catholic Protestant)), do so for an infinite variety of reasons. Some just go through the motions because it helps alleviate guilt. Some think that because they're parents were Christian, that means that they were too. But of the millions and millions of professing Christians, a low number (I would a guess of between 5 and 20%) are actually "born again"; that is, confess with their mouth and truly and deeply believe in their heart that Jesus Christ is Lord. So much of Christianity is an empty shell, and without that special spark, that special communion with God, that certain special something, it is nothing but a dead faith.

I agree...many of my friends only go to Mass because their parents are Catholics or make them go. But I do know a few who are totally devoted to their faith......Protestant or Catholic....it's a rare thing anymore.

[Silme*Christian]

Thank you very much Gwaimir Windgem. Arien the Maia, I have a friend who's mother is Catholic and father is Mormon, she goes to my church (I got her hooked on Christ) and though she struggles with her faith, she doing considerably well. She used to take drugs and get drunk but since she hangs with God, she doesn't do that as often and is starting to quit! She drives me off the wall sometimes, but that's just because she hangs around the wrong people. I guess what I am trying to say is, even though she does many bad thing that would not make God happpy, she is doing much better with prayer and help of Jesus, and soon, she will be like every other Christian, and I am happy she got this far! (aplause)

[Arien the Maia]

Originally posted by Silme*Christian
Thank you very much Gwaimir Windgem. Arien the Maia, I have a friend who's mother is Catholic and father is Mormon, she goes to my church (I got her hooked on Christ) and though she struggles with her faith, she doing considerably well. She used to take drugs and get drunk but since she hangs with God, she doesn't do that as often and is starting to quit! She drives me off the wall sometimes, but that's just because she hangs around the wrong people. I guess what I am trying to say is, even though she does many bad thing that would not make God happpy, she is doing much better with prayer and help of Jesus, and soon, she will be like every other Christian, and I am happy she got this far! (aplause)

Catholic and Mormon! that is a combo! no wonder she was haveing trouble with her faith. I too come from a mixed religion background and it is hard for me alot to put up with my dad's side...they tend to be rather anti-Catholic.

[Aewionen]

Wow! It must have been really hard for her growing up in a home like that. Especially when she did not know the Lord. I guess I have it pretty easy. I grew up in a Christian home and go to a Christian school. I will be praying for your friend Slime.

[Silme*Christian]

Thank you all so very much! It WAS hard on her, but now she likes it better, if only I could get her away from those confounded people giving her drugs an' all! I have had it easy too. My parents are Christians, I hated being a Christian because I could not onderstand anything. But now, I am renewed, go baptized in the Jordan River, and my friend Ashley (the 'friend' with trouble) is thinking about getting baptized in the Snake River! She is making me proud every year!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

You were baptized in the Jordan? Is that the Middle-eastern Jordan?

[Silme*Christian]

The same as Jesus.

[Elven Archer]

Congratulations Silme!

[Giroth]

word!

[Aewionen]

Sweet! That is so cool!

[Silme*Christian]

Thank you very much *blushes* I took a once in a life time chance. My grandparents took me to Israel two years ago, we went to see the Jordan River, our tour person, er, guy, said it cost 8 dollars to get baptized, you pay for a baptizmal robe (like what Jesus would have worn) a towel, certificate (sp) and a blanket. I can write a half hour post all about it, but I like to keep things simple. I could have payed a thousand bucks to see my Dad smile like he did when I told him all about it. He doesn't smile much. But that's a different story.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
From the Jewish sites I found, most seem to agree that there was a teacher called Jesus, he was executed by the Romans on or close to Passover for blasphemy- and that's it.

Originally written in "The Case for Christ"
"Jews, as a whole, did not go into great detail about heretics," he replied. "There are a few passages in the Talmud that mention Jesus, calling him a false messiah who practiced magic and who was justly condemned to death. They also repeat the rumor that Jesus was born of a Roman soldier and Mary, suggesting there was something unusual about his birth."

"So," I said, "in a negative way these Jewish references do corroborate some things about Jesus."

"Yes, that's right," he said. "Professor M. Wilcox put it this way in an article that appeared in a scholarly reference work:"

The Jewish traditional literature, although it mentions Jesus only quite sparingly (and must in any case be used in caution), supports the gospel claim that he was a healer and miracle-worker, even though it ascribes these activities to sorcery. In addition, it preserves the recollection that he was a teacher, and that he had disciples (five of them), and that at least in the earlier Rabbinic period not all of the sages had finally made up their minds that he was a "heretic" or a "deceiver."

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Concerning Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny, the same- a report on what Christians believed about their Messiah.

Pliny gave evidence for the spread of the early Christian church, and Tacitus and Josephus confirmed the major Biblical points of Jesus' life, ministry, death, and the belief in Christ's resurrection.

Originally posted by GrayMouser
In the accounts passed down to us, written down at second or third hand, these people are quoted as claiming to have met the risen Jesus.

In the Epistles, Paul specifically told doubters to go and speak to the apostles, who were still living, and find out for themselves. He also includes in his account an incident of Christ appearing to 500 people at once. Furthermore, his accounts are dated to well within the lifetime of these people. Even before the Gospels, though they too are dated to within many of the witnesses' lifetimes.

Originally posted by GrayMouser
A lot of people claim a lot of things; a lot of people believe a lot of things, and die horrible deaths because of that.

So you're saying they thought they saw Christ and were willing to die horrible deaths, and yet they were wrong, and didn't see Christ? What was wrong with them?