<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2"> Judy you display a certain naivety, which is prevalent in many US citizens about what goes on beyond their borders.
</font>
Talk about displaying a 'certain naivete' (sic)...... What was that supposed to be, some kind of l@ser sharp observation? Give me a break, already with the anti-Yank sentiment.
Mriya - it was not meant to be anti-American, nor displaying wit. It was a statement of fact - many Americans do not realise or know what goes on outside their borders. They have a naive belief that what happens in American, happens in the rest of the world. My apologies if you felt under threat from it.
Is it not naive to assume that Biblical and Jesus' teachings have been responsible for Womens' rights, laws to protect children and slavery abolished. Does this not happen elsewhere under other religions, or even without religion.
Yes, I may have reacted strongly, I feel very passionately about these issues, I've had personal experience of the worst side of Christianity. This is JB, it is allowed - isn't it Mriya?
[This message has been edited by Angel Gabrielle (edited 08 May 2001).]
I think not, but thanks for playing anyway; I believe they have your consolation prize at the door.
Generalizations that broad sweeping are not statements of fact; they are statements of prejudice (or idiocy--depending on my mood, upon reading such careless suppositions). And yes--you are absolutely welcome to spew as much uneducated B.S. as your 'passion' can manufacture, here in JetBlast--but don't expect it to go unchallenged. Aside from the fact that you are mistaken, it's also just a good old fashioned brand of rude. The Americans that you share this board with are, for the most part, fairly good natured when it comes to having people poke fun at the 'Bass Ackward Yanks'. But after a while it gets to be a real pain in the a&s to have people use it as their cheap gag, crowd-pleaser, when they've nothing more poignant to say.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">And what has come of "Waco and Jonestown"? Do you think that in 1,000 years people will recognise what these terms refer to?
In both of these instances their leader was still alive and with them. In the case of Christianity you claim that their leader was dead.</font>
No, I don't think Waco and Jonestown will be remembered for 1,000 years, but maybe that's because none of their followers survived to put their philosophy in a book, and then proceed to enforce that philosophy under pain of death for herecy for the next few centuries. To answer your other point, I see little difference between cases where the leader dies with his followers to one where he is dragged off to be executed and his followers killed at a later date. The result is the same.
JudyTTexas Your naivety may or may not have anything to do with your geographical position, but is present none the less. You say that it is man's traditions that have slowed the development of women's rights and the abolition of slavery, and yet the churches (christian churches being far from the worst I might add) are almost solely responsible for those very traditions. Are these churches not the agents of God here on earth. If not, what are they?
Mriya, my American friends would find your post hilarious - and yes they are good-humoured and intelligent. But they would be the first to admit they are not that knowledgeable about the rest of the world, outside America. Especially if they haven't travelled.
As for the rest of your rather well blunt is a good word (not the one which most readily springs to mind, but) post - perhaps best we just call it a draw. I look forward to you showing the same fervour in defending the honour of any Brits or others who come under fire.
[This message has been edited by Angel Gabrielle (edited 09 May 2001).]
Great to see you posting up honest attempts to deal with Jesus' life. Unfortunately your argument is reductionistic (over-simplified).
"Remember also that thinking of a King as divine was prevalent until quite recently in Europe, well hundreds of years ago." Remember also that the Jews of the time refused to worship the Roman Emporer as divine. The Christians were despised also because they refused to worship the Emporer.
Given that Jesus' followers first preached Jesus resurrected to the eye witnesses of his death, how did they have any credibility?
"It's also important to note that the Bible's intended audience were the Romans so it was written with them in mind, playing down the Roman involvement in the execution. The Jews took the fall for it and ever since."
This is reductionistic on several fronts. Firstly it makes no effort to deal with books like Matthew, John and Hebrews which are written specifically to Jewish readers.
The writers of the New Testament play down the fault of the Jews for Jesus' crucifixion. They, instead, say that the primary reason that Jesus died was because God had decided that it would happen all along. They use many quotes from the Old Testament to back that up. (Not to mention that Jesus predicted his death many times and his resurrection).
"So the myth grew mainly because people wanted to believe in a higher being with their own personal interests at heart." Christianity as a religion was largely despised for its religious content. The early Christians were called athiests because they did not have lots of idols like the surrounding religions.
"We have seen comparable elevations of individuals in recent times, not deities but not far off." Please cite examples.
"You don't always believe what you read in the papers do you?" I would sound the same warning for a lot of the popular books going around lately that claim new 'insight' into the bible or the claims of Christianity. I have read a number of these and generally it can be safely said that the scholarship is poor and the authors (or publishers) are playing on the widespread biblical illiteracy of western society and the desire to accept anything that denies Christianity's absolute claims.
I have no desire to argue with you as to whether or not you are or have been abusive. If I have implied this than I withdraw the implication - sorry. I understand that OCB was proactive in throwing abuse in threads such as this. In his absence I see no need for that practice to continue. But I also have no desire to stamp on anyone's right to free speech.
"Why would anyone imagine that a supreme being responsible for creating the universe would ever need a son?" More to the point, why did Jesus claim it for himself?
Mark 1:11 'And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."' Mark 9:7 'Then a cloud appeared and enveloped them, and a voice came from the cloud: "This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!"' John 12:28 'Father, glorify your name!" Then a voice came from heaven, "I have glorified it, and will glorify it again."' John 14:6-7 'Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."'
These are a few snippets of a very large number of references from Jesus' life to his Sonship. These all come from the same source documents from which you have taken the facts of Jesus' life.
If you have no desire to debate the central issue to this thread then no-one compels you to continue to post here. You are of course welcome to stay, as I would have no desire to stamp on your freedom to speak.
Yes, I read books that attempt to prove parts of the bible false. As yet, I am unconvinced by any of them.
There have been no shifts in my position. That was a summary of your arguments.
Thank you for your historical perspective as to the effect of Christianity. If you want to debate history, then how about discussing the historical figure of Jesus Christ with the rest of us.
Perhaps you should start a thread on the philosophical superiority of postmodernism. Just a thought.
"I see little difference between cases where the leader dies with his followers to one where he is dragged off to be executed and his followers killed at a later date. The result is the same."
Actually there is a big difference. While the leader is still alive there is still hope that he was right. Once he dies it becomes clear that he was a false teacher and it was all crap. Jesus was not alone in his day in claiming to be the Messiah. There were many false-Messiahs around his time in Palestine. Yet only he is remembered. Why is that? As it turns out, the result was very different. Jesus will not be forgotten in yet another 1,000 years.
"but maybe that's because none of their followers survived to put their philosophy in a book, and then proceed to enforce that philosophy under pain of death for herecy for the next few centuries"
This is again reductionist history at work. For at least a century the early church enjoyed no such ability to enforce a pain of death sentence upon heresy. Actually, it usually worked the other way around. Christians in the early church were persecuted to death for proclaiming Jesus as Lord. There have been many books written, both in ancient times and modern, but none has had such a big effect as the bible.
Guy it is mathematicaly possible for 3 individual beings to exist in one physical package, and they (it?) would appear this way to us in this 3-dimensional Universe. A 4th-dimensional tesseract is a good example.
Here's another little tidbit of external evidence, this time about the rapid spread of Christianity and the enormous growth of the early church.
Pliny: Letters from Bithynia AD 112 Pliny states in a leter to the Emperor Trajan from his province of Bithynia that 'many of all ages and every rank and also of bothe sexes' were Christian in his province. He said many had become Christians in 'not the cities only, but also the villages and the country'. He had inprisoned a significant number and wanted to know what to do with them. So powerful had the movement grown to that the temples had become deserted and people were no longer buying food from those who sold it for animal sacrifices. He also reveals that the movement wasn't new, but he had in prison criminals who had given up being Christians twenty years earlier. That means Christianity was in Bithynia by the late eighties AD, maybe earlier. (Jesus was crucified and resurrected c AD 30) Paul wrote his first letter in the early sixties and mentions Christians in Bithynia.
Inscription in Pompeii There is a Christian inscription in Pompeii, which was covered in volcanic ash from Mt Vesuvius in AD 79. Therefore there were Christians in Pompeii by the seventies.
Tacitus about Rome AD 64 Tacitus records in his annals that in AD 64 Christianity by then was in large enough numbers to be considered a 'class', and to the arrest of an 'immense multitude' of Christians.
This swift spread of Christianity is confirmed from within the New Testament. Paul's opponents in Macedonia in AD 50 complain that 'These men... have turned the world upside down' (Acts 17:6) while in AD 62 the Jews in Rome asked Paul about 'this sect... that everywhere is spoken against' (Acts 28:22)
Within a century of the writings of Pliny and Tacitus Tertullian, a Christian apologist, wrote "We are but of yesterday, and we have filled everything you have - cities, tenements, forts, towns... even the camps, tribes, palace, senate, forum. All we have left to you are the temples."
Seutonius AD 49 Seutonius, when writing damningly of the Christians also calls them a 'class', suggesting numerical significance. He also records Christian Jews being kicked out of Rome in AD 49.
Benediction 12 After the fall of Jerusalem AD 70 only two sects of Judaism survived. One was the Pharisees, the mainstream, and the other were the Nazarenes, ie. Christians. In a prayer written by the Pharisees the Nazarenes are mentioned and they pray that the Christians are 'blotted out forever from the book of life'. This was a formulated synagogue prayer by the Pharisees called Benediction 12. Clearly the Nazarenes were in significant numbers by the seventies.
Rabbi Elizer Rabbi Elizer in the nineties was equally down on Christians. In a comment on Christianity he claims that Jesus was predicted before hand to 'cause the whole world to go astray'. Clearly he saw Christianity as a worldwide influence in the nineties.
Josephus In his history of the Jewish people, 'Jewish Antiquities', Josephus records the stoning of Jesus' brother, James. Here is an exerpt of his account:
'...convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned. Those of the inhabitants of the city who were considered the most fairminded and who were strict in observance of the law were offended at this.' Although this one isn't about the spead of Christianity, I just threw it in because it mentions Jesus specifically and his brother James, which agrees with the bible.
So, as you can see, the Christian movement took off like a rocket across the Roman Empire, which was at the time the 'known world'. Within sixty years of the resurrection of Jesus writers were talking as if Christianity was taking over the world. Notice also that none of the non-Christian writers of the time were particularly positive about this (understatement!). So, in spite of opposition, Christianity gripped the known world in an amazingly quick time. Anyone wishing to explain away the resurrection of Jesus would need to deal with this fact.
"Guy it is mathematicaly possible for 3 individual beings to exist in one physical package, and they (it?) would appear this way to us in this 3-dimensional Universe. A 4th-dimensional tesseract is a good example."
Thank you Slash, that's very interesting. Please go on.
guyincognito You claim that the gospels are a true eye-witness account of Jesus' life, and yet they don't even agree on trifling details such as the year he was born.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">The Gospel of Luke claims (2.1-2) that Jesus was born during a census that we know from the historian Josephus took place after Herod the Great died, and after his successor, Archelaus, was deposed. But Matthew claims (2.1-3) that Jesus was born when Herod was still alive--possibly two years before he died (2:7-16). Other elements of their stories also contradict each other. Since Josephus precisely dates the census to 6 A.D. and Herod's death to 4 B.C., and the sequence is indisputable, Luke and Matthew contradict each other.</font>
Given this, I'd suggest at least one of these is an unreliable witness, and therefore their testimony should be inadmissible your honour.
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">While the leader is still alive there is still hope that he was right. Once he dies it becomes clear that he was a false teacher and it was all crap. </font>
You've uncovered the central motive for falsifying the resurrection. With Jesus dead, it proved his disciples were talking crap all along.
[This message has been edited by Mr Creosote (edited 09 May 2001).]
Will post more as soon as time allows. Have to put my naive mind to rest at the moment. By morning, I should be able to sift through my simple thoughts.
...now where did I leave my Simple Sifter?
Guy its real heavey stuff and I just dont have the 2 days to explain it all. Enough to say if you understand the concept of a 4-dimensional tesseract you catch the drift.
PS Recommend you read "Flatland" (3-dimensionality existing in a physical universe of only 2 dimensions. Increase each dimension by one step and you apreciate how a physical 4th dimensional object is viewed as a shadow in a 3-only universe.)
[This message has been edited by Slasher (edited 09 May 2001).]
Angel Gabrielle, Well, jeeez, I figure backing your play is the very least your friends can do for you if they were put into the position of having to make the call, one way or the other... As for my supposed furvor--nah--I was just shooting from the hip, very matter of factly. But if you fancy a future tangle with me anyway, then I guess I'll meet you there, when/if the time comes. And believe you me, if you ever catch me making generalizations like that, I'll know ahead of time that I deserve to have my a$s chewed for it.
Jesus was a historical person. Christianity as a sect, spread through the Roman Empire very fast. Accepted.
But Jesus doesn't seem to have been involved in forming the sect. He was primarily engaged in reformation of the Jewish faith. A Jewish 'fundamentalist' in fact. Although Christianity spread throughout the emppire within a couple of decades of his (reported) death the Gospels we have today were not written until a couple of centuries later. They were based on earlier documents (e.g. Urmarcus etc.) that are lost. Christianity as we know it seems to have been founded by Paul a Mithras follower who set out on a mission to eliminate Christians from Damascus but was converted. By a 'vision' they say. I once met a 'vision' - I married her
Incidentally, church buildings and the christian ceremonies bear striking resemblance to the Roman sect of Mithras, a favourite sect of Roman legionaires. Was this why the sect spread so widely through the empire at such speed? At any rate, Jesus was solid Jewish although, as I pointed out in an earlier post, he was from Galilee, an area less attached to the Temple and its Priesthood than Judaea. None of Jesus' reported teachings seems to suggest that he intended to found a new religion.
********************************** Through difficulties to the cinema
It's an odd thing, there is was a religion based around a man-god, known as Mithras – worshipped as a God of Love. His birthday was around end of December and he was born of a virgin, in some versions in a cave surrounded by shepherds.
It was believed he redeemed mankind by shedding his blood, then being resurrected and presides over a Heaven where, after a last judgement, the unclean will be damned forever and condemned to everlasting hell. A communion prayer 'He who will not eat of my body, nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved' . Followers or converts of his religion bathed (or were baptised) to wash away their past sins.
This all happened some 3500 years ago in Persia. It migrated to Rome where it became the favoured religion of the soldiers. Thence probably to be used by Paul as the basis for his fledgling religion.
Incidentally, which part of the Holy Trinity is the feminine?
ps Incidentally, Mriya I’m sure it made you feel better to leap on your high horse and attack a misconceived grievance based on your American perception of what an British person meant. But such a mild opinion, based on my experiences with a considerable number of Americans (yes, I deal with them on a daily basis) hardly warranted an accusation of anti-American sentiments (do I detect a smidgeon of Angelphobe ). None of what you said was an accurate representation of either my words or my intent (which you took out of context to make your point). And yes, I believe you have been known to make the odd (sic) generalisation about others whom you don’t know from Adam. In JB the anonymity afforded enables people to ‘shoot from the hip’, even if it means tilting at imaginary windmills. But as you say, sometimes things need to be challenged, especially when they’re wrong.
As you have said on at least a couple of occasions, once when defending a certain Texan guy’s right to being obnoxious here, if you don’t like something then don’t read it.
[This message has been edited by Angel Gabrielle (edited 10 May 2001).]
