What Christians Believe

[Jenyar]

Why are some rules to be followed but others not? Why aren't we stoning our disobedient children?

Because that would mean ignoring the Bible and everything that's happened since.

We're no longer living as 2000BC Israelites (in case you hadn't noticed). Christ came to make a difference and to take the place of those who should be punished by divine laws. We are only subjected to the OT laws by our affiliation with their intent - to purge the world from sin. And it's only by that subjection that we can recognize our guilt of sin, and by our association with Christ that we can be forgiven from it.

 

[JesusisLord51]

Because that would mean ignoring the Bible and everything that's happened since.

We're no longer living as 2000BC Israelites (in case you hadn't noticed). Christ came to make a difference and to take the place of those who should be punished by divine laws. We are only subjected to the OT laws by our affiliation with their intent - to purge the world from sin. And it's only by that subjection that we can recognize our guilt of sin, and by our association with Christ that we can be forgiven from it.

Good point.

You a christian Jenyar?

 

[JesusisLord51]

JesusisLord51:



The evidence indicates that the Gospels were all written at least 50 years after the death of Jesus. John was written over 100 years later.

Absolutely not!

John may have been written 100 years after, but Mark was written 30 years after. If you read the first chapter of The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel, you will find that this allows Mark to be an eyewitness, Luke as an investigator of what was written, and Matthew

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Absolutely not!

John may have been written 100 years after, but Mark was written 30 years after. If you read the first chapter of The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel, you will find that this allows Mark to be an eyewitness, Luke as an investigator of what was written, and Matthew
*************
M*W: The earliest that scholars believe a gospel was written is Mark circa 70 AD. Lee Strobel is a Christian writer, so of course he puts a Christian bias on what he writes. Now scholars are coming to the conclusion that it was Mary Magdalene who wrote the Gospel of John. There are also the Gospels of Philip, Thomas, Thecla, Mary Magdala, and "O" that were not included in the Bible. Paul coerced Luke to write a "gospel," and he did to make people think OT prophecies were fulfilled in the NT, but they weren't. It's all a pack of lies.

 

[Jenyar]

Lee Strobel was an atheist when he started doing the research. He did it to find out if his wife's conversion was justifiable.

If you want to know what scholars think:

Theissen writes: "If we are correct in our hypothesis of protective anonymity, the location of the Passion tradition would be unmistakable. Only in Jerusalem was there reason to draw a cloak of anonymity over followers of Jesus who had endangered themselves by their actions. The date could also be pinpointed: parts of the Passion account would have to have been composed within the generation of the eyewitnesses and their contemporaries, that is, somewhere between 30 and 60 C.E."​

Early Christian Writings: the passion narrative... see the root of that site for the datings of other writings.

 

[Jenyar]

PS. On the Gospel of Thomas... if you consider it so authorative, you might have to reconsider your contempt of Luke, since it includes material from Luke and Matthew.

Saying 16
The saying is based on Luke 12:51-53 (Matthew 10:34); Luke 12:49 has already been paraphrased in Saying 9. 'Perhaps men think' is derived from Luke's question, 'Do you suppose . . . ?' 'I came to cast peace' comes from Matthew, while 'I came to case division' is composed by the author of Thomas as a parallel to the preceding line, and to Luke 12:49, from which he derives the mention of 'fire' ('sword' comes from Matthew). The next sentence is an almost exact quotation of Luke 12:52-53, though references to divisions among women are omitted because 'women are not worthy of life' (Saying 112)​

 

[TruthSeeker]

Why those "Lost" Gospels are not aproved by the Cathiolic church and incorporate in the Bible anyways?

But anyways... for centuries the Catholic church ommited the scriptures where Jesus forgives the woman that was going to be stoned. That was also against Jewish principles. It really makes you think what is really important, eh? Certainly not traditions. Maybe people should humble themselves and not condemn others, since they are not perfect either. But anyways, that's just my oppinion... and Jesus' too, eh?

But anywyas... do you know the answer to my first question, Jenyar?

 

[Paula]

Truthseeker

Some gospels were not included in the Bible becuase they did not meet the criteria of the Laws of Canonicity. The Law of Apostolic Origin meant that gospels either had to be eyewitness accounts or taken from recorded eyewitness accounts. They could be no more than one person removed from the events of Jesus' life and death and resurrection.

The Law of Liturgical Use meant that material had to have been in use in worship by the very earliest Christians, contemporaries of Christ who passed the firsthand accounts down to their successors.

Some of these gospels may well be legitimate but if the original writings could not be found, they were not included in the Bible. The reason is that there were so many writings of Jesus' sayings and deeds being used by the first Christians that the Church had to find a way to codify it and came up with this criteria to determine a gospel's reliability.

 

[Jenyar]

These books weren't included in the Bible for good reasons, which you can research yourself if you're interested. Some don't even exist anymore. In most cases the pseudepigrypha or apocrypha (see CARM for an explanation) are dependent on the four accepted gospels, and therefore can't add anything new - not authoritively, anyway. In other cases the writings clearly show a personal agenda, and some contradict more authorative books. An example is the Gospel of Thomas, which is an uncritical compilation of sayings, some of which may be genuine, but it also contains highly suspicious material that show a lack of understanding of the original message:

...the Gospel of Thomas melds various phrases from various Synoptic Gospels to create its own form of a Gospel saying. (Saying 55)​

In the Gospel of Peter, the responsibility for Christ's death is laid exclusively on the Jews, and Pilate is exonerated. Others are good examples of how people made up stories to "fill in the blanks". Most people would like to know what Jesus did during his childhood, so eventually something was written describing it (the infancy gospels). Scholars conclude that "these legends are embellishments upon the stories given in Matthew and Luke." At best, they support and elucidate the earlier works - at worst, they only have passing interest value.

Up until recently the formation of the canons was a mystery to most people who weren't theologians or biblical scholars, but when books became commonly accessible with the advent of publishing, people gained access to these rejected texts (whether they were able to read them or not), and naturally some conspiracy theories emerged. The truth is that these books were never "lost". They weren't suppressed either, they were just not accepted by the church or generally inaccessible to the layperson.

For online versions of these books, refer to Early Christian Writings (apocrypha). And you can trace the development of the NT canon on this website: The Development of the Canon of the New Testament. There's a useful table showing who accepted what during the formative stages of the NT, with a description of each book.

 

[fahrenheit 451]

[QUOTE=Jenyar
Others are good examples of how people made up stories to "fill in the blanks".

what blanks, people elaborate as there have done with the bible and the qu'ran the books are far to old, to believe theres any, truth in them.
therefore can not be past of as non fiction as there is no factual base
(and you can not use ancient writings or dead sea scrolls to back up your claim, "written by people" )
take a walk around a look at the people and the children theres the truth
these are the one and only thing that makes this world tick.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Jenyar,

I read the Gospel of Thomas some time ago and it sounded quite interesting. What in that Gospel is suspicious?

I also read the ones of the infancy of Jesus. It didn't take long for me to see that that was totally invented...

EDIT: From that table, looks like they didn't have much access to the other books...


Paula,

Tha's interesting... I've had never heard of that...
What about the King James version? Do you know any history about it?

 

[Jenyar]

what blanks, people elaborate as there have done with the bible and the qu'ran the books are far to old, to believe theres any, truth in them.
therefore can not be past of as non fiction as there is no factual base
(and you can not use ancient writings or dead sea scrolls to back up your claim, "written by people" )

Since when does truth die of age? Whether it was written by people (who else does "truth" apply to?) or not, the truth is confirmed in our everyday lives as it was confirmed in the lives of God's chosen. In the first place, there is belief in God. Then there is sin and suffering in the world, and there is a moral path through it - justice. God chose to attribute righteousness to, and through, those who loved justice, because only through living righteous lives would they get to know Him.

If by factual basis you mean any grounding in reality, I have news for you: their is archeological, historical and spiritual grounding in the Bible - and I'm not just referring to "writings". Everything that's worthwhile isn't always written down.

take a walk around a look at the people and the children theres the truth
these are the one and only thing that makes this world tick.

Full marks for perception. If I took that sentence and put it in on paper, would it become less true in a thousand years?

These people think, they believe in things, they talk to people, sometimes they write them down. Sometimes people write the truth down the way the found it, in stories, myths, poems, art... It just takes a bit of willpower to figure it out from there.

I read the Gospel of Thomas some time ago and it sounded quite interesting. What in that Gospel is suspicious?

Well, saying 112 says: "women are not worthy of life", while the Bible makes no distinction between a man, woman, race or creed who believes. In fact, it says that even a sinner is worthy of life - which is why Christ died for them.

The Gospel of Thomas isn't suspicious in itself, but it's authority is, since it relies on the other known gospels. It lacks the instruction present in the other gospels, and instead supposes itself to be "secret", as if someone who reads it has found something unavailable elsewhere. I guess that's why people are so drawn to it - but it's a suspicious means of relaying a truth that should be avalibale to everybody.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Well, saying 112 says: "women are not worthy of life", while the Bible makes no distinction between a man, woman, race or creed who believes. In fact, it says that even a sinner is worthy of life - which is why Christ died for them.

Ok, that's enough to convince me...

 

[DoctorNO]

That means the early christians were not fooling around when they compiled the bible. They excluded several books for very good reasons. eh?

 

[Paula]

Truthseeker,

I am a Catholic and we do not recognize the King James version of the Bible as it does not include the apocrypha, which are fourteen Old Testament books (either complete books such as Maccabees 1 and 2 or parts of books) . The King James Bible strove to include only books whose original texts could be found and translated. This was an attempt to make sure that the Reformed (Protestant) Church had a pure form of Scripture. Since that time nearly all of the apocryphal (or deuterocanonical ) original texts have been found. Now, many Protestant Bibles include the apocrypha and some Episcopalian Churches in the US have started using the New American Bible (a Catholic Bible) in place of King James.

I should point out that the New Testament is the same whether you are Catholic or Protestant, therefore the Laws of Canonicity should apply equally in both cases.

 

[Paula]

I should clarify...."apocrypha" as I use it refers only to OT passages and books left out after the split in the Christian church. It does not refer to gospels that were left out due to the inability to validate them.

 

[fahrenheit 451]

Since when does truth die of age?

but it's truth that cant be proven.

Quote=If by factual basis you mean any grounding in reality, I have news for you: their is archeological, historical and spiritual grounding in the Bible

please elaborate ( as I have never seen anything that been proven,
I did'nt come to my decision over night. like you i've studied to come to my conclusions)

Quote=I'm not just referring to "writings". Everything that's worthwhile isn't always written down.

exactly I agree with that

Quote=Full marks for perception. If I took that sentence and put it in on paper, would it become less true in a thousand years?

absolutely undoubtedly yes( depends on what is written Ie moral statement (true) on guidence(true) refering to a god or gods etc(not true)

Quote=These people think, they believe in things, they talk to people, sometimes they write them down. Sometimes people write the truth down the way the found it, in stories, myths, poems, art... It just takes a bit of willpower to figure it out from there.

I have no problem with the storys, the guidence and moral content in the bible and qu'ran but i dispute they are fact.
you can place storys in them to historic accounts.
but one man's history is anothers propaganda

 

[Jenyar]

but it's truth that cant be proven.

Think about it: no truth can be proven, only corroborated and confirmed. Truth and "facts" aren't the same thing. Facts can be proven one after another, but truth is greater than simple factual information, and it requires more effort. Let me try to illustrate: it's a fact that Greg once lied to his mother, and his friends can prove it - but is it still true that he's a liar if he admitted it to his mother, and never did it again? You see, while the fact of his deed reflects on his character, it doesn't determine it. It isn't automatically true that he is untrustworthy.

It's a bad example, so tell me if I don't make sense and I'll try to think of a better one. Maybe it will help to keep in mind that "wisdom" doesn't pertain to facts, but to knowledge and truth.

please elaborate (as I have never seen anything that been proven,
I did'nt come to my decision over night. like you i've studied to come to my conclusions)

As I've said, facts can be proven. There is much factual information in the Bible that has been corroborated. It proves that the Bible is true within its historical setting, but that's not the sum of its truth.

You can look at Archaeological Evidence verifying biblical cities and Non biblical accounts of New Testament events and/or people here.

Nevertheless, many used to think that the Bible had numerous historical errors in it such as Luke's account of Lysanias being the tetrarch of Abiline in about 27 AD (Luke 3:1). For years scholars used this "factual error" to prove Luke was wrong because it was common knowledge that Lysanias was not a tetrarch, but the ruler of Chalcis about 50 years earlier than what Luke described. But, an archaeological inscription was found that said Lysanias was the tetrarch in Abila near Damascus at the time that Luke said. It turns out that there had been two people named Lysanias and Luke had accurately recorded the facts accurately.
Can we trust the New Testament as a historical document?​

This already contradicts your statements that there "isn't anything than has been proven" and that "there's no factual base" for it.

But this isn't all you need to establish it's truth, is it? As I pointed out to ConsequentAtheist, the information contained in the Bible can itself be verified against experience. There are many truths that, like your statement, have merely been recorded in the Bible. You have to have better reasons for rejecting the Bible than "a lack of facts".

absolutely undoubtedly yes( depends on what is written Ie moral statement (true) on guidence(true) refering to a god or gods etc(not true)

Based on what truth? Based on what factual information? Your objection to any reference to God doesn't even satisfy your own standards for what is true.

I have no problem with the storys, the guidence and moral content in the bible and qu'ran but i dispute they are fact.
you can place storys in them to historic accounts.
but one man's history is anothers propaganda

If you accept their guidance and moral content, it mean you already accept they are "fact", and you agree with the character of the authors - in other words, you accept the truth of what they're saying. And they would not have made those statements if they didn't believe in God. The moment you take God out of the equation, the premise on which they based their arguments fall flat. They derive their authority from the words of Jesus. If you recognize their authority, you recognize Jesus' authority. It's not propaganda, it's called deference. Where did their wisdom come from? On what grounds do you accept the message and reject the messenger?

What you dispute is the existence of God, and I can't help you with that, except by saying again that it doesn't follow from the evidence. Jesus himself asked people to examine the evidence and make up their own minds about his claims (John 8:45-47 and 14:11). He didn't rely on coersion or confrontation to establish his authority, he simply let his words and deeds speak for themselves.

Keep on researching the facts, and test them yourself. But don't limit the truth to dead facts, you'll only come up with dead truths. You have to test the claims these people made as well.

 

[Cylipso_Hailstone]

I want to ask a question. If you get baptised and get saved or, whatever it is called,then go out and kill a bunch of people you still get to go to heaven?

If the answer is yes I don't think that is right and that is what I am being told.

p.s. I am not Christian.

 

[Paula]

Cylipso this is not true at all.

However, the Christian faith will not say that anyone is definitively in Hell because God is forgiving and we know that violating the Ten Commandments is the surest way to get to Hell, but we don't actually know if anyone has gone to Hell becasue that would be assuming God's place as judge over others.