Continuation of Christianity debate.

[jonesthecurl]

They cannot be all true, can they?

why couldn't they all be? they're all pretty much the same thing, its just one person remembered it slightly different than the other.

Tzor has followed this remark with some erudite stuff about the gospels etc.

He didn't specifically mention something that you don't seem to be aware of:
The gospels were not written by members of the twelve disciples.

[tzor]

There were actually an awful lot more than 4 Gospels though were there not ?

Not really. Note that a lot of writing at the time were not made by the "Christian" community but by the "Gnostic" community. Some of these writings did get filtered into the oral traditions of the Church (ever wonder, for example, where the "ox and ass" in the Nativity scene came from?) but a lot of these were considered too "extreeme" by Christian standards. One Gospel was about Jesus' childhood and has him perform the most bizzare miracles for no apparent reason (like turning clay birds into living ones). One Gospel has Jesus saying to Peter that he would make Mary a man.

Gnostics put an interesting problem to the early Chuch. They would argue from the Scriptures as much as the Christians. Peter complains about those who would "twist" the writings of Paul to their own damnation as they did the other "scriptrues." (This is, by the way, the only reference in the New Testament that any writing of the Apotles was considered scriptural.) The only solution was to use references; people in the church citing who they received their teaching from who in turn received their teaching from back to the Apostles themselves. Apostolic Succession was invented because scripture alone wasn't enough to defend against the Gnostics.

There is only one major writing that was accepted by the early church that didn't make it into the final canon, the teaching of the telve of the Didache. It still has a strong influence upon the church even with the "Bible only" protestant denominations. (Ever wonder where "for thine is the kingdom ..." at the end of the Our Father comes from? It's in the Didache.)

[tzor]

Tzor has followed this remark with some erudite stuff about the gospels etc.

He didn't specifically mention something that you don't seem to be aware of:
The gospels were not written by members of the twelve disciples.

Define "written." One can have serious discussions about the Gospel of John, for example. Assuming that John was alive at the time he would have been exceptionally old. It is more likely that someone wrote it for him, but how much of the information came directly from him we may never know. Even Paul often had someone else doing the actual writing of his letters while he gave the dictation. (This is why you often see short passages at the end of the letters saying "see I'm writing this in my own hand." We don't have the original manuscripts but I'll bet you his penmanship was horrid.)

Now let's consider Matthew, here is a quote from the introduction in the New American Bible.

The questions of authorship, sources, and the time of composition of this gospel have received many answers, none of which can claim more than a greater or lesser degree of probability. The one now favored by the majority of scholars is the following.

The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Matthew 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories. The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but that is far from certain.

The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience, drew not only upon the Gospel according to Mark but upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not found in Mark that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in the Gospel according to Luke. This material, called "Q" (probably from the first letter of the German word Quelle, meaning "source"), represents traditions, written and oral, used by both Matthew and Luke. Mark and Q are sources common to the two other synoptic gospels; hence the name the "Two-Source Theory" given to this explanation of the relation among the synoptics.

In addition to what Matthew drew from Mark and Q, his gospel contains material that is found only there. This is often designated "M," written or oral tradition that was available to the author. Since Mark was written shortly before or shortly after A.D. 70 (see Introduction to Mark), Matthew was composed certainly after that date, which marks the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans at the time of the First Jewish Revolt (A.D. 66-70), and probably at least a decade later since Matthew's use of Mark presupposes a wide diffusion of that gospel. The post-A.D. 70 date is confirmed within the text by Matthew 22:7, which refers to the destruction of Jerusalem.

Here is a quote from the introduction to John.

Critical analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel as it now stands was written by one person. John 21 seems to have been added after the gospel was completed; it exhibits a Greek style somewhat different from that of the rest of the work. The prologue (John 1:1-18) apparently contains an independent hymn, subsequently adapted to serve as a preface to the gospel. Within the gospel itself there are also some inconsistencies, e.g., there are two endings of Jesus' discourse in the upper room (John 14:31; 18:1). To solve these problems, scholars have proposed various rearrangements that would produce a smoother order. However, most have come to the conclusion that the inconsistencies were probably produced by subsequent editing in which homogeneous materials were added to a shorter original.

[jonesthecurl]

Thank you Tzor, much what I was coming to think of as a consensus opinion.

I was addressing the fact specifically that some of the posters on this thread (and others) might not have this basic fact at their disposal.

Our opinions on how exact or authentic the material which we have in the Gospels is must take into account how close to the source (Jesus) they might be.

Y'know, God could've made it a lot easier if he'd asked his boy to write a "Gospel according to Jesus"...

[tzor]

Y'know, God could've made it a lot easier if he'd asked his boy to write a "Gospel according to Jesus"...

I think Jesus' attitude was a lot similiar to that of Francis' attitude some one thousand years later when he said, "proclaim the Gospel. If necessary, use words."

[rocky mountain]

I never quoted John. I quoted Joshua 10:12-14. Are you saying that I misquoted something or that you are too lazy to check my quote?

i know you never quoted John, you just gave the example below and then i just used the example.

They cannot be all true, can they?

why couldn't they all be? they're all pretty much the same thing, its just one person remembered it slightly different than the other.

So, you accept that John does not remember the day of the last supper, dont you? How would you reconcile this with "absolute truth" and the fact that the gospels are written by the holy ghost via evangilists. The holy ghost must have remembered the day, mustn't he?

I believe that the only way to be cleansed is to ask God for forgiveness and he forgive you (which he always does) not by any other thing you do like baptism or communion etc. they are just helpers along the way to help you have a better relationship, not part of the cleansing of your sins process.

[tzor]

I believe that the only way to be cleansed is to ask God for forgiveness and he forgive you (which he always does) not by any other thing you do like baptism or communion etc. they are just helpers along the way to help you have a better relationship, not part of the cleansing of your sins process.

But doesn't that directly contradict the very world of Jesus on the matter?

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

The basic idea is that we have to go beyond talking the talk. That only results in lip service. We have to talk the talk and do the walk. It is more than just asking God for forgiveness (talking the talk), it is doing the walk by going formally into the community and becomming a part of the body of Christ which is the church and then going forth into the whole world and putting the practice of charitable love (to love our neighbors as ourselves) to all that come our way.

This is not some new fangled argument. Justin Martyr used it in A.D. 151

"As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly . . . are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Except you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]"

[rocky mountain]

But doesn't that directly contradict the very world of Jesus on the matter?

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

how does that contradict what i said? being born again is like becoming a new person, free from all sin. however, you will always sin again, so you will need to repent again and again, but God will always forgive you and make it like we had never sinned. that is the cleansing of sins. not baptism. i don't see how that verse goes against what i said...

[rocky mountain]

don't get me wrong, i do believe that all those others things are very good, just not what cleanses us from our sins, which was the original point. i should do all those other things like baptism (i was just baptized 4 months ago) prayer, communion, (kletka, if you mean confession to a priest like catholics do, then i don't agree with it, but if its confession to God himself, then yes), and doing what God says which should lead to good/better behavior.

[tzor]

how does that contradict what i said? being born again is like becoming a new person, free from all sin. however, you will always sin again, so you will need to repent again and again, but God will always forgive you and make it like we had never sinned. that is the cleansing of sins. not baptism. i don't see how that verse goes against what i said...

To understand the confusion we need to go back to John and a lot of the cryptic things of the events around the Last Supper (which as others have pointed out never mentions supper).

John 13:10 Jesus said to him, "Whoever has bathed has no need except to have his feet washed, for he is clean all over; so you are clean, but not all."

Baptism them becomes the major full washing, subsequent washings is more like foot washings.

Titus 3:4- But when the kindness and generous love of God our savior appeared, not because of any righteous deeds we had done but because of his mercy, he saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the holy Spirit, whom he richly poured out on us through Jesus Christ our savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life.

The same can be argued about the confession of sins. First of all you have to look at the context of who can forgive sins. First we can say that only God can forgive sins. In Matthew 9:2-8 we see that Jesus has the power to firgove sins and as verse 8 says, "When the crowds saw this they were struck with awe and glorified God who had given such authority to human beings." This authority was in turn given not to all the faithful but to the Apostles.

John 20: 21-23(Jesus) said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."

This action recalls Genesis 2:7, where God breathed on the first man and gave him life; just as Adam's life came from God, so now the disciples' new spiritual life comes from Jesus. Cf also the revivification of the dry bones in Ezekial 37.

I should also point out that in one of the writings generally considered sacred by the early church confession of sins witin the context of the body of the church was important.

"Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure" (Didache 4:14, 14:1 [A.D. 70]).

Edit note, if you don't be very careful on the "" of the quote citation you can loose your quote text.

[kletka]

(i was just baptized 4 months ago) prayer, communion, (kletka, if you mean confession to a priest like catholics do, then i don't agree with it, but if its confession to God himself, then yes).

How do you go about confessing to God himself?

I have made a confession once to an orthodox priest. I was required to confess because I was about to get baptised (I was 19 at the time). I took it very seriously, and we have had quite a long talk, he had to read a long prayer, and I felt very good
about the whole thing. I think it was the first time I really felt the Force (presence of the holy ghost in pre-jedi terminology)

Let me explain, maybe a few things about my believes. I love churches (not only Christian but Buddhist ones as well - I never went to a mosque but hope to try one day) because I feel the presence of the Force (Holy Ghost ) in many of them. However, there are some churches where I feel the dark side of the force (should it be Devil in Christian terminology?). One particular church where the dark side of the Force is omnipresent is Stiftskirche in Baden-Baden, Germany. If anyone taking part in the discussions was there, did you feel anything particular?

[rocky mountain]

How do you go about confessing to God himself?

by praying.... we don't pray to the saints or anything. just to God... technically its through Jesus to God (i think thats why we say "in Jesus' name" at the end of prayers). you just ask for forgiveness and "he is merciful and just and will forgive" or something like that.

The same can be argued about the confession of sins. First of all you have to look at the context of who can forgive sins. First we can say that only God can forgive sins. In Matthew 9:2-8 we see that Jesus has the power to firgove sins and as verse 8 says, "When the crowds saw this they were struck with awe and glorified God who had given such authority to human beings." This authority was in turn given not to all the faithful but to the Apostles.

Jesus is the Son of God. He and the Father are one. they are the same person, yet different (lets not however get into that discussion) so therefore they should have the same authority. They are still different though, so God knows some things that Jesus doesn't know like when the endtimes will occur. but they can still both forgive sins.

right now, it just seems like 2 christians (are you a christian tzor? you kinda seem like it... if you're not, just say so) having a discussion about 2 different points of views... lets change the topic now... i don't think either one of us is going to change our minds...

[Snorri1234]

Jesus is the Son of God. He and the Father are one. they are the same person, yet different (lets not however get into that discussion)

Lets do! Because it's so awesomely ridiculous and silly it probably even deserves a thread on its own.

[rocky mountain]

no lets not. its too complicated. i'm only 14 and i don't really know much about it...

[tzor]

How do you go about confessing to God himself?

by praying.... we don't pray to the saints or anything. just to God... technically its through Jesus to God (i think thats why we say "in Jesus' name" at the end of prayers). you just ask for forgiveness and "he is merciful and just and will forgive" or something like that.

So if you are standing in the middle of a town and your watch is broke and you have to be at a meeting at noon. Are you going to stand there like an idiot? Because "pray" means "to ask." You don't ask anyone for the time I suppose because "we don't pray to the saints or anything." I pray ye to consider the root origins of the words you use carefully.

Mind you that has nothing whatsoever to do with the question at hand. Because Jesus is in his Church. (The whole bride / groom metaphore and the body of Christ metaphore.) Thus in confessing to the Church you confess to Jesus.

You realize that there is a lot of passages in the letters of the New Testament where the Apostles ask for the prayers of others and encourage the holy ones to pray for the needs of others. The prayers of the holy ones have a great effect according to those passages. So why you think it is wrong to ask others to ask the Father through Jesus' name is somewhat beyond me other than the blatent unbiblical asusmption that anything Catholic must be heresy.

right now, it just seems like 2 christians (are you a christian tzor? you kinda seem like it... if you're not, just say so) having a discussion about 2 different points of views... lets change the topic now... i don't think either one of us is going to change our minds...

But at least the Athiests are confused in stunned silence.

[rocky mountain]

So if you are standing in the middle of a town and your watch is broke and you have to be at a meeting at noon. Are you going to stand there like an idiot? Because "pray" means "to ask." You don't ask anyone for the time I suppose because "we don't pray to the saints or anything." I pray ye to consider the root origins of the words you use carefully.

...encourage the holy ones to pray for the needs of others.

so tzor, you're saying the holy ones were encouraged to ask for the needs of others?
it doesn't matter though. the word "gay" has totally lost its meaning along with other words i don't feel comfortable saying. maybe to pray has changed its original meaning too

So why you think it is wrong to ask others to ask the Father through Jesus' name is somewhat beyond me other than the blatent unbiblical asusmption that anything Catholic must be heresy.

i don't necessarily think its wrong, just strange. why you would ask someone else to ask someone else to pray for you is somewhat beyond me considering you can do it yourself. there are no ranks with God. he views all equally. why should a priest who may have more authority in this world have more authority to God? in the Old testament (correct me if i'm wrong which i very well could be) didn't the people themselves do the sacrifice, and not ask the levites/priests to do it? we can talk to God by ourselves, so we can ask for forgiveness without going to a priest.

[naxus]

Off topic but whatever.Couple reasons why i dont believe in god

1.Christians(90% of you) are usually mean towards different religions and attempt to violently, Verbally mentally and physically, convert people to your religion

2.Christianity as a whole is strange as if something new thats not covered by the bible then they just say its Evil or add a part to the bible

3.Alot of your priests and Branches of christianity's priest are corrupt and abuse thier "Holy Power"

[muy_thaiguy]

Off topic but whatever.Couple reasons why i dont believe in god

1.Christians(90% of you) are usually mean towards different religions and attempt to violently, Verbally mentally and physically, convert people to your religion

That's stereotyping a bit. Care to show the statistics on this? And in the last few decades at least, if you don't mind.

2.Christianity as a whole is strange as if something new thats not covered by the bible then they just say its Evil or add a part to the bible

Oookay... Maybe for certain sects, but as a whole? No. One must remember that certain stories in the Bible are metaphors that are there to help people live a better life, and to learn the will of God. Also, many Catholics (as Tzor has proven in several threads already) use things like Science to actually learn about how things work. Not "add to the Bible."

3.Alot of your priests and Branches of christianity's priest are corrupt and abuse thier "Holy Power"

You do realize, that out of an estimated 2 billion Christians worldwide, that those things are actually quite rare? Not to mention a poor stereotype that stems from rare cases (those that do abuse their authority and the what not, are often ex-Communicated from the Catholic Church) that the media has a tendency to focus on more then the many, many good spiritual leaders (TVangelists are NOT considered practical, or even real Christians by the vast majority).

Please look into these things more yourself instead of just typing down what you've seen on the news or read on random sites. It helps.

[Gregrios]

Alot of these hateful assumptions toward Chrisrianity stems directly from movies.

Just think of how many times in various movies that people who beleive in God are portrayed as crazy, violent, and arrogent.

I can only hope that someday people will be able to tell the difference between assumed reality and actual reality.

One of my favorite horror movies of all time is Friday the 13th. Yet throughout the first few sequels Christian priests are portrayed as dirty, old, and crazy men who eveybody is scared of.

Unfortunately this trend is not limited just to the Friday the 13th series. It happens in all kinds of movies.

[tzor]

Off topic but whatever.Couple reasons why i dont believe in god

1.Christians(90% of you) are usually mean towards different religions and attempt to violently, Verbally mentally and physically, convert people to your religion

2.Christianity as a whole is strange as if something new thats not covered by the bible then they just say its Evil or add a part to the bible

3.Alot of your priests and Branches of christianity's priest are corrupt and abuse thier "Holy Power"

1. I don't think it's 90% and those of us who are not in the actual percent are more annoyed than you are.

2. No I don't think that covers Christianity as a whole. A few thumpers in the "bible belt" perhaps but not everyone. Last time I checked Conquer Club wasn't mentioned in the Bible and I'll never call it evil. NEVER.

3. And alot are the nicest people you ever want to meet. In fact most of the ones I know. Catholics, Orthodox, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, and so on and so forth.

So anyway, is this why you don't believe in God? Because you seem to confuse a few with a lot, and more than 2 with a "couple." (Two is a couple, three is a threesome.) Sorry but I think your inability to count is no justification for not believing. You will need a better excuse.

[kletka]

How do you go about confessing to God himself?

by praying.... we don't pray to the saints or anything. just to God... technically its through Jesus to God (i think thats why we say "in Jesus' name" at the end of prayers). you just ask for forgiveness and "he is merciful and just and will forgive" or something like that.

Not even close. In your prayer it is easy to confess the sins (is it why the god is merciful )? Confessing your sins to a priest is much harder as you have to go through the mental process of formulating them and through the shame of admitting them. And you are lucky not to be a Russian pentecostal: these folks must confess their sins in front of all the members of congregation of the same gender

You do realize, that out of an estimated 2 billion Christians worldwide, that those things are actually quite rare?

You have to be careful with these estimates. Most of the people in the west, while describing themselves as Christians for the reasons of the upbringing, are actually not practising Christians.

Alot of these hateful assumptions toward Chrisrianity stems directly from movies.

Surely, "Salem witches" and Tomas de Torquemada are Hollywood hoaxes , aren't they? BTW, one of my ever favourite movies is "the name of the Rose"... and it is sure as hell full of crazy priests

Lets do! Because it's so awesomely ridiculous and silly it probably even deserves a thread on its own.

There is nothing ridiculous there. The ridiculous things are the tower of Babel, Joshua's stopping the sun, the flood, etc... (because of which I am no longer a Christian: I had to stop insulting my own intelligence ). The trinity is a beautifully simple
idea (don't forget the Holy Ghost), yet extremely deep. First of all, I cannot simplify it by saying the two are the same person... They are the same entity with three different manifestations in our everyday lifes:
God-Father, creator of all visible and visible;
JC, the saviour who died on the cross for our sins;
Holy Ghost, whose presence we feel during a prayer, in a church, etc...
It is all one god (Trinity) but for us these are three different ways to see him. This is a bit simplistic but a good start. Shall we call it "Trinity for dummies"

[Frigidus]

Alot of these hateful assumptions toward Chrisrianity stems directly from movies.

Just think of how many times in various movies that people who beleive in God are portrayed as crazy, violent, and arrogent.

I can only hope that someday people will be able to tell the difference between assumed reality and actual reality.

One of my favorite horror movies of all time is Friday the 13th. Yet throughout the first few sequels Christian priests are portrayed as dirty, old, and crazy men who eveybody is scared of.

Unfortunately this trend is not limited just to the Friday the 13th series. It happens in all kinds of movies.

I can actually sympathize here. Half of the movies I've seen that have athiests involve them being either unsavory from the start or finding God by the end. Pisses me off.

[tzor]

Surely, "Salem witches" and Tomas de Torquemada are Hollywood hoaxes , aren't they?

No, but they are often not what they appear. The problems at Salem are a good example. I don't have all the material in front of me as I did the due dilligence over twenty years ago but that's a fascinating story of politics. There is an element of religious politics as well, but not in the direction you would expect. Once the ball got rolling it was used as a method to take down a young preacher who was gaining in popularity.

Witch hunters in Europe are a similiar situation, like con men or ambulence chasing lawyers these were secular men who had a nice pyramid scheme going where they could make a ton of money. All they needed to do was accuse someone. Not only did they get their property, but after a little torture they could get the victim to give them ten more "friends" to get their property from. In this manner they moved from town to town and made a nice living in the process. Judging from their victims and the confessions thereof I would also say that they were sex perverts and pedophiles.

(But hey, getting 14 year old virgins to descibe in detail sex scenes with demons is priceless.)

[kletka]

Witch hunters in Europe are a similiar situation, like con men or ambulence chasing lawyers these were secular men who had a nice pyramid scheme...

Wrong, Tomas de Torquemada was a priest

[heavycola]

Obviously, since yahweh doesn't exist any more than allah or baal, (tribal) religions are fundamentally equivalent.

Speaking of my last post. Here we see the argument in principle.

It seems odd in the name of psudo-science how people can make blatent statements that things are false and not be called to the carpet to prove it.

Obviously, since Shakespeare doesn't exist any more than Robin Hood or King Arthur ...

You ignored my last response...

Suddenly you are arguing against 'blatant statements' of belief - or, in our case, of an absence of belief. Do you preface every prayer you make with 'bearing in mind the arguments for and against your existence....'?

speaking of which:
Blatant statement number 2:
A supernatural creator exists. He impregnated a virgin and sacrificed the resulting offspring. He is invisible to us but can read our thoughts.

Do you disagree with any of this?
Can you prove any of it?
I'm guessing the answer, in both cases, is 'no'.

Blatant statement no. 3:
Unicorns don't exist.

Call me to the carpet!