See other Religion Articles
Title: The Christian Paradox
Source:
Harpers
URL Source: http://www.harpers.org/ExcerptTheChristianParadox.html
Published: Sep 28, 2005
Author: Bill McKibben
Post Date: 2005-09-28 23:36:45 by crack monkey
Keywords: Christian, Paradox
Views: 3030
Comments: 197
The Christian Paradox How a faithful nation gets Jesus wrong Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005. What it means to be Christian in America. An excerpt from this report appeared in August 2005. The complete text appears below. Originally from August 2005. By Bill McKibben. SourcesOnly 40 percent of Americans can name more than four of the Ten Commandments, and a scant half can cite any of the four authors of the Gospels. Twelve percent believe Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife. This failure to recall the specifics of our Christian heritage may be further evidence of our nation’s educational decline, but it probably doesn’t matter all that much in spiritual or political terms. Here is a statistic that does matter: Three quarters of Americans believe the Bible teaches that “God helps those who help themselves.” That is, three out of four Americans believe that this uber-American idea, a notion at the core of our current individualist politics and culture, which was in fact uttered by Ben Franklin, actually appears in Holy Scripture. The thing is, not only is Franklin’s wisdom not biblical; it’s counter-biblical. Few ideas could be further from the gospel message, with its radical summons to love of neighbor. On this essential matter, most Americans—most American Christians—are simply wrong, as if 75 percent of American scientists believed that Newton proved gravity causes apples to fly up. Asking Christians what Christ taught isn’t a trick. When we say we are a Christian nation—and, overwhelmingly, we do—it means something. People who go to church absorb lessons there and make real decisions based on those lessons; increasingly, these lessons inform their politics. (One poll found that 11 percent of U.S. churchgoers were urged by their clergy to vote in a particular way in the 2004 election, up from 6 percent in 2000.) When George Bush says that Jesus Christ is his favorite philosopher, he may or may not be sincere, but he is reflecting the sincere beliefs of the vast majority of Americans. And therein is the paradox. America is simultaneously the most professedly Christian of the developed nations and the least Christian in its behavior. That paradox—more important, perhaps, than the much touted ability of French women to stay thin on a diet of chocolate and cheese—illuminates the hollow at the core of our boastful, careening culture. * * * Ours is among the most spiritually homogenous rich nations on earth. Depending on which poll you look at and how the question is asked, somewhere around 85 percent of us call ourselves Christian. Israel, by way of comparison, is 77 percent Jewish. It is true that a smaller number of Americans—about 75 percent—claim they actually pray to God on a daily basis, and only 33 percent say they manage to get to church every week. Still, even if that 85 percent overstates actual practice, it clearly represents aspiration. In fact, there is nothing else that unites more than four fifths of America. Every other statistic one can cite about American behavior is essentially also a measure of the behavior of professed Christians. That’s what America is: a place saturated in Christian identity. But is it Christian? This is not a matter of angels dancing on the heads of pins. Christ was pretty specific about what he had in mind for his followers. What if we chose some simple criterion—say, giving aid to the poorest people—as a reasonable proxy for Christian behavior? After all, in the days before his crucifixion, when Jesus summed up his message for his disciples, he said the way you could tell the righteous from the damned was by whether they’d fed the hungry, slaked the thirsty, clothed the naked, welcomed the stranger, and visited the prisoner. What would we find then? In 2004, as a share of our economy, we ranked second to last, after Italy, among developed countries in government foreign aid. Per capita we each provide fifteen cents a day in official development assistance to poor countries. And it’s not because we were giving to private charities for relief work instead. Such funding increases our average daily donation by just six pennies, to twenty-one cents. It’s also not because Americans were too busy taking care of their own; nearly 18 percent of American children lived in poverty (compared with, say, 8 percent in Sweden). In fact, by pretty much any measure of caring for the least among us you want to propose—childhood nutrition, infant mortality, access to preschool—we come in nearly last among the rich nations, and often by a wide margin. The point is not just that (as everyone already knows) the American nation trails badly in all these categories; it’s that the overwhelmingly Christian American nation trails badly in all these categories, categories to which Jesus paid particular attention. And it’s not as if the numbers are getting better: the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported last year that the number of households that were “food insecure with hunger” had climbed more than 26 percent between 1999 and 2003. This Christian nation also tends to make personal, as opposed to political, choices that the Bible would seem to frown upon. Despite the Sixth Commandment, we are, of course, the most violent rich nation on earth, with a murder rate four or five times that of our European peers. We have prison populations greater by a factor of six or seven than other rich nations (which at least should give us plenty of opportunity for visiting the prisoners). Having been told to turn the other cheek, we’re the only Western democracy left that executes its citizens, mostly in those states where Christianity is theoretically strongest. Despite Jesus’ strong declarations against divorce, our marriages break up at a rate—just over half—that compares poorly with the European Union’s average of about four in ten. That average may be held down by the fact that Europeans marry less frequently, and by countries, like Italy, where divorce is difficult; still, compare our success with, say, that of the godless Dutch, whose divorce rate is just over 37 percent. Teenage pregnancy? We’re at the top of the charts. Personal self-discipline—like, say, keeping your weight under control? Buying on credit? Running government deficits? Do you need to ask? * * * Are Americans hypocrites? Of course they are. But most people (me, for instance) are hypocrites. The more troubling explanation for this disconnect between belief and action, I think, is that most Americans—which means most believers—have replaced the Christianity of the Bible, with its call for deep sharing and personal sacrifice, with a competing creed. In fact, there may be several competing creeds. For many Christians, deciphering a few passages of the Bible to figure out the schedule for the End Times has become a central task. You can log on to http://RaptureReady.com for a taste of how some of these believers view the world—at this writing the Rapture Index had declined three points to 152 because, despite an increase in the number of U.S. pagans, “Wal-Mart is falling behind in its plan to bar code all products with radio tags.” Other End-Timers are more interested in forcing the issue—they’re convinced that the way to coax the Lord back to earth is to “Christianize” our nation and then the world. Consider House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. At church one day he listened as the pastor, urging his flock to support the administration, declared that “the war between America and Iraq is the gateway to the Apocalypse.” DeLay rose to speak, not only to the congregation but to 225 Christian TV and radio stations. “Ladies and gentlemen,” he said, “what has been spoken here tonight is the truth of God.” The apocalyptics may not be wrong. One could make a perfectly serious argument that the policies of Tom DeLay are in fact hastening the End Times. But there’s nothing particularly Christian about this hastening. The creed of Tom DeLay—of Tim LaHaye and his Left Behind books, of Pat Robertson’s “The Antichrist is probably a Jew alive in Israel today”—ripened out of the impossibly poetic imagery of the Book of Revelation. Imagine trying to build a theory of the Constitution by obsessively reading and rereading the Twenty-fifth Amendment, and you’ll get an idea of what an odd approach this is. You might be able to spin elaborate fantasies about presidential succession, but you’d have a hard time working backwards to “We the People.” This is the contemporary version of Archbishop Ussher’s seventeenth-century calculation that the world had been created on October 23, 4004 B.C., and that the ark touched down on Mount Ararat on May 5, 2348 B.C., a Wednesday. Interesting, but a distant distraction from the gospel message. The apocalyptics, however, are the lesser problem. It is another competing (though sometimes overlapping) creed, this one straight from the sprawling megachurches of the new exurbs, that frightens me most. Its deviation is less obvious precisely because it looks so much like the rest of the culture. In fact, most of what gets preached in these palaces isn’t loony at all. It is disturbingly conventional. The pastors focus relentlessly on you and your individual needs. Their goal is to service consumers—not communities but individuals: “seekers” is the term of art, people who feel the need for some spirituality in their (or their children’s) lives but who aren’t tightly bound to any particular denomination or school of thought. The result is often a kind of soft-focus, comfortable, suburban faith. A New York Times reporter visiting one booming megachurch outside Phoenix recently found the typical scene: a drive-through latte stand, Krispy Kreme doughnuts at every service, and sermons about “how to discipline your children, how to reach your professional goals, how to invest your money, how to reduce your debt.” On Sundays children played with church-distributed Xboxes, and many congregants had signed up for a twice-weekly aerobics class called Firm Believers. A list of bestsellers compiled monthly by the Christian Booksellers Association illuminates the creed. It includes texts like Your Best Life Now by Joel Osteen—pastor of a church so mega it recently leased a 16,000-seat sports arena in Houston for its services—which even the normally tolerant Publishers Weekly dismissed as “a treatise on how to get God to serve the demands of self-centered individuals.” Nearly as high is Beth Moore, with her Believing God—“Beth asks the tough questions concerning the fruit of our Christian lives,” such as “are we living as fully as we can?” Other titles include Humor for a Woman’s Heart, a collection of “humorous writings” designed to “lift a life above the stresses and strains of the day”; The Five Love Languages, in which Dr. Gary Chapman helps you figure out if you’re speaking in the same emotional dialect as your significant other; and Karol Ladd’s The Power of a Positive Woman. Ladd is the co-founder of USA Sonshine Girls—the “Son” in Sonshine, of course, is the son of God—and she is unremittingly upbeat in presenting her five-part plan for creating a life with “more calm, less stress.” Not that any of this is so bad in itself. We do have stressful lives, humor does help, and you should pay attention to your own needs. Comfortable suburbanites watch their parents die, their kids implode. Clearly I need help with being positive. And I have no doubt that such texts have turned people into better parents, better spouses, better bosses. It’s just that these authors, in presenting their perfectly sensible advice, somehow manage to ignore Jesus’ radical and demanding focus on others. It may, in fact, be true that “God helps those who help themselves,” both financially and emotionally. (Certainly fortune does.) But if so it’s still a subsidiary, secondary truth, more Franklinity than Christianity. You could eliminate the scriptural references in most of these bestsellers and they would still make or not make the same amount of sense. Chicken Soup for the Zoroastrian Soul. It is a perfect mirror of the secular bestseller lists, indeed of the secular culture, with its American fixation on self-improvement, on self-esteem. On self. These similarities make it difficult (although not impossible) for the televangelists to posit themselves as embattled figures in a “culture war”— they offer too uncanny a reflection of the dominant culture, a culture of unrelenting self-obsession. * * * Who am I to criticize someone else’s religion? After all, if there is anything Americans agree on, it’s that we should tolerate everyone else’s religious expression. As a Newsweek writer put it some years ago at the end of his cover story on apocalyptic visions and the Book of Revelation, “Who’s to say that John’s mythic battle between Christ and Antichrist is not a valid insight into what the history of humankind is all about?” (Not Newsweek, that’s for sure; their religious covers are guaranteed big sellers.) To that I can only answer that I’m a . . . Christian. Not a professional one; I’m an environmental writer mostly. I’ve never progressed further in the church hierarchy than Sunday school teacher at my backwoods Methodist church. But I’ve spent most of my Sunday mornings in a pew. I grew up in church youth groups and stayed active most of my adult life—started homeless shelters in church basements, served soup at the church food pantry, climbed to the top of the rickety ladder to put the star on the church Christmas tree. My work has been, at times, influenced by all that—I’ve written extensively about the Book of Job, which is to me the first great piece of nature writing in the Western tradition, and about the overlaps between Christianity and environmentalism. In fact, I imagine I’m one of a fairly small number of writers who have had cover stories in both the Christian Century, the magazine of liberal mainline Protestantism, and Christianity Today, which Billy Graham founded, not to mention articles in Sojourners, the magazine of the progressive evangelical community co-founded by Jim Wallis. Indeed, it was my work with religious environmentalists that first got me thinking along the lines of this essay. We were trying to get politicians to understand why the Bible actually mandated protecting the world around us (Noah: the first Green), work that I think is true and vital. But one day it occurred to me that the parts of the world where people actually had cut dramatically back on their carbon emissions, actually did live voluntarily in smaller homes and take public transit, were the same countries where people were giving aid to the poor and making sure everyone had health care—countries like Norway and Sweden, where religion was relatively unimportant. How could that be? For Christians there should be something at least a little scary in the notion that, absent the magical answers of religion, people might just get around to solving their problems and strengthening their communities in more straightforward ways. But for me, in any event, the European success is less interesting than the American failure. Because we’re not going to be like them. Maybe we’d be better off if we abandoned religion for secular rationality, but we’re not going to; for the foreseeable future this will be a “Christian” nation. The question is, what kind of Christian nation? * * * The tendencies I’ve been describing—toward an apocalyptic End Times faith, toward a comfort-the-comfortable, personal-empowerment faith—veil the actual, and remarkable, message of the Gospels. When one of the Pharisees asked Jesus what the core of the law was, Jesus replied: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Love your neighbor as yourself: although its rhetorical power has been dimmed by repetition, that is a radical notion, perhaps the most radical notion possible. Especially since Jesus, in all his teachings, made it very clear who the neighbor you were supposed to love was: the poor person, the sick person, the naked person, the hungry person. The last shall be made first; turn the other cheek; a rich person aiming for heaven is like a camel trying to walk through the eye of a needle. On and on and on—a call for nothing less than a radical, voluntary, and effective reordering of power relationships, based on the principle of love. I confess, even as I write these words, to a feeling close to embarrassment. Because in public we tend not to talk about such things—my theory of what Jesus mostly meant seems like it should be left in church, or confined to some religious publication. But remember the overwhelming connection between America and Christianity; what Jesus meant is the most deeply potent political, cultural, social question. To ignore it, or leave it to the bullies and the salesmen of the televangelist sects, means to walk away from a central battle over American identity. At the moment, the idea of Jesus has been hijacked by people with a series of causes that do not reflect his teachings. The Bible is a long book, and even the Gospels have plenty in them, some of it seemingly contradictory and hard to puzzle out. But love your neighbor as yourself—not do unto others as you would have them do unto you, but love your neighbor as yourself—will suffice as a gloss. There is no disputing the centrality of this message, nor is there any disputing how easy it is to ignore that message. Because it is so counterintuitive, Christians have had to keep repeating it to themselves right from the start. Consider Paul, for instance, instructing the church at Galatea: “For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment,” he wrote. “‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” American churches, by and large, have done a pretty good job of loving the neighbor in the next pew. A pastor can spend all Sunday talking about the Rapture Index, but if his congregation is thriving you can be assured he’s spending the other six days visiting people in the hospital, counseling couples, and sitting up with grieving widows. All this human connection is important. But if the theology makes it harder to love the neighbor a little farther away—particularly the poor and the weak—then it’s a problem. And the dominant theologies of the moment do just that. They undercut Jesus, muffle his hard words, deaden his call, and in the end silence him. In fact, the soft-focus consumer gospel of the suburban megachurches is a perfect match for emergent conservative economic notions about personal responsibility instead of collective action. Privatize Social Security? Keep health care for people who can afford it? File those under “God helps those who help themselves.” Take Alabama as an example. In 2002, Bob Riley was elected governor of the state, where 90 percent of residents identify themselves as Christians. Riley could safely be called a conservative—right-wing majordomo Grover Norquist gave him a Friend of the Taxpayer Award every year he was in Congress, where he’d never voted for a tax increase. But when he took over Alabama, he found himself administering a tax code that dated to 1901. The richest Alabamians paid 3 percent of their income in taxes, and the poorest paid up to 12 percent; income taxes kicked in if a family of four made $4,600 (even in Mississippi the threshold was $19,000), while out-of-state timber companies paid $1.25 an acre in property taxes. Alabama was forty-eighth in total state and local taxes, and the largest proportion of that income came from sales tax—a super-regressive tax that in some counties reached into double digits. So Riley proposed a tax hike, partly to dig the state out of a fiscal crisis and partly to put more money into the state’s school system, routinely ranked near the worst in the nation. He argued that it was Christian duty to look after the poor more carefully. Had the new law passed, the owner of a $250,000 home in Montgomery would have paid $1,432 in property taxes—we’re not talking Sweden here. But it didn’t pass. It was crushed by a factor of two to one. Sixty-eight percent of the state voted against it—meaning, of course, something like 68 percent of the Christians who voted. The opposition was led, in fact, not just by the state’s wealthiest interests but also by the Christian Coalition of Alabama. “You’ll find most Alabamians have got a charitable heart,” said John Giles, the group’s president. “They just don’t want it coming out of their pockets.” On its website, the group argued that taxing the rich at a higher rate than the poor “results in punishing success” and that “when an individual works for their income, that money belongs to the individual.” You might as well just cite chapter and verse from Poor Richard’s Almanack. And whatever the ideology, the results are clear. “I’m tired of Alabama being first in things that are bad,” said Governor Riley, “and last in things that are good.” * * * A rich man came to Jesus one day and asked what he should do to get into heaven. Jesus did not say he should invest, spend, and let the benefits trickle down; he said sell what you have, give the money to the poor, and follow me. Few plainer words have been spoken. And yet, for some reason, the Christian Coalition of America—founded in 1989 in order to “preserve, protect and defend the Judeo-Christian values that made this the greatest country in history”—proclaimed last year that its top legislative priority would be “making permanent President Bush’s 2001 federal tax cuts.” Similarly, a furor erupted last spring when it emerged that a Colorado jury had consulted the Bible before sentencing a killer to death. Experts debated whether the (Christian) jurors should have used an outside authority in their deliberations, and of course the Christian right saw it as one more sign of a secular society devaluing religion. But a more interesting question would have been why the jurors fixated on Leviticus 24, with its call for an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. They had somehow missed Jesus’ explicit refutation in the New Testament: “You have heard that it was said, ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also.” And on and on. The power of the Christian right rests largely in the fact that they boldly claim religious authority, and by their very boldness convince the rest of us that they must know what they’re talking about. They’re like the guy who gives you directions with such loud confidence that you drive on even though the road appears to be turning into a faint, rutted track. But their theology is appealing for another reason too: it coincides with what we want to believe. How nice it would be if Jesus had declared that our income was ours to keep, instead of insisting that we had to share. How satisfying it would be if we were supposed to hate our enemies. Religious conservatives will always have a comparatively easy sell. But straight is the path and narrow is the way. The gospel is too radical for any culture larger than the Amish to ever come close to realizing; in demanding a departure from selfishness it conflicts with all our current desires. Even the first time around, judging by the reaction, the Gospels were pretty unwelcome news to an awful lot of people. There is not going to be a modern-day return to the church of the early believers, holding all things in common—that’s not what I’m talking about. Taking seriously the actual message of Jesus, though, should serve at least to moderate the greed and violence that mark this culture. It’s hard to imagine a con much more audacious than making Christ the front man for a program of tax cuts for the rich or war in Iraq. If some modest part of the 85 percent of us who are Christians woke up to that fact, then the world might change. It is possible, I think. Yes, the mainline Protestant churches that supported civil rights and opposed the war in Vietnam are mostly locked in a dreary decline as their congregations dwindle and their elders argue endlessly about gay clergy and same-sex unions. And the Catholic Church, for most of its American history a sturdy exponent of a “love your neighbor” theology, has been weakened, too, its hierarchy increasingly motivated by a single-issue focus on abortion. Plenty of vital congregations are doing great good works—they’re the ones that have nurtured me—but they aren’t where the challenge will arise; they’ve grown shy about talking about Jesus, more comfortable with the language of sociology and politics. More and more it’s Bible-quoting Christians, like Wallis’s Sojourners movement and that Baptist seminary graduate Bill Moyers, who are carrying the fight. The best-selling of all Christian books in recent years, Rick Warren’s The Purpose-Driven Life, illustrates the possibilities. It has all the hallmarks of self-absorption (in one five-page chapter, I counted sixty-five uses of the word “you”), but it also makes a powerful case that we’re made for mission. What that mission is never becomes clear, but the thirst for it is real. And there’s no great need for Warren to state that purpose anyhow. For Christians, the plainspoken message of the Gospels is clear enough. If you have any doubts, read the Sermon on the Mount. Admittedly, this is hope against hope; more likely the money changers and power brokers will remain ascendant in our “spiritual” life. Since the days of Constantine, emperors and rich men have sought to co-opt the teachings of Jesus. As in so many areas of our increasingly market-tested lives, the co-opters—the TV men, the politicians, the Christian “interest groups”—have found a way to make each of us complicit in that travesty, too. They have invited us to subvert the church of Jesus even as we celebrate it. With their help we have made golden calves of ourselves—become a nation of terrified, self-obsessed idols. It works, and it may well keep working for a long time to come. When Americans hunger for selfless love and are fed only love of self, they will remain hungry, and too often hungry people just come back for more of the same. About the Author Bill McKibben, a scholar-in-residence at Middlebury College, is the author of many books, including The End of Nature and Wandering Home: A Long Walk Across America’s Most Hopeful Landscape. His last article for Harper’s Magazine, “The Cuba Diet,” appeared in the April 2005 issue.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-26) not displayed.
.
.
.
#27. To: Moldi-Box (#21)
Here's something for you to think about. The Bible contains a prophecy given from God and written over 500 years in advance that foretold of the Messiah Prince that would come 483 years following a decree to rebuild Jerusalem, a Messiah who would then be "cut off" and have nothing. That 500+ year-old prophecy was fufilled with the baptism of Jesus Christ in 26 AD (exactly 483 years after Artaxerxes I decreed in 458 BC that Jerusalem be rebuilt) and with His subsequent crucifixion (being cut off and having nothing). And unlike fictional literature, it is true and verifiable. You can read about it here at God's Signature of Authenticity.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
This is, of course, an unsubstantiated assumption on your part, unless of course you have some proof to post that they weren't ever eyewitnesses at any of it? Your proof for example they weren't in the crowd at the feeding of the 5,000 or the healing of the woman who touched the hem of Jesus' robe, or the demoniac boy, or in the crowds who were shouting to Pilate for Barrabas to be exchanged for Jesus, etc? And, FWIW, yes there are instances where "heresay" is admissable in a court of law. And you're free to dismiss the argument as unproven.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Thank you rowdee for your encouraging words.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Christ is supposed to have been a Jew, and his disciples are said to have been Jewish fishermen. His language, and the language of his followers must, therefore, have been Aramaic -- the popular language of Palestine in that age. But the Gospels are written in Greek -- every one of them. Nor were they translated from some other language. Every leading Christian scholar since Erasmus, four hundred years ago, has maintained that they were originally written in Greek. This proves that they were not written by Christ's disciples, or by any of the early Christians. Foreign Gospels, written by unknown men, in a foreign tongue, several generations after the death of those who are supposed to have known the facts -- such is the evidence relied upon to prove that Jesus lived. But while the Gospels were written several generations too late to be of authority, the original documents, such as they were, were not preserved. The Gospels that were written in the second century no longer exist. They have been lost or destroyed. The oldest Gospels that we have are supposed to be copies of copies of copies that were made from those Gospels. We do not know who made these copies; we do not know when they were made; nor do we know whether they were honestly made. Between the earliest Gospels and the oldest existing manuscripts of the New Testament, there is a blank gulf of three hundred years. It is, therefore, impossible to say what the original Gospels contained.
God bless the postman , who brings the mail. God bless the cowboy , out on the trail. Bless the circus acrobat, never let her fall. God bless the folks I love, God bless them all !!!
What do you think of Matthew 27:52-53, where it says "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." Do you believe that happened? Because that's a really tough act to ignore. Walking resurrected saints would tend to make quite an impact on a society, yet nobody else reported that happening. Not even the other authors of the gospels. Doesn't that make you wonder just a bit?
Something to think about.
#28. To: Steppenwolf (#26)
since they [the gospel writers] weren't present at what they write about
#29. To: rowdee (#20)
#30. To: Starwind (#28)
This is, of course, an unsubstantiated assumption on your part, unless of course you have some proof to post that they weren't ever eyewitnesses at any of it? ......No the writers of the Gospels were GREEK and wrote in greek. Enlighten yourself..... http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html
#31. To: Starwind (#27)
 | Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#32. To: Steppenwolf (#30)
Disciples (followers) are not Apostles, and no they were not all fishermen: The Romans were occupiers of the country for several decades, and before that Alexander the Great in 332 BC conquered the country and began the Hellenization of the Jews which included imposition of Greek language and culture. So by Jesus day the culture was a mix of Jew, Greek and Roman, but Greek had become the universal and nearly international language in Palestine and elsewhere as a consequence of Alexander the Great's Hellenization program. Well considering John was the only Jewish Gospel writer and the imposition of the Hellenistic period and Romans, that's not terribly surprising. Further in Jewish culture, the writing skills (Aramaic) were predominantly found among the educated Pharisees and scribes and used largely to copy the Jewish religious scrolls and transcribe the teachings of the Hebrew sages. So given Aramaic was largely written by Pharisees and scribes, none of whom were Jesus' disciples, and that the gospel writers were all steeped in a Greek- language culture due to 300+ years of Hellenization, and except possibly for John, the gospel writers had "professional" as opposed to fishermen's backgrounds, it is quite natural the gospels were written in Greek. There is also the likelihood that because when the gospels were being written, Christ had already been crucified and resurrected and had commanded them to "make disciples of all nations", such discipling of all nations would be more effective in Greek than Aramaic.
Christ is supposed to have been a Jew, and his disciples are said to have been Jewish fishermen.
His language, and the language of his followers must, therefore, have been Aramaic -- the popular language of Palestine in that age.
But the Gospels are written in Greek -- every one of them.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#33. To: Elliott Jackalope (#31)
Yes, I take it on faith as true because I have no evidence of the bible being false (just miraculous) and I have other compelling evidence that some of the key bible teachings are verifiable and true - so I take as all true. It is a reasonable question. But there are many instances of something miraculous only being reported by one gospel writer: And all of it did make an impact on society. News of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth changed the world.
Do you believe that happened?
Because that's a really tough act to ignore. Walking resurrected saints would tend to make quite an impact on a society, yet nobody else reported that happening. Not even the other authors of the gospels. Doesn't that make you wonder just a bit?
It wasn't ignored. It was written down once. But the real issue is would you believe it if only it had been written down four times?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#34. To: Starwind (#27)
Verifiable. Now I'm interested. What corroborating material confirms this except the bible itself wihch could have been written to make the pieces fit? And even Yahweh seems to have misconceptions as to what a year is. He told the Israelites a year begins on Passover, in Abib which would be late April right? Ask any farmer if he can consider April 25th the be the beginning of the year for planting purposes. Again science trumps baseless faith. And thanks for bringing up Jesus who taught that one shouldn't collect wealth in this life because this world is of the devil and that anyone who is rewarded here shouldn't expect to be rewarded in the kingdom of God. But OT Yahweh made Abraham, Isaac, Laban, Joseph, Jacob et all exceedingly rich. Did the devil inherit the world sometime after that point? And why does this world belong to the dark prince when God created it and allowed sin to enter against his (omnipotent) will? You can read about it here at God's Signature of Authenticity. The only thing I saw on that link was you tap-dancing around legitimate questions that hoist doubt onto the creation story. If all things which creepeth upon the earth were brought before Adam to be named, do you suppose Neanderthals and other primitive hominids were among them? How about dinosaurs? Did bloody strife among animals precede "original sin" wrought by man (which presumably is Sapiens)? Yes it did. Uh oh. That's a big f**cking problem.
it is true and verifiable.
#35. To: Starwind (#33)
I just wanted to say that, speaking for myself, the lack of contemporary references to some of the miracles supposedly done by Jesus is a major reason why I am not a believer. There were a number of historians and writers who lived around that time, some pro-Rome, some anti-Rome, some Jewish, some Gentile, yet none of them recorded dead saints being resurrected at the time of the crucifixion. Doesn't that concern you even a little bit?
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#36. To: Starwind, Elliott Jackalope (#33)
And the stare of Medusa turned men into stone. And the minotaur truly existed and was terrible to behold. And the sirens called unwary sailors from their charted course to be forever trapped. And I know Zeus is real because we have conversations every Thursday following prime time t.v. etc... etc... Mythology = mythology Yahweh has all the characteristics of what you would expect from a tribal diety - craving for burnt altar sacrifices, advice for situations of the day, a keen eye for pretty shiny things like gold, a wrathful temperment, a ornery disposition toward the lesser gods which he made note of many time (and whom created these lesser gods BTW). And why did this ostentatious diety stop making appearences in person and in burning bushes and pillars of fire and thunderous clouds at some point? Why did he send his son (which some fruitloops claim is really him) to do his talking for him in the NT, you know, the book where he ceased being an angry, warring, partial-to-one-tribe ruler and instead became perfect love, forgiving and compassionate?
Matt 9:27 Jesus heals many blind and mute Mark 7:31-37 Healing the deaf and mute man Luk 22:50-51 replaced the ear of the high priest's servant at Jesus arrest John 5:1-9 healing the paralyzed man at Bethesda pool
#37. To: Moldi-Box (#34)
You didn't read the link. Most of the essay is cites of extra-biblical historical records of kings that verify and corroborate the timeline of the biblical prophecy. lol - you definitely didn't read the link. If you would please, post exact quotes, from that link, wherein I danced around questions about the creation story, Adam naming creatures, Neanderthals, or dinosaurs. I know those questions aren't there, but you don't know that because you didn't read the link. You assumed and you're blowing smoke, hoping no one will notice.
Verifiable. Now I'm interested. What corroborating material confirms this except the bible itself which could have been written to make the pieces fit?
The only thing I saw on that link was you tap-dancing around legitimate questions that hoist doubt onto the creation story. If all things which creepeth upon the earth were brought before Adam to be named, do you suppose Neanderthals and other primitive hominids were among them? How about dinosaurs? Did bloody strife among animals precede "original sin" wrought by man (which presumably is Sapiens)? Yes it did. Uh oh. That's a big f**cking problem.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#38. To: Starwind (#37)
Let's try again with less interference: If all things which creepeth upon the earth were brought before Adam to be named, do you suppose Neanderthals and other primitive hominids were among them? How about dinosaurs? Did bloody strife among animals precede "original sin" wrought by man (which presumably is Sapiens)?
you're blowing smoke, hoping no one will notice.
#39. To: Moldi-Box (#38)
lol - what happened to your interest in verifiable corroborative material. That presumption that the bible was no different than mythical literature. When given a link to something verifiable and substantive, you didn't read it, and when called on it, you're changing the subject. 'smatter? Did you finally read the link and realize what a blunder you made, asserting that I had therein danced around questions that now you finally realize aren't there and never were?
Let's try again with less interference:
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#40. To: Starwind (#39)
No. The bible cannot corroborate itself. What other piece of contemporary record refers to Jesus' baptism. That's what I was asking for. You raised a dust could with your link thinking it would placate me. I read more of the link and if I were you I wouldn't draw attention to it beacuse you got owned. One poster brought up repeated questions about the creation which made you angry, defensive and evasive. Like you're doing now when I asked similar questions which require answers to prove the validity of the OT and NT alike. (And which you want to divert the subject away from BTW) Go ahead now, floor's yours.
When given a link to something verifiable and substantive, you didn't read it, and when called on it, you're changing the subject.
#41. To: Moldi-Box (#40)
Man, what the hell are you smoking? You are undergoing a rhetorical ass kicking that, if real, would have you in an ICU...
if I were you I wouldn't draw attention to it beacuse you got owned.
Government blows, and that which governs least blows least...
#42. To: Moldi-Box, Starwind (#40)
By the way, I'm not trying to "win" or "prove" anything, my objective is to figure out the truth. I'm a big fan of truth, and I really like intelligent debate purposed towards finding the truth. I'm a lot less interested in "winning" or "proving" anything than I am in finding the truth. Starwind, I have a question for you. Have you ever heard of Abdul Bahá'u'lláh? He founded a faith called the Bahai. The reason I mention him is because of several things, first because his writings were actually written by him, within the last hundred years or so, there's no problem with translation errors or second hand accounts, what he wrote is what he wrote. Secondly, there are a number of miracles attributed to him that were witnessed by many people. Thirdly and perhaps most importantly, his writings are very inspirational and seem to have a great amount of wisdom behind them. The Bahai's that I've met have been extremely nice people, what could be called "salt of the Earth" types, generous, kind and wise. No, I'm not a Bahai, and I'm not trying to promote that particular faith. But if I were to embrace a faith, I'd be a lot more inclined to follow something where the words written down were actually penned by the prophet in question, where the teachings are filled with wisdom and inspiration, and where the idea is not to terrify people into believing by threatening them with the undifferentiated absolute of total awfulness for not prostrating themselves before the deity in question, but pointing out the wisdom of living life in accordance with Godly principles versus living life in the pursuit of selfish desires. Simply put, I refuse to be cowed by fear, I refuse to cringe before my maker, eternally apologizing and begging forgiveness for my sins, when I'm guilty of nothing more than being a man. I'm not perfect by any means, and I freely admit that I fall far short of any Godly ideal. But I love truth, I hate lies, I love kindness and generosity (people who know me say I'm generous to a fault) and I hate greed and selfishness and cruelity. I'm also someone who deeply loves nature and animals, who will take the time to escort a bug out of my house to gently put them outside. Yet, according to Christianity, because I reject Jesus I'm going to spend eternity burning right next to sadists and Satanists and murderers and pederasts. Now doesn't that sound just a bit out of whack to you? Furthermore, does anyone, even the worst of the worst, deserve eternal punishment? Please don't use the ol' "God has his standards, we are not to judge them" argument. That is nothing more than intellectual prostration before yet another undifferentiated absolute, and I'm not going to go for it. Eternal punishment is infinite punishment is infinite cruelity. Should I worship God as a tyrant? Because to be perfectly honest, Christianity led me to hate God. Abandoning Christianity has allowed me to begin contemplating God again, and has allowed me to consider the possibility that perhaps God is not an evil tyrant after all, but a source of light and love and life. But then I go to read the Bible, and after just a few pages I find myself hating God again. Why is that? Why should a decent person find themselves hating God from reading the Bible? Could it have something to do with the cruel behavior and standards imposed by the God of the Bible? Perhaps the most "true" religion of all is the one that leads a person to God, and the most "false" religions are the ones that drive people away from God? Perhaps Christianity works for you, but it doesn't for me and for many others. Do you really believe God wants his children to hate and fear him? I don't, and for me Christianity leads me to hate God. Therefore I reject Christianity, because I would much rather have good feelings towards God, and aspire to grow nearer to Him than to push myself ever further away. Therefore I reject Christianity, and I reject Judiasm and I reject Islam, so there's at least two Hells waiting for me, simply because I'd rather like God and want to please him, instead of hating and cringing and fearing Him. P.S. You want to know my real opinion on "life, God, the universe and everything" (TM)? Here's what I think. Religions have real power because they start with real experiences that people have, experiences that through whatever mechanism or method allow people to momentarily see beyond the veil of reality and perceive the larger reality that this world is a subset of. These experiences change these people profoundly, and change the lives of people around them as well. Then others begin to move in on the action, creating ritual and legend and mythos surrounding the original revelation, and after enough time the ritual and legends and mythos become institutionalized religions, with all of the politics and statecraft and intrigue and generic human grotesqueness that comes along with the behavior of those more interested in power than they are in truth. And so the original power of the vision becomes diffused and dimmed and distorted, and the institution becomes more corrupt and oppressive and worldly. This is why people who are religious have the depth of faith that they do, because when you unwrap all of the nonsense piled on by people over centuries you'll find a core of real truth there, and this is also why those who disbelieve any particular religion have the convictions they do, because there are very good reasons to not believe once one has seen what the original vision led to. Well, that's my essay for the evening. Apologies to all who waded through all of this and found it lacking in value. At least know that I did my honest best to speak what I think is the truth.
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#43. To: Axenolith (#41)
Okay Dudley, if you say so. But out of curiousity, what point(s) specifically is Starvind winning? The one where he dodges explaining why man-like hominids are on the fossil record? Maybe you can pick up for him there.
You are undergoing a rhetorical ass kicking
#44. To: Elliott Jackalope (#42)
Excellent post EJ. Near as I can tell there are only ever two impetuses for being Christian: self-preservation (avoiding hell) and for gain (glorious afterlife), rarely if ever for any other sake. How noble is it to live life simply to stay out of jail or flatter a wealthy benefactor in hopes of an inheritance? To the philosophic mind there must be something more. Of course, maybe this is why per Revelations only 144,000 names will be written in the book of life - because the other hundres of millions of Christians really arent?
Eternal punishment is infinite punishment is infinite cruelity. Should I worship God as a tyrant?
#45. To: Elliot Jackalope, Starwind (#35)
EJ. the apostles nor disciples were joined at the hip, thus each seeing everything exactly the same. Recall that after the crucification that a number of them saw the resurrected Jesus, and doubting Thomas said he wouldn't believe it unless or until he could put his fingers in the nailprints. When Jesus next appeared, He encouraged Thomas to do so. Additionally, there can be tons of witnesses to an event. Some will say they didn't see anything. Others saw a dark blue car, for instance, while another swears it was black, and yet another would say it was red. Or that a perp was wearing jeans and a sweatshirt, when he was wearing khaki shorts and a polo shirt. Did any of the witnesses write down what they saw? Chances are there is at least one that would have--because they figured they would need it to refresh their memories should they be required to testify in court. I did this a whole lot when I was younger. I was trained in stenography. From when I first began training, I would write down things I observed or listened to--all in the chickenscratching called Gregg's shorthand. It got to be a habit. Would resurrected saints appear to non-believers or skeptics? I personally doubt it.
#46. To: rowdee (#45)
Would resurrected saints appear to non-believers or skeptics? I personally doubt it. Question: Since this event is supposed to have happened at the time of the crucifixion, the total number of believers in Christianity numbered what, less than a hundred? Maybe less than twenty-five? So your argument is that these saints were resurrected, but didn't appear before any non-believers? So they were resurrected for the behalf of a tiny group of people, but stayed hidden (or were non-visible) for everyone else? Hate to say it, but that just doesn't make any sense, and your argument is actually a good example of the kind of mental and logical gymnastics people go through when trying to make sense of the nonsensical. Yet another reason why I'm not a fan of religion, because every belief system comes with a set of shared beliefs and shared denials, and I'm just not willing to turn a blind eye to inconvenient facts.
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#47. To: Elliott Jackalope (#46)
Jesus Christ had more followers, it seems, than 100. It isn't recorded how many saints, or which saints, resurrected, nor to who all they appeared. I could speculate that some saw them for the purpose of uplifting spiritually the new Christians. Why would you believe resurrected saints would appear before non-believers? Would they have recognized them as saints? I could also speculate that resurrected saints could have included the likes of Daniel, King Hezekiah, Aaron, etc. It's my understanding that a 'christian' is a follower of Jesus Christ. I personally believe the word has been bastardized in the modern times due to the many who use and abuse it---sort of like the bastardization of the word 'conservative'. However, just because this has been done doesn't mean that I am going to throw away my core beliefs. I certainly don't march in lock- step with any religious sect or demonination. And I definitely don't play the 'to be a christian you do do this and don't do that' routine. I'm still very new at this. While I grew up in a protestant church, shortly after my teen years, I was out of it and stayed away and out of it (a long story). I know the events I've been involved in over the last 7 - 8 years are real, not some fignment of my imagination. I'm the first to tell you that I am weak, I am a long ways from perfect, that God really has his work cut out in trying to perfect me as a saint. It seems like I go 2 steps forward, and then somehow fall back a step. My falling back may be different than yours or someone elses'. I'm not your judge....hell, I'm not even my own judge. He'll handle that. But in the mean time......when it is all said and done, living a christian life isn't bad or not fun. There's lots of people that try to make it that way, but they are wrong.....they are sticking man-made rules out there to live by. I refuse to do that. Ya know, growing up we were not allowed to dance. Never had a legit reason as to why we couldn't, but some bullshit about it being sinful. Well, la te dah, Mom and Dad.........King David, the beloved of God, DANCED! And how he danced, and sang, and played music! And celebrated! And threw a party! Why do christians have to be painted as mournful, dour, miserable people? Others may feel somewhat differently than I. I'm comfortable in my shoes, though I have some issues to work through with Him. I need to get off here and into MY bible study.......I'm behind already. Will check in later.
#48. To: Starwind (#33)
There is absolutely nothing to show that these Gospels -- the only sources of authority as to the existence of Christ -- were written until a hundred and fifty years after the events they pretend to describe. Walter R. Cassels, the learned author of "Supernatural Religion," one of the greatest works ever written on the origins of Christianity, says: "After having exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on the point, we have not found a single distinct trace of any of those Gospels during the first century and a half after the death of Christ." How can Gospels which were not written until a hundred and fifty years after Christ is supposed to have died, and which do not rest on any trustworthy testimony, have the slightest value as evidence that he really lived? History must be founded upon genuine documents or on living proof. Were a man of to-day to attempt to write the life of a supposed character of a hundred and fifty years ago, without any historical documents upon which to base his narrative, his work would not be a history, it would be a romance. Not a single statement in it could be relied upon.
And all of it did make an impact on society. News of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth changed the world.
God bless the postman , who brings the mail. God bless the cowboy , out on the trail. Bless the circus acrobat, never let her fall. God bless the folks I love, God bless them all !!!
#49. To: Moldi-Box (#43)
The part where you enter the fray with a stick up your ass for Christians, and then wander aimlessly off topic to try to change the subject of the discussions original intent. You could have entered the fray intelligently, but you reeked of disingenuity. AFAIC, the creation story of Genesis doesn't specifically preclude the preexistence of the earth. Understanding Genesis is not a prerequisite to believing or accepting the New Testament and the sacrifice of Jesus. That event is easy to understand, and the occurances and characters within the event are also described by extra-biblical sources. When you read a description of the history of the earth from the standpoint of the fossil record, your reading a distillation of a hell of a lot of information. As in any materially physical subjects operating theory, the ones constructing it tend to collect the supportive data and discard the non supportive. There's nothing wrong with that if the resultant theory works (i.e. you can find oil with it, or construct a continental evolutionary model which concludes with accepting plate tectonics). You still have periferal data (like finding penecontemporaneous fossils which are generally accepted to not have existed at the same time or mineral asseblages in which different components date differently) that doesn't fit in, so it's not like the secular model of the Earth is set in stone...
Okay Dudley, if you say so. But out of curiousity, what point(s) specifically is Starvind winning?
Government blows, and that which governs least blows least...
#50. To: Elliott Jackalope (#42)
Just a few words -- this is exactly and precisely where I come from. And Western Culture knows a great deal less truth than it thinks it does.
... I love truth, I hate lies ...
#51. To: Elliott Jackalope (#42)
This is scary, I think you and my husband are one and the same. This is a description of him and he's expressed these same sentiments and questions to me and others verbatim. You know, EJ, I've said this many times. It's as simple as this, imo. You either believe that the bible is the infallible, divine word of God, or you don't.
Simply put, I refuse to be cowed by fear, I refuse to cringe before my maker, eternally apologizing and begging forgiveness for my sins, when I'm guilty of nothing more than being a man. I'm not perfect by any means, and I freely admit that I fall far short of any Godly ideal. But I love truth, I hate lies, I love kindness and generosity (people who know me say I'm generous to a fault) and I hate greed and selfishness and cruelity. I'm also someone who deeply loves nature and animals, who will take the time to escort a bug out of my house to gently put them outside. Yet, according to Christianity, because I reject Jesus I'm going to spend eternity burning right next to sadists and Satanists and murderers and pederasts. Now doesn't that sound just a bit out of whack to you? Furthermore, does anyone, even the worst of the worst, deserve eternal punishment?
#52. To: Axenolith (#49)
Sorry I made it so simple. Too simple maybe, but prophesy is easy after the fact. Sheeit, I can even tell you who won the AFC championship last year. See. That's why I asked Starvind for something corroborative. To which he pointed to a link with, you guessed it bible verse. I asked other questions because I'm legitimately curious and the burden of proof is squarely on the believer. AFAIC, the creation story of Genesis doesn't specifically preclude the preexistence of the earth. Understanding Genesis is not a prerequisite to believing or accepting the New Testament and the sacrifice of Jesus. Original sin is highly in doubt when we know, factually that meat-eating animals preceded humans. The latter supposedly being responsible for natural disharmony. Prior to Adam and Eve, green herbs were as meat unto all creatures. Explain then why T. Rex had large sharp teeth and I'll be sold on the religion without all the interference. No original sin = no need for redemption. Simple, huh?
The part where you enter the fray with a stick up your ass for Christians, and then wander aimlessly off topic to try to change the subject of the discussions original intent.
#53. To: Elliott Jackalope (#35)
I just wanted to say that, speaking for myself, the lack of contemporary references to some of the miracles supposedly done by Jesus is a major reason why I am not a believer. There were a number of historians and writers who lived around that time, some pro-Rome, some anti-Rome, some Jewish, some Gentile, yet none of them recorded dead saints being resurrected at the time of the crucifixion. Doesn't that concern you even a little bit? As you are obviously aware, outside the Bible and the writings of the church fathers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, there is scant historical record of Jesus, let alone any miracles. I've listed below what I consider to be the best historical sources but they are references to Jesus' historicity rather than any miracles. Regarding your specific issue with no historical references to: Mat 27:52-53 The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; (53) and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many. Drawing some insights from other bible passages, chiefly the resurrection of Lazurus of Bethany (John 11:1-44) and the account of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31), I would suggest a couple things: The point being, as stunning an event as it is, it would only be recognizable as such if one happened to see a tomb open and a body rise or if one happened to recognize someone known to be deceased. It isn't clear either how many such saints arose. Does "many" means a few dozen, a few hundred, thousand, ten thousand...? What does puzzle me (and the bible is silent on this) is what happened to those risen saints later? Did they live out normal lives or did they " ascend" when Jesus ascended? I dunno. But if they lived out normal lives after having been resurrected, then the lack of any further mention or historical reporting of their experience would be very puzzling. One assumes the risen saints would spread the story themselves if they had an opportunity to do so. OTOH, the Pharisees (and Romans) were discrediting Jesus as it was, and after His crucifixion only His true followers continued to believe, assemble and speak out (and some were martyred for it). So perhaps the rest of the unbelieving population was cowed into silence. Again, I dunno. Considering also that in the 1st century, there were no printing presses or typewriters, news papers, internet blogs; there were just handwritten letters and books, so it is not surprising there are so few contemporaneous records at all beyond the Christian and Jewish writings. Keep in mind too that Jesus' ministry (and miracles) only spanned about 3.5 years and were spread over an area less than the size of New Jersey, and for the 1st year or so Jesus was trying to keep a low profile. While I understand your desire for proof (and you seem to have hung a lot on this particular event) if, for example, Josephus had written that there had been reports of deceased people visiting families shortly after Christ's resurrection, is that all it would take for you to believe or are there yet many more evidentiary hurdles? What evidence is enough? That is a sincere question. I'm trying to gauge how far you need to take this evidentiary requirement until you believe. Below then are the extra-biblical historical records I believe are reliable. Josephus, Jewish Antiqities (english) (18,63) SEDITION OF THE JEWS AGAINST PONTIUS PILATE. CONCERNING CHRIST, AND WHAT BEFELL PAULINA AND THE JEWS AT ROME, [63] 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. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities (english) 20, 200 CONCERNING ALBINUS UNDER WHOSE PROCURATORSHIP JAMES WAS SLAIN; AS ALSO WHAT EDIFICES WERE BUILT BY AGRIPPA. [197] AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, 1 who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Mara bar Sarapion (see page 21-22) 60;What good did it do the Athenians to kill Socrates, for which deed they were punished with famine and pestilence? What did it avail the Samians to burn Pythagoras, since their country was entirely buried under sand in one moment? Or what did it avail the Jews to kill their wise king , since their kingdom was taken away from them from that time on? God justly avenged these three wise men. The Athenians died of famine, the Samians were flooded by the sea, the Jews were slaughtered and driven from their kingdom, everywhere living in the dispersion. Socrates is not dead, thanks to Plato; nor Pythagoras, because of Hera57;s statue. Nor is the wise king, because of the new law he has given.61; John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 1:25. (this letter is supposedly in the British Museum) Pliny, Governor of Bithynia: Letter to the Emperor Trajan ...These first said they were Christians, then denied it, insisting they had been, "but were so no longer"; some of them having " recanted many years ago," and more than one "full twenty years back. " These all worshiped your image and the god's statues and cursed the name of Christ. But they declared their guilt or error was simply this---on a fixed day they used to meet before dawn and recite a hymn among themselves to Christ, as though he were a god. So far from binding themselves by oath to commit any crime, they swore to keep from theft, robbery, adultery, breach of faith, and not to deny any trust money deposited with them when called upon to deliver it. This ceremony over, they used to depart and meet again to take food---but it was of no special character, and entirely harmless. They also had ceased from this practice after the edict I issued---by which, in accord with your orders, I forbade all secret societies. Suetonius (see pp 17-18) He expelled the Jews from Rome, on account of the riots in which they were constantly indulging, at the instigation of Chrestus. "Therefore, to put an end to the rumor Nero created a diversion and subjected to the most extra-ordinary tortures those hated for their abominations by the common people called Christians. The originator of this name (was) Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius had been executed by sentence of the procurator Pontinus Pilate. Repressed for the time being, the deadly superstition broke out again not only in Judea, the original source of the evil, but also in the city (Rome), where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and become popular. So an arrest was made of all who confessed; then on the basis of their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of arson as for hatred of the human race." (Tacitus, Annales, 15, 44) If you're interested in further study, you might consider the following. I suggest them not because their content is particularly compelling, but because they are balanced discussions of the differing viewpoints, but what I always find most useful are the footnotes and bibliographies which identify where to get more details. Theissen, Gerd & Merz, Annette Merz; The Historical Jesus - A comprehensive Guide; Fortress Press, Minneapolis - 1996. (read a review here) Bruce, F.F. New Testament Documents - Are They Reliable? 6th Ed.; Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids Michigan - 1981 And here are a couple websites with similar (but far less) bibliographical information. Intellectual Foundations of the Christian Faith Extra-Biblical Evidence for Jesus Existence (pp 15-29)
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#54. To: Starwind (#53)
The risen saints would (like Lazarus of Bethany after being resurrected) have normal physical bodies and accordingly would not appear odd to anyone. Bullfeathers. If nobody knew they had been dead, their appearing to many would have little significance and sure wouldn't require that special qualifier. I mean what good is Ancient Near-East fanfare if nobody bows in somber humility? The risen saints would likely have gone to see friends and family, either to those who disbelieved that there was a 'place of torment' for which they were destined (as the rich man wanted to warn his brothers about), or to those who would be comforted knowing eternal life in Jesus was true. Comfort knowing Jesus is the true redeemer? You mean there are people who could disbelieve such a solid testament? The fuck you say. Maybe it's the lack of modern day miracles like the stopping of time, animals with human voices and personal appearances of the almighty. While I understand your desire for proof (and you seem to have hung a lot on this particular event) Translation: How dare you keep questioning one of many highly doubtable points of my religion. People can live inside whale stomachs for an extended period of time, a darkness covering an entire land can exclude itself from chosen people's dwellings and the creator can appear in person and order Ezekiel to eat doo-doo. is that all it would take for you to believe or are there yet many more evidentiary hurdles? Why, you trying to gain converts? You have one right here if you can prove meat-eating animals did not precede humans and thus giving validity to the concept of original sin. Go!
Mat 27:52-53 The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; (53) and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.
#55. To: Starwind (#32)
There is also the likelihood that the Gospels were written by men who lived long after Jesus death and were writing from wild stories they'd been told .I don't think there is any proof the writers were Jesus contemporaries.
There is also the likelihood that because when the gospels were being written, Christ had already been crucified and resurrected and had commanded them to "make disciples of all nations", such discipling of all nations would be more effective in Greek than Aramaic
God bless the postman , who brings the mail. God bless the cowboy , out on the trail. Bless the circus acrobat, never let her fall. God bless the folks I love, God bless them all !!!
#56. To: All (#54)
Just a quick observation on libertarians (god, i despise political labels).
I find it amusing that Libertarians are tolerant of most things; one can
crawl across the border and be given full access to our system. Drugs? No
problem, take them as needed. Moral standards? No thank you, they aren‘t
necessary. But when one mentions religion and the bible, libertarian toleration
stops dead in its tracks. I have no idea if the bible is the word of god or
not, but I don’t disparage those who believe it is. Hell, for all I know they
might be right. Right?
#57. To: Starwind (#53)
The writings of Joesphus that you cite have been used by Christian apologists for centuries. However, they are rather controversial, and many scholars believe them to be a "pious fraud" inserted into later translations of his work by Christian monks. Being as Josephus was known for writing entire chapters about relatively minor characters, it's rather puzzling that he would expend such a scant effort writing about a major prophet. The other references you cite are interesting, and I'll have to look into those further before making any sort of judgement on them. However, there is no debate as to whether or not there were early Christians in Rome after the time of Jesus, so referring to works that cite instances involving activities of Christians in and of themselves is of limited usefulness in determining the divinity of Jesus.
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#58. To: Elliott Jackalope (#57)
You might find the books I referenced useful as they weigh the pros and cons of the argument, coming down on the side of reliability as you might imagine, but they do fairly and comprehensively explore the more scholarly objections. You'll find therein a few extra-biblical sources I did not mention (like the Babylonian Talmud and "Thallus") where, at least to me, the case for reliability is too questionable. Also, as I mentioned, the bibliographies are excellent leads to dig deeper into whatever interests you, pro or con. Of course I would not expect any secular writing of any period to be useful in determining Jesus' divinity. The Bible alone declares that to be true, non-secular writings debate that pro and con, but secular writings are largely on the sidelines, whether of the 1st or 21st century. Secular writings (including the historical and archeological record) only serve to corroborate the Bible's references to historical events. That Jesus actually lived, for example, as a real person somewhere, sometime in history can be supported by the writings of Josephus, et al. One can debate Jesus's divinity, but then the debate is thus around a person who lived and did something debatable.
The writings of Joesphus that you cite have been used by Christian apologists for centuries. However, they are rather controversial, and many scholars believe them to be a "pious fraud" inserted into later translations of his work by Christian monks. Being as Josephus was known for writing entire chapters about relatively minor characters, it's rather puzzling that he would expend such a scant effort writing about a major prophet.
However, there is no debate as to whether or not there were early Christians in Rome after the time of Jesus, so referring to works that cite instances involving activities of Christians in and of themselves is of limited usefulness in determining the divinity of Jesus.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#59. To: crack monkey (#0)
The definition of being a Christian in America, is to be a useless dupe, for the Israeli Proxy state, and a sheep that is fleeced with great regularity.
 | So many morons, so few bullets. |
#60. To: Jethro Tull (#56)
Agreed. They're not terribly useful or informative, not even "Christian" labels. :-/ Agreed again. While the Bible does make radical claims that jar ones human preconceptions, one would think "libertarian toleration" would explore those claims with less hostility.
god, i despise political lables
But when one mentions religion and the bible, libertarian toleration stops dead in it's tracks.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#61. To: Starwind (#60)
I find it curious that anyone could dismiss, with the flick of the hand, the
life and teaching of a man who *did* live and die with what I consider a
virtuous philosophy. This argument isn’t about dinosaurs and DNA. It’s about a
belief system that has endured for more that 2,000 years. Perhaps, there’s
something to it. An open mind is a terrible thing to close (g)
#62. To: Jethro Tull (#61)
Yes, perhaps :) Classic keeper quote! I'll add it to my collection. Your's or does attribution go to someone else (even anonymous)?
Perhaps, there's something to it.
An open mind is a terrible thing to close (g)
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#63. To: Starwind (#62)
No, it's mine. As far as I know.
#64. To: Jethro Tull (#61)
So you consider a "virtuous philosophy" to be one that threatens those who disagree with violent, horrifying and eternal punishment? For example, say I'm a proponent of "Jackalopism", which states that everyone should be kind and courteous and virtuous, and anyone who doesn't prostrate themselves before the Jackalope shall be burned to death. Would that be something that you would consider a "virtuous philosophy"?
I find it curious that anyone could dismiss, with the flick of the hand, the life and teaching of a man who *did* live and die with what I consider a virtuous philosophy.
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#65. To: Elliott Jackalope (#64)
Nope. "Jackalopism" would not have survived the test of time. OTOH, Christianity has.
For example, say I'm a proponent of "Jackalopism", which states that everyone should be kind and courteous and virtuous, and anyone who doesn't prostrate themselves before the Jackalope shall be burned to death. Would that be something that you would consider a "virtuous philosophy"?
#66. To: Jethro Tull (#65)
As has Islam and Judaism.. Interestingly, all surround one man in the Old Testament. Being more than simply a set of written laws, Christianity is the most unique and complex of the three.
"When the government FEARS the People, there is liberty, but when the People fear the government, there is tyranny."
#67. To: Jethro Tull (#65)
By that metric, we would have to concede the "truth" of Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Judiaism, Islam, Shinto, animism and goodness knows how many other belief systems, most of which conflict with and contradict each other. Not a very convincing argument.
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
.
.
.
Comments (68 - 197) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest