New Christian seeking insight!

Post Reply New Topic

It is fairly clear that the Likes of Jesus, John the Baptist and others existed, Paul met with Joseph and Peter in jerusalem only a few years after Jesus died. This has been attested using accepted norms for historical evidence. Where the story falls flat on its arse is the modern interpretation of events and the preference of later writings over early christian teaching, not to mention the fact that much of what is in the testaments is either pseudepigraphal or downright forgeries. Its all there in the NT, jesus was an apocalyptic preacher who believed the end times was coming, he was baptized by John the Baptist who was also an apocalyptic preacher. The supposed resurrection of Jesus was not his resurrection but the start of "The Resurrection" they all fully believed that He was coming back in THEIR lifetime and the dead would rise and go to heaven and the living also. Non of this happened so the stories have altered over the years to keep the dream alive.

What has happened in the intervening years is a rewrite of the original stories, a transformation that effectively retains the actors but significantly alters their characters and beliefs. This is why I suggest people look into the authorship of the book and the differences between what a Jew at the time of christ believed about the Law, The Resurrection, and what a Messiah was supposed to represent.

From what I can deduce Christians believe in a book that has little authenticity with regard to authorship or original premise.

And as to the claim that the book is a good reference for historical learning, utter BS, Try reading "the BIble Unearthed" By Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman.

^^^
In regard to what Jews believe - and once believed about the Messiah - I think beliefs about a Messiah such as what Christians believe in was not at all out of the ordinary in the 1st century. But as a response to Christianity, the school of thought reflecting a Messiah more condicive to modern Judaism took hold, particularly after the Diaspora, when Jews no longer had their own country to have a position of theocratic power in.

Their messiah had everything to do with the restoration of the line of David after the shock of exile. Yahweh had promised that David's line would not fail so they were in shock over their ass kicking. Jesus later failed to achieve any result Jews would expect and they've had messiah candidates after Jesus.

You fail and you aren't the one. Period. They are quite consistent. A very few might continue to back a failed messiah like Sabbatai Zevi or Jesus but not the overwhelming majority.

If you look at the big picture it's a series of failures to expiate earlier failures. They just pile up. The Jewish messiah isn't supposed to add to the mess.

You're taking it for granted that christians didn't want to be executed, and that the Roman authorities wanted to execute them. In early christianity, there is a lot of evidence that Roman authorities were often reticent to execute christians. Christians presented a problem in that they often wanted to be killed, and went out of their way to make that happen. Having people cheer and dance off to their executions, because they thought they were going to a better place undermined the principle of punishment. Additionally, having to execute masses of people who violated a law in order to be executed was something that was morally vexing, even to many Roman's.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutio ... man_Empire

Last edited by Stannis on 20 May 2014, 12:17 am, edited 5 times in total.

While I have no doubt that's true, I think it matters a great deal who was the emperor at the time. A tolerant man like Marcus Arelius would be less likely to persecute Christians, but lunatics like Nero or Domitian would be more likely to.

When? People willingly die for what they believe to be true, or to save those they care about...but when their own life is on the line for something they say, what sane person wouldn't finally admit the truth to continue living? Cultists and such aren't what I'm talking about, but rather ordinary people sticking to something they know isn't true, fully aware their death is imminent over it.

I'm not sure if I understand your response to me, as I was agreeing with you. My perception is that you thought I was agreeing with the other side of the argument.

It's not so much that it's "too scholarly." It's the fact that what passes for scholarship in ivory tower academia is subject to the anti-supernatural bias that is currently in vogue among many academics.

I don't have a problem with falsification as long as it's simply a means to an end. Unrepeatable personal experiences don't count for anything under verificationism, and I have a big issue with me telling me that something that I know without a doubt happened didn't really happen. If the scientific community can't do anything with it and has to ignore it, fine. But saying in absolute terms, nope, couldn't have happened? That strikes me as gaslighting.

I missed this post because of the new page.

I guess you are right. However, I was being too ambitious. I should have asked whether eyewitnesses could have saved themselves rather than any early Christians at all.

As others have said, we know a great many people allow themselves to die for their faith, or because they have joined a suicide cult like Heaven's Gate. We do not accept that hale bopp was coming to kill us all just because a bunch of otherwise-sane people killed themselves because of it.

Well what evidence do you have for you experience, as you ranted for several pages in another post how do you know that your perception of the event is correct. You are single handedly discounting all the evidence we have for hallucination, mind tricks etc.


With regard to the bible I am simply at a loss to understand people who when shown the clear evidence of falsification, of rewriting history simply refuse to accept it. Jesus and his followers believed the resurrection was at hand, believed that they would all be judged in their lifetimes, believed that the 12 would rule the 12 tribes of Israel with Jesus as the overlord. It did not happen and in the intervening centuries bits and pieces have been added to the story to explain why, to the point that the Jesus represented in contemporary religion is hardly recognisable to the one in early christian teachings.

Two things. First nice avatar (I am a linux user myself). Second, do you have a source for any of that? Not many people would die for something they didn't think was true. So it would seem that at the very least, the diciples/martyrs at the very least, thought what they were dying for was true. That doesn't necessarily mean it was, but they probably thought it was. Now Christ had many followers, I think we can at least agree with that. And if what you claim is corrected, He was preaching about the Resurrection being at hand and stuff. And then he dies...

So the disciples/christians get together (according to you) and are all like, oh no Christ died. How are we going to work out this cool resurrection thing we all thought was coming? Wait here's an idea! How about we all say that the resurrection was actually his own Resurrection, even though thousands of people heard him preach otherwise. And then we tell everybody He did rise, and he's God and stuff, even though people will get mad at us and maybe kill us(like they killed Him).

Seems to me that something doesn't quite add up...

Well I would say just keep reading... Read Craig, Plantinga... read CS Lewis and the atheists too. Some of my best conversations have been with atheists.

William Lane Craig is a nut. He defends genocide, rape and all the rest as long as someone claims Yahweh commanded it. That's what you'll be reduced to as a Christian. He's also a philosopher who is out of is depth when debating professionals in other fields. He simply dodges their questions and corrections and runs his patterns.

What you should do is go right to the source and read the Bible. Take a few highlighters in different colors to it and mark what you like, don't like, the contradictions you can spot, and the parts that are flat out crazy. You don't need professional liars to read it for you do you? Read it yourself then ask yourself if it is really a credible account. Read a few other holy books and see if they sound the same. Don't worship a book because mommy and daddy and gramps pushed it on you.

Well that's stereotyping.



That somes up why I believe what I believe. It makes the most sense.

Yep its called the New Testament:

Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of that one will the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels?. Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come in power. (Mark 8:38?9:1)

And in those days, after that affliction, the sun will grow dark and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the sky will be shaken; and then they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds with great power and glory. And then he will send forth his angels and he will gather his elect from the four winds, from the end of earth to the end of heaven?. Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place. (Mark 13:24?27, 30)


For just as the flashing lightning lights up the earth from one part of the sky to the other, so will the Son of Man be in his day?. And just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating, drinking, marrying, and giving away in marriage, until the day that Noah went into the ark and the flood came and destroyed them all. So too will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed. (Luke 17:24; 26?27, 30; cf. Matthew 24:27, 37?39)

But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. 1 corinthians 15:20-15:20




And you, be prepared, because you do not know the hour when the Son of Man is coming. (Luke 12:39; Matthew 24:44)

Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the culmination of the age. The Son of Man will send forth his angels, and they will gather from his kingdom every cause of sin and all who do evil, and they will cast them into the furnace of fire. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun, in the kingdom of their father. (Matthew 13:40?43

There is so much evidence that Jesus was an Apocalyptic preacher, not to mention that his predecessor (John The Baptist) and his successor (Paul) were both Apocalyptic preachers. The evidence comes from the earliest christian writings, later things begin to change, likely due to the fact that the resurrection did not happen and, as with all things biblical the stories are changed or forgotten or were simple replaced with newer ones, which allowed for the altered events.

To Quote Bart Ehrman

"The oldest attainable sources contain clear apocalyptic teachings of Jesus, all of them independent of one another. What is equally striking, however, is a subsidiary issue. The apocalyptic character of Jesus?s proclamation comes to be muted with the passing of time. After the writing of these earlier sources, we find less and less apocalyptic material. By the time we get to our last canonical Gospel, John, we have almost no apocalyptic teachings of Jesus at all. Here Jesus preaches about something else (chiefly his own identity, as the one who has come from the Father to bring eternal life). And when we get to still later Gospels, from outside the New Testament, we actually find instances?such as in the Gospel of Thomas?where Jesus argues against an apocalyptic view (Gospel of Thomas 3, 113)."

Pretty much accurate although it is not according to me, and the "cool resurrection thing" happened quickly after his death. Again historically jewish tradition has no reference to a suffering messiah, rather the "anointed one" was supposed to release the jews from bondage and suffering rather people who speak aramaic, and greek, who have studied the historical period and have passed a critical eye over the NT. So yes they needed to give a reason for his shameful death via crucifixion at the hands of the people he was supposed to vanqusih. The only mention of 500 witnesses to the resurrected jesus is from paul, there is no other attestation which kind of renders it meaningless as evidence.

Oh and btw a bit of homework for you what does Thomas and Didymus mean in Aramaic and Greek respectively ?




Really are you so sure of that? where is your evidence? The NT needs to be taken in context of the time and culture it was written in, so does the life of Jesus.



Maybe true, but more likely we would just laugh. However in biblical times to claim you were the "Messiah" at a time of roman occupation and at the inflammatory time of Pass Over was all Pilot needed to kill an upstart. It needs to be rememberd that previous Pass Over riots ended in tens of thousands dead.



Yep, I suggest you start your reading at "The Quest of the Historical Jesus" by Albert Schweitzer and then move on to Bart Erhman next Ehrman Vs Craig debates are good, especially when Craig is pulled away from theological philosophy and into the realm of historical accuracy. Or if you dont want to read their books how about reading your own. As Ehrman suggests read the bible horizontally rather than vertically i.e read each event from every report and then equate what you have read to the epoch in which it was written. Also look into the authorship of the various gospels and episltles and the timeline in which they are thought to have been written, this makes for very illuminating reading.

Those can all be interpreted in many different ways.(which kinda stinks, right here I'd make an arguement about why the Catholic Church's interpretation is the best one. But I won't. ) I do agree that Christ was to an extent an apocalyptic preacher. And that he preached about a second coming. Furthermore I do think there will be a second coming. But:

And you, be prepared, because you do not know the hour when the Son of Man is coming. (Luke 12:39; Matthew 24:44)

But what about the thousands of people who actually heard what he preached? Wouldn't they notice some discrepancy? There are actually a lot of biblical references to the messiah suffering.

And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. (Isaiah 53:9)

Psalm 22 also describes the crucifixion pretty well.

And why would the disciples die for something they didn't believe in?

Just did, got the word twin in both cases. Maybe I'm doing something wrong? If not I might need you to explain the significance of it to me, since I fail to see how it matters.



Sorry wrote about this earlier in the post, didn't even notice this. But anyway. I am fairly certain. For starters he was popular enough to be crucified.

Holy cow, your answering my replies before I even send them. I really need to work on reading these before I start replying.
But wait... aren't you saying that Christ didn't claim to be the messiah, but instead was an apocalyptic preacher. I'm so confused(no surprise there )...
But what about after a few of them had been killed. Wouldn't they start worrying about there own necks?

Sorry I don't have much time on my hands. School, work, etc... but schools over soon, maybe then?

Anyways, I think it's going to be next to impossible to prove it either way. Your side seems to be a bit too speculative (no offense) and mine is based off the bible. Which isn't a history book, or a science book, it's a theological book.