Given that none of the people who wrote the Bible were alive at the same time as Jesus, you could be right there... just to be a trifle provocative, here, I feel I have to add: assuming, of course, that there actually was a real man called Jesus Christ.  I'm no longer convinced of that.

Double post gets double reply.  ;D

Given that none of the people who wrote the Bible were alive at the same time as Jesus, you could be right there... just to be a trifle provocative, here, I feel I have to add: assuming, of course, that there actually was a real man called Jesus Christ.  I'm no longer convinced of that.


Double post gets double reply.  ;D

I am.  And just to let you know most of the people who wrote the New Testament were alive when Jesus was.

in the class i took on Christianity the Gospel of John, where the most unbelievable miracles are found, was written about seventy years after the death of Jesus. The way life expectancy was like those days, "john" was probably not alive at the time of those events and he certainly wouldn't have seen them

in the class i took on Christianity the Gospel of John, where the most unbelievable miracles are found, was written about seventy years after the death of Jesus. The way life expectancy was like those days, "john" was probably not alive at the time of those events and he certainly wouldn't have seen them

The book of Matthew was written by Matthew.  A tax collector who was called by Jesus to be one of the twelve deciples.

Can you define Christian? What is a Christian?

I'm proud to say I put my faith in me, my friends and family.

I could never believe in such folly........ I pity those who feel they need religion in their life and especially those who believe whats written in the Bible.................

The Romans had the right idea - throw em to the lions!

Good question. It appears it depends on who you are talking to, as there are a hundred definitions given in the replies. I think since the word "christian" means to be "Christ like" we should look to the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus called people to be "born again", not to join a church, an organized religion, to hold to certain traditions, etc.... Christ preached repentance, faith, love. It's God's will for all men to be saved (born again) 2 Timothy 2:3-4. To be born again is to repent of your sins, believing that Christ died in order to forgive us of our sins, and giving your life to him. The Holy Spirit will enter your life, giving you a regenerated heart and soul, and the power and the DESIRE to live for Christ.  Acts 4:12 tells us that Jesus is the only way of salvation. In him we must place our trust and belief for eternal life, forgiveness of sin, and true peace and joy. I know most of you will disagree, but God is calling you also. I challenge you to study what the Bible says and seek answers for the questions you have.  Ask honest questions and seek honest answers.  God hates religion also, I am not talking about organized religion here, I'm talking a relationship between you and your creator.

I am a  devoted "commerical" Christian. Marketing really gets me into the Christian sprit. Right now I cant wait until Easter :) :) :) :) :)

I am.  And just to let you know most of the people who wrote the New Testament were alive when Jesus was.


Proof?

I am a Roman Catholic although i can see the good ideas behind most religions. I am going to become an Episcopalian, essentially because it is catholiocism without so much emphasis on "WHY ARE WE SUCH AWFUL PEOPLE!"

I also happen to think that the church is a crock of sh** organisation, they are the richest most powerful organisation and no organisation can stay in power for 2000 years without eliminating a lot of enemys, information, other organisations, rivals.. the list goes on.

I thought about Judaism... but discoverd that it takes a lot of work to become Jewish and hey i don't mind Christ that much... i'll give the guy a shot  ;D


Hey Christ doesn't mind you that much either.....in fact he yearns for you to give him a shot!!
You were probably being sarcastic but I'm not.......please don't ignore him!

My parents:  Mother:  Mormon     Father:  Uniting

Me:  Catholic

Yes I am Christian and I know a lot of people that are Christian but don't go to church or have a particular religion.


Wow, that must be hard having parents with different religions!! You must have to be very strong in your beliefs! Just keep focusing on Christ, he'll keep ya strong.

i'm a christian but i'm having issues with the bible and God. i believe in christ's teachings, it's his father who i think is a dink.


I am curious as to why you think God is a dink (what is a dink anyway ???)
I mean Jesus is God in human form. Ya know the whole trinity thing, father, son, holy spirit, 3 in one (yeah ya probably do). If you believe in Christ's teaching's you believe in God teaching's, cause he is God.

dink=a@@hole. i believe in God, i just don't like him right now.

The book of Matthew was written by Matthew. A tax collector who was called by Jesus to be one of the twelve deciples.

You know this exactly how?

A simple question for you: how many contemporary sources mention Jesus at all?

dink=a@@hole. i believe in God, i just don't like him right now.


I feel the same way. You sound kinda like the gnostics. Not the AGs, but the gnostics. I'll post more on them later.

I feel the same way. You sound kinda like the gnostics. Not the AGs, but the gnostics. I'll post more on them later.


Can you tell me more about Satanism, Apricot?

I feel the same way. You sound kinda like the gnostics. Not the AGs, but the gnostics. I'll post more on them later.


i was reading up about manichaeism and it had me interested. the dual nature of God as both good and evil is fascinating. the gnostics had a similar belief.

I've grown up in the Catholic church, and it remains my church of preference. Protestants are too exteme and less accepting of other religions, well at least those so called non-denominational ones, and some other branches as well, and don't get me started on a whacko fundamentalist uncle of mine. I don't hold the stupid belief that I'm sure I'm going to heaven and all other religion are going straight to hell. I believe very strongly that religion should be separate from the government.

Can you tell me more about Satanism, Apricot?


Yes, I can. I can tell you about all sorts of religions. But not right now. Maybe later.

I got a question for the fellow Christians here:

Which religions would you define as Protestant?

Any non-catholic, non-orthodox Christian churches, (i.e. Baptist, Methodist, Prebyterian, Lutheran, etc.)

See I totally don't get that.....
I mean Lutheran, Methodist are obviously.  I don't quite know the history of the Presbyterian or the Baptist exactly.....
Why do people say "Any non-Catholic Christian religion is Protestant?"  Protestant means those which originated from protesting or coming out of the Catholic church.  Some Christian sects I'm sure had nothing ever to do with the Catholic church. 
Now I'm not exactly sure when the Catholic church was established but obviously it was long after the NT was available- the Catholic leaders made everybody burn their Bibles and they burnt people they caught reading their Bibles alone.  People were already following certain beliefs before the Catholic church came around so then these people had to hide out in holes and read their Bibles on their own because they obviously did not want to convert to Catholicism.  Well obviously some of those people (or at least their families generations later) survived and still kept their beliefs. 
Now I know that "the" Baptist church and others were founded later than the Catholic church.  But just disregarding religion titles: If you are Christian and you believe in a Sovereign God, and you are following EVERY doctrine of the Bible- not adding anything, not leaving anything out, but following the original teachings of Christ.....could you say that your belief system was ever even a part of the Catholic church? 

QueenAmenRa, its because Catholic and Orthodox churches stem from the ORIGINAL Church, established in Rome. As such, any church that formulates its own doctrine and doesn't follow the doctrines of the former, are breaking with the 'original' Church, and are Protestant. That is the way I always understood it from History.

See I totally don't get that.....
I mean Lutheran, Methodist are obviously.  I don't quite know the history of the Presbyterian or the Baptist exactly.....
Why do people say "Any non-Catholic Christian religion is Protestant?"  Protestant means those which originated from protesting or coming out of the Catholic church.  Some Christian sects I'm sure had nothing ever to do with the Catholic church. 
Now I'm not exactly sure when the Catholic church was established but obviously it was long after the NT was available- the Catholic leaders made everybody burn their Bibles and they burnt people they caught reading their Bibles alone.  People were already following certain beliefs before the Catholic church came around so then these people had to hide out in holes and read their Bibles on their own because they obviously did not want to convert to Catholicism.  Well obviously some of those people (or at least their families generations later) survived and still kept their beliefs. 
Now I know that "the" Baptist church and others were founded later than the Catholic church.  But just disregarding religion titles: If you are Christian and you believe in a Sovereign God, and you are following EVERY doctrine of the Bible- not adding anything, not leaving anything out, but following the original teachings of Christ.....could you say that your belief system was ever even a part of the Catholic church? 



So protestant Kings of the past have had Catholics executed for their beliefs. I'm not going to argue catholic vs. protestants, I have no problem with protestants, as long as they respect my beliefs and others beliefs, and not try to convert me.

QueenAmenRa, its because Catholic and Orthodox churches stem from the ORIGINAL Church, established in Rome. As such, any church that formulates its own doctrine and doesn't follow the doctrines of the former, are breaking with the 'original' Church, and are Protestant. That is the way I always understood it from History.


What do you mean by the "Original Church?" 
As I understand, the beginning on any NT church began after Christ was resurrected and he gave the Great Commission to the disciples. (Matthew 28:16-20)  But that was not in Rome.  And in vs. 20 he said to "teach them to observa all things whatsoever I have commanded you."  Well I know the Catholic church didn't quite follow ALL of Christ's teachings. 
Anyway, there are of course plenty other churches in the Bible (uh, yeah, who d'ya think Paul was writing all those epistles to?)  The church at Thessolonica, at Ephesus, etc.  Christian churches obviously.  Oh and don't forget the 7 churches John wrote to in Revelation.  Not exactly Rome... So these churches were obviously before the Catholic church, they didn't hold the same beliefs that the Catholics do, and...a lot of people (me included) still hold those exact same beliefs today.  I didn't formulate it.  It's right there in the Bible.  Now I'm an Independent/Sovereign Grace Baptist and no I don't know how the when the word "Baptist" started getting used.  BUT...if the exact belief system I follow came BEFORE, and was never even a PART of the Catholic church....I just cannot consider myself as a Protestant.

No, I'm agnostic.  Among religions Buddhism has the most appeal to me.


My thoughts exactly.

MY "BEST GUESS"

I'm agnostic like so many here, but this is my best guess on what is the "right" thing to believe in:

Creation:

Our universe was created by the Big Bang, but there were many universes before our own and there will be many after.  Humans were created tens of thousands of years ago by an Alien race from the Pleaides with E.T. genes and this is why we tend to see ourselves as separate from the other beings of the Earth.  Alien leaders eventually became the Gods and Jesus was a wise man who was half E.T. and was trying to save Man from destroying themselves and their planet (a race he is failing). 

Afterlife:

There's no eternal Heaven or Hell.  Souls, a bit of energy present in all life-forms and even in some inanimate objects, have been around forever in some form or another.  When one does they leave the Material Realm and all there is there is Love and Hate.  Heaven all Hell here are the same place, it's the observer's mindset that makes it one or the other.  If you've done ill and have not repented than the beings in this realm will avoid you and you will hate yourself so it will be Hell.  If you've been good and beings love and honor you there it will be Heaven.  That's not to say there aren't varying degrees, but it an immaterial world it's either one or the other. 
Souls that did wrong in the past have a chance to make up for their ills here.  They can incarnate whenever they want, but any wrong they've not paid penance for will became bad Karma in their next life.  Those that are good can become material again whenever they please, just like wrongdoers, only there will be no price in Karma.
When one leaves the Immaterial, or Metaphysical Realm, they're born in some way or another and come back into the Physical Realm.  Since there really isn't Time there's no "Final Destination", and one can never be suspended forever in either realm.

What I'd like someone to be able to explain to me is if the "Bible" is "truth", then why the need for different sects of "Christianity"?  If there's no room for interpretation, the way it's written is the way it is, then why do some believe one way and some the other?  Wouldn't they all have the same beliefs?  And, why is Catholicism NOT considered a "Christian" religion?


Well I consider it christian, only some protestants don't.

I think that most Christians do believe that tthe bible is open to at least some interpretation. Those who think it should always be taken literally are called fundamentalists, and even they seeem to pick and choose which parts of the Bible they want to emphasize in order to push a political agenda.

What I'd like someone to be able to explain to me is if the "Bible" is "truth", then why the need for different sects of "Christianity"?  If there's no room for interpretation, the way it's written is the way it is, then why do some believe one way and some the other?  Wouldn't they all have the same beliefs?  And, why is Catholicism NOT considered a "Christian" religion?


Catholicism IS "Christian" in the sense that they believe that Jesus Christ was the Messiah.  (That is the general definition of Christian and in that case I have no idea why Jehovah's Witnesses are called Christian).

The reason there are so many different sects is that even though most "Christians" claim the Bible as "truth,"  a lot of them don't like the "unpleasant" parts: the verses that tell the all are sinners, you can only enter the kingdom of heaven through Jesus Christ and not by your own works, and don't even get me started on how many religions refuse to preach election & predestination even though its RIGHT there....
Basically, people don't wanna believe something that's there, so they follow a different religion so they don't have to.

But it's impossible to believe *everything* that's in the Bible: the thing is just too damn contradictory.  Surely (my logical mind says) if there is even a single place where the Bible contradicts itself, then it is just plain impossible for it to be absolute Truth (with a capital T)?


Basically, people don't wanna believe something that's there, so they follow a different religion so they don't have to.

If that were the case, how come nearly all religious bods stay in the same sect or denomination (or even religion) that their parents initially introduced them to?

Yeah if you believed in everything in the Bible, you'd believe most of the same stuff as the Taliban basically.

Setting aside the fundamental impossibility of trying to 'prove' or 'validate' your own 'faith', and the futility of asking someone to 'prove' theirs, why are we so compelled to ridicule other peoples' beliefs -- whether we be agnostics, atheists or simply of another faith? 

We may disagree with the socio-political outlook that another person's faith leads them to, but I think people can disagree without resorting to moral and intellectual snobbery.

Setting aside the fundamental impossibility of trying to 'prove' or 'validate' your own 'faith', and the futility of asking someone to 'prove' theirs, why are we so compelled to ridicule other peoples' beliefs -- whether we be agnostics, atheists or simply of another faith? 

We may disagree with the socio-political outlook that another person's faith leads them to, but I think people can disagree without resorting to moral and intellectual snobbery.


I agree.  Respect one's beliefs as not as they don't cause them to do ill to other beings.  :)

-FHF :)

But it's impossible to believe *everything* that's in the Bible: the thing is just too darn contradictory.  Surely (my logical mind says) if there is even a single place where the Bible contradicts itself, then it is just plain impossible for it to be absolute Truth (with a capital T)?


It's not that it's contradictory, but all the verses go together in a way to explain everything God intended you to know.  What parts are you saying are contradictory? (Specific passages, please)

What parts are you saying are contradictory? (Specific passages, please)

Well, for 335 contradictions, have a look here - the majority are pretty trivial, but even so are a powerful argument against biblical inerrancy.

As an example:
Matthew.26:63-64
"I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said."

Mark 14:61-62
But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

...in Matthew Jesus refuses to say that he is the Christ; in Mark he explicitly says that he is.  The argument of interpretation (that the two disciples heard the same words, but took them as meaning something slightly different) is surely an argument against biblical truth?

What I'd like someone to be able to explain to me is if the "Bible" is "truth", then why the need for different sects of "Christianity"?  If there's no room for interpretation, the way it's written is the way it is, then why do some believe one way and some the other?  Wouldn't they all have the same beliefs?  And, why is Catholicism NOT considered a "Christian" religion?


The fact that Catholicism is a form of Christianity is not up for consideration. It is a form of Christianity, and moreso, Catholicism was the starting point of every one of the myriad of Christian sects there are today, with the exception of Coptic Christianity perhaps. The notion that Catholics aren't Christians comes from many generations of misinformation about Catholics and perpetual myths about them, such as the ever popular "Catholics worship Mary, not Jesus" routine. Gotta love that one!

Atheist......I'm too much of a realist to believe in that type of thing.  I just don't see how it could be possible.  I don't look down on those who do believe though, but have found that many of them do look down on my belief.

As an example:
Matthew.26:63-64
"I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said."

Mark 14:61-62
But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

...in Matthew Jesus refuses to say that he is the Christ; in Mark he explicitly says that he is.  The argument of interpretation (that the two disciples heard the same words, but took them as meaning something slightly different) is surely an argument against biblical truth?


How is this a contridiction? In Mathew Jesus states "Thou hast said", or "it is as you say"... that He is the Christ. In Mark the answer is "I am" Is it possible the full answer could have been "I am, just as thou hast said"?

How is this a contridiction? In Mathew Jesus states "Thou hast said", or "it is as you say"... that He is the Christ. In Mark the answer is "I am" Is it possible the full answer could have been "I am, just as thou hast said"?

Ah... I was taught back in the days when I was at school that the "Thou hast said" meant "I didn't say that, you did", with the full implication that it was not something he was claiming for himself.  But you're absolutely right, this could be uncontradictory... so what about the matter of Jesus' lineage:

Matthew:
1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily

Revelations:
22:16 "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David."

...the Bible puts a lot into explaining how Joseph is of David's line... how does this square with the Son of God/immaculate conception?

Ah... I was taught back in the days when I was at school that the "Thou hast said" meant "I didn't say that, you did", with the full implication that it was not something he was claiming for himself.  But you're absolutely right, this could be uncontradictory... so what about the matter of Jesus' lineage:

Matthew:
1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily

Revelations:
22:16 "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David."

...the Bible puts a lot into explaining how Joseph is of David's line... how does this square with the Son of God/immaculate conception?



Notice throughout the beginning of Matthew 1: Abraham BEGAT Isaac; and Isaac BEGAT Jacob, etc.
But in verse 16: And Jacob BEGAT Joseph the husband of Mary, OF WHOM WAS BORN JESUS, who is called Christ.
It did not say that Joseph begat Jesus, but he was the legal guardian of Jesus.

But Jesus is described as "of David's line", and even says so himself - what is the point of giving Joseph's full lineage if not to describe this?  Which is it to be, then: Jesus, of the line of David and so on back to Abraham; or Jesus son of God?

I personally think he was implying that all people are the children of God.

I personally think he was implying that all people are the children of God.



???  Uh...no... It is talking about the lineage of Christ.  Besides, only the elect (those who are or will be saved) are the children of God.

check this site out http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

???  Uh...no... It is talking about the lineage of Christ.  Besides, only the elect (those who are or will be saved) are the children of God.


Tee hee..yup, only the elect will be saved.

However, if you can afford to give maybe 2-300 dollars to ol' Pat he'll sort you out.

I love that us Roman Catholics and Jews apparently are so evil.. Jesus was Jewish, and the Roman Catholic church is the base of christianity..oooooohh we're so evil.

I vote "Not Really" because I'm a Freethinker and churches are full of shhh.


  Was a member of the Southern Baptist Church growing-up...

  DevoRule, what is a Freethinker..?

   Was a member of the Southern Baptist Church growing-up...

   DevoRule, what is a Freethinker..?
Satanist  ;D

Satanist  ;D


   Egads..!

   I saw the devil down the long, long road
   He said to me, boy
   I want your soul
   I said no
   You can’t take my soul
   No
   I said no
   I said no, no
   You can’t take my soul

    :P

All you up there quoting the bible.  What you are quoting are translations of the bible, not the bible.  The original bible was witten in Greek and Hebrew, and there is a lot of people who are Greek and Hebrew scholars all agree that there is much left out, or purposely ....how would you say...slanted..  I know I have  been here before with this.  The prime example is that in the original translation of the meaning of words of that time a "virgin" was an unmarried woman.  I believe that is the primary reason for the breach in the Christian/Jude  traditions.  Mary was an unmarried woman who gave birth to a child, you can imagine how that must have gone over.  The fact that she was not stoned to death alludes to powerful connections. Also the fact that the family was not all that poor, in the history of those times a poor family without connectons would not have been allowed to educate their child.  It is bothersome to me that the Catholic religion stresses the scholarship of Latin as opposed to the scholarship of Greek and Hebrew.  The Protestants would have you only read in English. That says alot to me.
I am with McD on the fact that when Jesus is spoken of as the son of god, it is also implying that we are all children of god, just as much as Jesus.  All that being said...I am not a Christian, as the product of a Catholic/Episcopal home I have had enough of both. 

   Was a member of the Southern Baptist Church growing-up...

   DevoRule, what is a Freethinker..?


Somebody who isn't grounded with a set rule of what's he/she is to believe/not believe.

All you up there quoting the bible. What you are quoting are translations of the bible, not the bible. The original bible was witten in Greek and Hebrew, and there is a lot of people who are Greek and Hebrew scholars all agree that there is much left out, or purposely ....how would you say...slanted.. I know I have been here before with this. The prime example is that in the original translation of the meaning of words of that time a "virgin" was an unmarried woman. I believe that is the primary reason for the breach in the Christian/Jude traditions. Mary was an unmarried woman who gave birth to a child, you can imagine how that must have gone over. The fact that she was not stoned to death alludes to powerful connections. Also the fact that the family was not all that poor, in the history of those times a poor family without connectons would not have been allowed to educate their child. It is bothersome to me that the Catholic religion stresses the scholarship of Latin as opposed to the scholarship of Greek and Hebrew. The Protestants would have you only read in English. That says alot to me.
I am with McD on the fact that when Jesus is spoken of as the son of god, it is also implying that we are all children of god, just as much as Jesus. All that being said...I am not a Christian, as the product of a Catholic/Episcopal home I have had enough of both.


I may be an atheist, but I still find that to be an interesting point. Another is that the title "Lord" in reference to Jesus does not mean Lord in the literal way that people in English-speaking countries think it means. The word was used as just a general title of honor in Hebrew society, and does not signify anything divine on the part of the person its used to refer to.

What am I getting at? Well, i am of the opinion that if a historical Jesus did exist, he did not present himself as the "Son of God" is the belief is today. I think that was manufacted by Paul later on, whom I think had his own agenda that had more to do with becoming powerful than 'saving' people. Take an obscure Jewish sect, just turn it into your own little religion, make it more gentile-friendly and..well, you get the picture. ;) .Oh boy, I hope I 'm not opening too big of a can of worms there. Oh

I may be an atheist, but I still find that to be an interesting point. Another is that the title "Lord" in reference to Jesus does not mean Lord in the literal way that people in English-speaking countries think it means. The word was used as just a general title of honor in Hebrew society, and does not signify anything divine on the part of the person its used to refer to.

What am I getting at? Well, i am of the opinion that if a historical Jesus did exist, he did not present himself as the "Son of God" is the belief is today. I think that was manufacted by Paul later on, whom I think had his own agenda that had more to do with becoming powerful than 'saving' people. Take an obscure Jewish sect, just turn it into your own little religion, make it more gentile-friendly and..well, you get the picture. ;) .Oh boy, I hope I 'm not opening too big of a can of worms there. Oh


Jesus was an ET/human hybrid to wanted to stop Man's stupidity as a race.  So far he's failed.  ::)

Jesus was a man
Wait, maybe he was a god
Maybe he was a god-man
maybe not, but anyway he was Jesuuuuuuuuuuuus
Christianating the apostles
Christianating some of the Jews
Christianating lots of pagans
In their Roman bath houses
Jesuuuuuuuuuuuuus


if you don't know what i'm talking about you need to go to homestarrunner.com and look at the strong bad email "dragon"

I may be an atheist, but I still find that to be an interesting point. Another is that the title "Lord" in reference to Jesus does not mean Lord in the literal way that people in English-speaking countries think it means. The word was used as just a general title of honor in Hebrew society, and does not signify anything divine on the part of the person its used to refer to.

What am I getting at? Well, i am of the opinion that if a historical Jesus did exist, he did not present himself as the "Son of God" is the belief is today. I think that was manufacted by Paul later on, whom I think had his own agenda that had more to do with becoming powerful than 'saving' people. Take an obscure Jewish sect, just turn it into your own little religion, make it more gentile-friendly and..well, you get the picture. ;) .Oh boy, I hope I 'm not opening too big of a can of worms there. Oh


So what do you think this historical Jesus did? Was he just a common man? A extraordinarily good man that did good things for people, that went out of his way to help people. The older the stories got, the more exaggerated they became?  I mean by the way you said "That if" I can only imagine that you can possibly perseve Jesus existing.  You don't see Son of God, so who was he? What did he do? Why did his legacy live on? Or do you believe in the Santa Clause effect?

So what do you think this historical Jesus did? Was he just a common man? A extraordinarily good man that did good things for people, that went out of his way to help people. The older the stories got, the more exaggerated they became? I mean by the way you said "That if" I can only imagine that you can possibly perseve Jesus existing. You don't see Son of God, so who was he? What did he do? Why did his legacy live on? Or do you believe in the Santa Clause effect?


I believe most likely, assuming he existed at all(which I have no opinion of either way), he was just a good person and a spiritual leader who broke with the traditions of his time. He wanted to teach about the way he saw "God" which was different from the clergy, and it caused quite a stir. Perhaps he was also in the same vain as Dr.Marthin Luther King, jr., both a spiritual leader and someone who tried to stand up against corruption. So he was executed. Perhaps as time went on, his followers(who from what I can tell, originally did not intend to break from Judaism), attributed great feats to him. In ancient times it was common to exaggerate the deeds and adventures of revered persons to the point of where they became super natural in nature.

And I think that Paul had his own agenda. He sort of, well, made the sect more gentile friendly and marketed it to Europe. I also think that when Constantine joined up the Roman influence changed a lot of things going on with the religion, bringing in Pagan influences. I think the idea of a divine man being born to a virgin mother is very pagan, and does not seem to correlate with the nature of God shown previously in the Judaic tradition(which seemed to be that God was purely divine, and above interacting with human beings in a 'real' manner)..but if you look at all of the old Pagan religions, "divine humans" were common legends, and infact, many of their deities were considered to be such.

Infact, one of the most common Pagan religions in Rome during the time that Christianity spread was Mithraism, a cult that had come in from Persia..a cult that worshipped a spiritual heretic who was said to be divine, been born of a virgin mother, perform miracles, and to have been killed only later to rise from the dead and ascend to the heavens.

I'm not saying the Christian beliefs about Jesus are a total, latent rip-off of Mithraism..well, actually, I guess I am.

I believe most likely, assuming he existed at all(which I have no opinion of either way), he was just a good person and a spiritual leader who broke with the traditions of his time. He wanted to teach about the way he saw "God" which was different from the clergy, and it caused quite a stir. Perhaps he was also in the same vain as Dr.Marthin Luther King, jr., both a spiritual leader and someone who tried to stand up against corruption. So he was executed. Perhaps as time went on, his followers(who from what I can tell, originally did not intend to break from Judaism), attributed great feats to him. In ancient times it was common to exaggerate the deeds and adventures of revered persons to the point of where they became super natural in nature.



   Josephus mentions in Antiquities 18. 63-64 a "good" and "virtuous" man who was called Jesus: Had many followers from many nations and was condemned and crucified by Pilatus...

   Do I trust Josephus?  Not in all cases.  He's known to exaggerate on occasion and has a tendency to embellish the deeds of his benefactors - the Romans - but I don't feel this an outright lie...

   My take on an historical Jesus is less than ethereal.  He was merely one of the few successful "travelling prophets" in that region and at that time (another heavyweight being Shimeon Bar Kokhba, a century later).  He was gaining a frightening amount of popularity in the cities as well as the countryside as a result of the doctrine that He espoused.  The Jewish authorities saw him and his following as a threat to the established order (i.e. their livelihood, relevance, relationship with Rome).  Passover was in full swing with Jerusalem filled to overcrowding with pilgrims from far and wide.  The Romans were paranoid of such circumstances because of the potential for revolt and smashed any uprising, major or minor; express or implied with a vengeance.  He was snatched from the street by Jewish authorities, accused of sedition, handed over to the Romans and executed in the usual way. Routine. Nothing special here.  The Roman Procurator probably never even knew Jesus' name, much less interviewed Him...but...



And I think that Paul had his own agenda. He sort of, well, made the sect more gentile friendly and marketed it to Europe. I also think that when Constantine joined up the Roman influence changed a lot of things going on with the religion, bringing in Pagan influences. I think the idea of a divine man being born to a virgin mother is very pagan, and does not seem to correlate with the nature of God shown previously in the Judaic tradition(which seemed to be that God was purely divine, and above interacting with human beings in a 'real' manner)..but if you look at all of the old Pagan religions, "divine humans" were common legends, and infact, many of their deities were considered to be such.



   I agree with your analysis of early Christianity.  Yeah, the crossover from paganism to Chritianity would be smoothed a bit by retaining some of the trappings of paganism.  There are many parallels between the two; The virgin birth, the traditional day of Christmas falling on the Roman "Saturnalia" and others...either way, you still get your feast..!



Infact, one of the most common Pagan religions in Rome during the time that Christianity spread was Mithraism, a cult that had come in from Persia..a cult that worshipped a spiritual heretic who was said to be divine, been born of a virgin mother, perform miracles, and to have been killed only later to rise from the dead and ascend to the heavens.

I'm not saying the Christian beliefs about Jesus are a total, latent rip-off of Mithraism..well, actually, I guess I am.


   "If Christianity had been checked in it's growth by some deadly disease, the world would have become Mithraic"
                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                        -Joseph Renan
   
   

yes I am Christian, I believe that God created the universe, created man, and sent his son, Jesus to save us and I also believe in life after death.

However I do not believe in all of what the bible tells us, I believe it is based partly on fact and partly on what people assumed was fact.

Josephus mentions in Antiquities 18. 63-64 a "good" and "virtuous" man who was called Jesus: Had many followers from many nations and was condemned and crucified by Pilatus...

Do I trust Josephus? Not in all cases. He's known to exaggerate on occasion and has a tendency to embellish the deeds of his benefactors - the Romans - but I don't feel this an outright lie...

There's considerable evidence that the passages in Josephus that mention Jesus are later interpolations, presumably by Christians wanting to firm up their cause.  Not that even Josephus was contemporary: there are no contemporary accounts of Jesus' life, which is in itself odd if he was such an earth-shaking character.


And I think that Paul had his own agenda. He sort of, well, made the sect more gentile friendly and marketed it to Europe. I also think that when Constantine joined up the Roman influence changed a lot of things going on with the religion, bringing in Pagan influences.

Christianity as we know it today has a lot more to do with Paul than any of the others (which is one reason why the ridiculous misogyny has lasted so long: Paul didn't seem to like women much).  Then, when you factor in Constantine's influence... now there's a dude who really knew how to turn a whole religion his way: make up a story about a flaming cross on the battlefield, then claim that you're God's only mouthpiece.  Makes Tony Blair seem like a rank amateur ;)

There's considerable evidence that the passages in Josephus that mention Jesus are later interpolations, presumably by Christians wanting to firm up their cause.  Not that even Josephus was contemporary: there are no contemporary accounts of Jesus' life, which is in itself odd if he was such an earth-shaking character.



   No doubt...

   The more widely known Greek version of Antiquities goes on to describe "this man" as a "doer of wonders", asks if it would be "lawful to call him a man?" and states he was known as "The Christ" to both Jew and Gentile".

   The source I refer-to in the reply above is the "watered down" 10th century Arabic translation...

   Tacitus also writes in Annals 15.44.2-8: 

   "Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome..."

  There are serious problems with both accounts, but all interpolations?  Could be.  Hard to tell.  Seems as if, in the case of Tacitus, he was merely repeating something told to him.  Especially by the way Jesus is referred to as Christ in an imperial text...

I've always kind of assumed Tacitus was telling it as it seemed at the time: there were Christians around (though to what extent they were actually persecuted by Nero varies from historian to historian), and his comment about "Christus" in no way implies that he knew whether Christ existed or not - simply that 80 or so years on some people in Rome believed this.

Josephus, OTOH, seems to have written barely anything about Jesus, but what few passages do are ridiculously OTT:
“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure."
...if Josephus really was this sold on the story of Jesus (especially in the use of the word "truth"), I'm surprised he never converted to Christianity himself.

Incidental aside (if I'm not repeating myself - I get the feeling I've said this already): any ideas why there is such an emphasis placed on the lineage of Joseph going back to King David, if Joseph wasn't Jesus' real father?

Yes, I am a Christian....I accepted Christ as Savior in 1980 and was baptized in 1981.....I do read the Bible although I don't attend church regularly....No I don't hand out tracts or attempt to 'Christianize' everyone...I do share my faith with those who ask about God and Jesus....but I KNOW 'you can lead the horse to water but you cannot make him drink'...also I believe that ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS...I do some volunteer work teaching computer skills,and I create and print get-well and holiday greeting cards for the members of my adult day care center...I believe that acts of kindness speak louder than any little religious tract!

You are right, Tony20fan.  I think most of the bad attitudes about Christians in general come from people not practicing what they preach.

What I don't appreciate is people, when I ask them, telling me that I'm going to hell because I was raised Catholic.


Nothing you can do about that, after all the Catholic Church only started Christianity. It's sooooo obviously b-a-d!

Nothing you can do about that, after all the Catholic Church only started Christianity. It's sooooo obviously b-a-d!

No, it didn't: Christianity was becoming a noticeable minority religion, then Constantine "converted" and made a Catholic church with himself at the helm as the first Holy Roman Emperor that was close to the antithesis of what current Christians believed.  But that wasn't till the 4th century AD, anyway.  So you can't argue that the Catholics "started" Christianity, or are even very close to its original tenets.

No, it didn't: Christianity was becoming a noticeable minority religion, then Constantine "converted" and made a Catholic church with himself at the helm as the first Holy Roman Emperor that was close to the antithesis of what current Christians believed. But that wasn't till the 4th century AD, anyway. So you can't argue that the Catholics "started" Christianity, or are even very close to its original tenets.
Actually the Bible states that Jesus gave the apostle Peter the responsibility for starting the Christian churches....People like Constantine and Martin Luther just were part of the Church's evolution...

Actually the Bible states that Jesus gave the apostle Peter the responsibility for starting the Christian churches....People like Constantine and Martin Luther just were part of the Church's evolution...


Thats what the BIBLE says. We are dealing more in history. And basically all churches now are offshoots of Paul's. Considering this fact, Paul surely had a much more lasting influence as to what the religion was than any others before him, even Jesus himself(assuming for sure a historical person existed). Also it would be foolish to deny's Constantine's eminence in the development of the religion. As founder of the Roman Catholic Church, he could pretty much dictate what the religion was according to his own whims.

I am definitely a christian!

Erin :)

My thoughts about Christians is that they have instilled such a fear into people the believe blindly and don't think for themselves, all one needs to do is look at some of the ridiculous claims in the bible that are supposed to be true and think of these claims out of the context of the bible and you would surely just laugh. If a man came up to you tomorrow and claimed to be Jesus, would you believe him?...according to the bible he is coming back so this man might be telling the truth.
Girls, try coming home pregnant and explaining it was divine intervention, I'm sure that one would go over well. If you have ever read the bible and you are female, you don't have to read to far to see that you are a second class citizen in the bible, you was created from Adams rib none the less. There was an original woman made of the earth the same way as Adam, her name was Lilith but she is now regarded as evil, I guess because she had a mind of her own. Did you know it's considered unholy and dirty for a menstruating woman to enter a church?

My thoughts about Christians is that they have instilled such a fear into people the believe blindly and don't think for themselves, all one needs to do is look at some of the ridiculous claims in the bible that are supposed to be true and think of these claims out of the context of the bible and you would surely just laugh. If a man came up to you tomorrow and claimed to be Jesus, would you believe him?...according to the bible he is coming back so this man might be telling the truth.
Girls, try coming home pregnant and explaining it was divine intervention, I'm sure that one would go over well. If you have ever read the bible and you are female, you don't have to read to far to see that you are a second class citizen in the bible, you was created from Adams rib none the less. There was an original woman made of the earth the same way as Adam, her name was Lilith but she is now regarded as evil, I guess because she had a mind of her own. Did you know it's considered unholy and dirty for a menstruating woman to enter a church?


Thank you.

I never have understood the mentality of some people to stubbornly call themselves Christians while disagreeing with all of this. I'm sorry, but it is all right there in the Bible itself. Which is what Christianity is based on. Calling yourself something, while at the same time saying its not REALLY about "so and so" even though the text its BASED ON says it is, is asinine. Thats like calling yourself a National Socialist but saying you believe in equality for the whole world, and its all really about peace and love. Despite what "Mein Kampf" says. :D

Thank you.

I never have understood the mentality of some people to stubbornly call themselves Christians while disagreeing with all of this. I'm sorry, but it is all right there in the Bible itself. Which is what Christianity is based on. Calling yourself something, while at the same time saying its not REALLY about "so and so" even though the text its BASED ON says it is, is asinine. Thats like calling yourself a National Socialist but saying you believe in equality for the whole world, and its all really about peace and love. Despite what "Mein Kampf" says. :D

They don't want to take the good with the bad, they like to "cherry pick" then you have some extreme groups who will take one tiny verse out of context and start a religion about it, snake handlers are a good example of this and the practice of polygamy is another example

Thank you.

I never have understood the mentality of some people to stubbornly call themselves Christians while disagreeing with all of this. I'm sorry, but it is all right there in the Bible itself. Which is what Christianity is based on. Calling yourself something, while at the same time saying its not REALLY about "so and so" even though the text its BASED ON says it is, is asinine. Thats like calling yourself a National Socialist but saying you believe in equality for the whole world, and its all really about peace and love. Despite what "Mein Kampf" says. :D


Those rules (menstruating women for one) are from the old testament.  The clean and unclean rules went out with Peter in the new testament.  I will have to look it up later, I am late for work.  i

I said "Kinda"

I am not in the strict sense of the word.  I don't go to Church.  I don't believe that lessens me in any way - if others would choose to disagree that would be their issue to deal with, not mine.  I don't NEED to do that to exist...

I said kinda, because I consider that I follow the basic tenets of what might be considered christian behaviour/ethics/standards.  And I do consider I manage to do it a lot better than some people I know personally who would get up and beat their chests and make a big thing about the whole deal  ;)

You're a good man Charlie Brown Fuss!!! ;)


:)  Who said you were crazy, mom ?  :)


Seriously though, in a way you made the point I was trying to make much more succinctly than I did  :o

Yes, I think I *am* - and to me - that's what matters  :)

I think, in people's everyday lives, that is truly what matters.  I'm like you, I don't necessarily follow one "defined" religion, but I try to live my life as good as I can.  Sure, I might fail from time to time, but IMO, that makes me human....not necessarily a "bad" person ;)



You hit the nail on the head. We do the best we can.




Cat

I said "Kinda"

I am not in the strict sense of the word.  I don't go to Church.  I don't believe that lessens me in any way - if others would choose to disagree that would be their issue to deal with, not mine.  I don't NEED to do that to exist...

I said kinda, because I consider that I follow the basic tenets of what might be considered christian behaviour/ethics/standards.  And I do consider I manage to do it a lot better than some people I know personally who would get up and beat their chests and make a big thing about the whole deal  ;)


I used to be Christian but then it dawned upon me the only reason I'm so sure it's true is because I was taught it was.  I do (try to) follow morals that are the same as Christian ones, but there are some Christian morals I simply can't stand for, esp. those towards animals and homosexuals.  I do believe in their whole "Love one another", "be generous and kind", and "forgive people" thing, though :)

Although really a lot of it is the same as Buddhism or Confucianism.

Thank you.

I never have understood the mentality of some people to stubbornly call themselves Christians while disagreeing with all of this. I'm sorry, but it is all right there in the Bible itself. Which is what Christianity is based on. Calling yourself something, while at the same time saying its not REALLY about "so and so" even though the text its BASED ON says it is, is asinine. Thats like calling yourself a National Socialist but saying you believe in equality for the whole world, and its all really about peace and love. Despite what "Mein Kampf" says. :D


That's like saying you can't call yourself a believer in the fundamentals of American democracy if you don't believe that blacks are worth 3/5 of a white man, and that women shouldn't be allowed to vote.  Most Christians don't take everything in the Bible literally, they just don't amend it formally as has been done with the U.S. Constitution.

Those who don't believe in the Bible, shouldn't follow it.  If Christianity's not your bag, don't practice it.  But it's just plain bigotry to start labelling Christians as evil hypocrites just because there are Christians who conduct themselves in un-Christlike ways.  I've known a LOT of Christians for a LOT of years and I've never met anyone guilty of the self-righteous 'ramming their beliefs down other people's throats' or 'telling people they're sinners and they're going to Hell' stuff that people often cite as their reasons for Christian-bashing or religion-bashing in general.  I think most Christians know that the Bible was written by people who lived in a certain time, and that the text reflects the biases, prejudices and social standards of that time.  Just like the U.S. Constitution, or any other document written by fallible, imperfect, biased human beings.

Those rules (menstruating women for one) are from the old testament. The clean and unclean rules went out with Peter in the new testament. I will have to look it up later, I am late for work. i

My thoughts about Christians is that they have instilled such a fear into people the believe blindly and don't think for themselves, all one needs to do is look at some of the ridiculous claims in the bible that are supposed to be true and think of these claims out of the context of the bible and you would surely just laugh. If a man came up to you tomorrow and claimed to be Jesus, would you believe him?...according to the bible he is coming back so this man might be telling the truth.
Girls, try coming home pregnant and explaining it was divine intervention, I'm sure that one would go over well. If you have ever read the bible and you are female, you don't have to read to far to see that you are a second class citizen in the bible, you was created from Adams rib none the less. There was an original woman made of the earth the same way as Adam, her name was Lilith but she is now regarded as evil, I guess because she had a mind of her own. Did you know it's considered unholy and dirty for a menstruating woman to enter a church?
The 'menstruation laws' for women are in the OLD Testament.....most of the basis for Christianity is actually found in the New Testament.......and please try to respect my right to believe in what I choose to believe in. There is room on this messageboard for people who 'agree to disagree'....just try to respect people and most people will give you the same.

That's like saying you can't call yourself a believer in the fundamentals of American democracy if you don't believe that blacks are worth 3/5 of a white man, and that women shouldn't be allowed to vote.  Most Christians don't take everything in the Bible literally, they just don't amend it formally as has been done with the U.S. Constitution.

Those who don't believe in the Bible, shouldn't follow it.  If Christianity's not your bag, don't practice it.  But it's just plain bigotry to start labelling Christians as evil hypocrites just because there are Christians who conduct themselves in un-Christlike ways.  I've known a LOT of Christians for a LOT of years and I've never met anyone guilty of the self-righteous 'ramming their beliefs down other people's throats' or 'telling people they're sinners and they're going to Hell' stuff that people often cite as their reasons for Christian-bashing or religion-bashing in general.  I think most Christians know that the Bible was written by people who lived in a certain time, and that the text reflects the biases, prejudices and social standards of that time.  Just like the U.S. Constitution, or any other document written by fallible, imperfect, biased human beings.


If they accept that the document isn't infallible(by 'amending' as you say), then that invalidates the entire religion.

If they accept that the document isn't infallible(by 'amending' as you say), then that invalidates the entire religion.


Invalidates it to whom?  Those who don't believe in it in the first place?  ???

I don't think any of us are saying ALL Christians are evil hypocrites, I know quite a few who are very respectful of other people's beliefs.  I have, however, experienced much of the "you're going to hell...blah, blah, blah" in  my life.  Heck, even on the "old" version of this board, it was said that "anyone who has not accepted Christ as their savior will not be going to heaven."  And, I'm sure we all know what the implication of that is.  Have you ever lived in a small town?  I think this type of behavior is more eminent in them.  My best friend dated a guy in high school whose parents would not let her in their house because she was "one of 'those' Catholics"



Well, clearly some Christians are un-Christlike.  In certain town or regions, probably a lot of them are.  In the American South, many whites are racist bigots, but that doesn't mean it's responsible or constructive for black people to go off half-cocked about how racist 'white people' are.

Invalidates it to whom? Those who don't believe in it in the first place? ???


Um, Christianity is based on the Bible which is supposed to be the word of God. Therefore infallible. If you decide it isn't infallible, how can it be the true word of God? And if it isn't, then that invalidates the entire religion. So why be Christian?

Um, Christianity is based on the Bible which is supposed to be the word of God. Therefore infallible. If you decide it isn't infallible, how can it be the true word of God? And if it isn't, then that invalidates the entire religion. So why be Christian?


The Bible was written by people.  Human beings.  Homo Sapiens.  Earthlings.  Who interpreted the 'word of God' as best they could, given their own cultural biases.  Now that may not fit your stereotype of the way 'Christians' think, but I'm afraid wacky televangelists and hell-fire and brimstone loudmouths just call more attention to themselves than honest, thoughtful, spiritual, everyday Christians.

The Bible was written by people.  Human beings.  Homo Sapiens.  Earthlings.  Who interpreted the 'word of God' as best they could, given their own cultural biases.  Now that may not fit your stereotype of the way 'Christians' think, but I'm afraid wacky televangelists and hell-fire and brimstone loudmouths just call more attention to themselves than honest, thoughtful, spiritual, everyday Christians.


If it was written by men, how can i still be 'the word of God'?

There is no reason to believe in something if you..don't believe in it(and essentially,by admitting the human error of the Bible, you are invalidating the whole text because it presents itself as the word of God).

On a semi-related note..

What does the agnostic dyslexic insomniac do?





..He stays up all night wondering if there really is a Dog.

Well, for the sake of debate, let's assume that it truly is "God's Word" and he chose humans to "write it".....dontcha think he would make absolute sure that what the "men" were writing was 100% accurate?  If so, then how can it be "subject to human error and cultural bias"?
If I wasn't so lazy I'd rewrite the bible and call it the gospel according to Jiminy   :D

If it was written by men, how can i still be 'the word of God'?



Well, it isn't unless you accept that it is and choose that as the way you want to live your life.

It seems as though you're looking to prove something or disprove something for which there is no absolute.  It's not truth in an absolute, SCIENTIFIC sense.  It's only 'true' if you accept it as such -- it's that simple.  Faith can become a 'truth' for a believer in the sense that they choose to order their lives around it.  But it isn't EVERYONE'S 'truth' (unless, somehow, every single person chooses that truth for himself/herself. 

Sure, anyone can define someone as 'not really a Christian' if they don't literally accept everything written in this somewhat arbitrary collection of historical documents called 'The Bible'.  Christians do it to each other, so I suppose it's to be expected that non-Christians would do the same. 

In the same fashion, Americans claim others are not 'real Americans' if they don't believe in this or that, or Democrats and Republicans dismiss others as 'not real Democrats' and 'not real Republicans'...

But I'm not sure what postive purpose that kind of thing is intended to serve...

Yes!  I'm Christian!

In the town where I live there are people from many different countries/cultures/faiths.....and it's kinda cool to actually talk to these people and learn about the way they live....

I know my faith in God has helped me deal with my issues.

despite my seething hatred for God, i still believe in Him and i count myself as a christian.

seething hatred? Why? I'm not gonna try to do the "NO! GOD LOVES YOU! YOU'RE JUST NOT SUBMITTING ENOUGH!" crap, I'm just curious.

seething hatred? Why? I'm not gonna try to do the "NO! GOD LOVES YOU! YOU'RE JUST NOT SUBMITTING ENOUGH!" crap, I'm just curious.


i see him as an absintee father who neglected his children in our time of need.