New Christian seeking insight!

Post Reply New Topic

Indeed. "Most" Bible scholars and historians? Now THAT is interesting! Where are "Most" Bible scholars and historians?

Not to mention that Paul himself, though not an eyewitness to Jesus' earthly ministry, literally changed from a devout persecutor and murderer of Christians to the biggest advocate for the faith during the first century. I've heard many apologists ask this question, and no atheist or anti-theist has come up with a reasonable answer: does any sane person allow themselves to be murdered, for something they know is a lie?

The world is full of martyrs who have died in the names of their respective religions, each truly believing theirs was the truth.

Absolutely.

You need to be careful here. It happens all the time.

What you need to focus on, and where apologists are coming from, is given what Jesus taught and given His actions, is all of that worth dying for? If the kinds of things Jesus said and did were all a lie, I don't think a sane person would risk capital punishment (not the same as murder, btw). I think a dishonest person who KNEW he was being dishonest and KNEW all he had to do was recant to save his life would break down and say, "Haha! Just kidding! Joke's over now, nothing to see here. We can all go home, right? My bad!" By all indications, whether Jesus was lying or not, the disciples believed Him to the extent their own lives mattered less than the gospel. What I would want to know is what exactly was it about Jesus that was so extraordinary that primitive Christians would rather give up their lives than renounce their faith? It's a testament to how compelling the first Christians found Jesus' life and teachings.

In my opinion, I just don't understand why the kinds of things it was said that Jesus taught that anybody would WANT to lie about it. It wouldn't be worth dying for. It's less likely they were lying. Either they were telling the truth or they were, or they were insane.

Sure, it's hypothetically possible Jesus could have deliberately picked insane people. But then you have the problem of disordered thought?there wouldn't be internal consistency across the gospels if none of the disciples had their heads screwed on right.

Given those three choices and no others, I'd definitely go the honest route.

Incidentally, I don't read C.S. Lewis as presenting these three alternatives as necessarily exclusionary. I read it more as Lewis presenting them as the three best available and given THAT, it is more likely the disciples were telling the truth. If you were to argue other alternatives, they could be reasonably debunked the same way, but I don't think those were within the scope of the Lewis reference.

People get themselves murdered all the time. You could type for a hundred pages and not cover all the possible motives. But that's assuming that someone was looking to think about it rather than believe what they were trained to believe.

Paul never met him and converts to false religions are as common as dirt even by Christian thinking. There are as many motives for that as the other.

Great to hear about your conversion!

I have been a believer for 40 years and only just found out I am Aspie. I have experienced a very rocky road spiritually and now think that Aspies do have a harder time of it. For a start, I believe that they are more vulnerable to the attacks of Satan, and especially if they are taking mind altering medication.

However, the power of God cannot be limited by any of this. I have had a period where it was entirely overcome and I achieved the peace and joy which is our heritage in Christ.

There is a problem with popular teaching in the church however and a lot of it amounts to positive thinking which will not work for an Aspie. It has to be real.

I would advise you at this stage to embark on a study of the subject of entire sanctification but you will have to go back in history to find good writers as modern Christianity has all but debunked it unfortunately. It was here that I found my deliverance reading writers such as Oswald Chambers, Watchman Nee in The Normal Christian Life and other holiness teachers of old. I am praying for you. If you want to discuss it by pm please feel free.

Just to clarify, I was only talking about the Gospels. I thought I had made that clear, but obviously not. I apologise.

In any case, I'm not sure how relevant your point is. I was specifically referring to the sayings of Christ. Paul does not attempt to tell Jesus' story, his writings are a completely different type of text.

We know that a lot of stories were told about, for example, the young Jesus, that believers do not accept as canon. We also know that even today, when everything is instantly turned into written documentation, people get confused about the truth, misquotes are spread as fact, and urban myths propagate. People struggle to give accurate testimony of events that happened last week, or the sporting occasion they watched this afternoon. What chance did the disciples have of accurately recording the ministry of a man who had died decades beforehand, with the eyewitnesses dispersing over the world, whilst urban myths were flying around their community?


I must admit, I am going from the teachings of learned religious people I know. That's three chaplins who are also practising clergy, a Benedictine monk, and a trainee chaplin. Frankly, I trust them to give an account that is not biased towards irreligion.

A quick check of Wikipedia seems to corroborate what they say.

You are presenting a false dichotomy. Either the 12 truly believed in Christ, or 7-8 of them would not have been killed for their beliefs. There are actually more options.

Please provide evidence that early Christians could have saved themselves by recanting.

OK?so how do three clergy, a monk, and a trainee constitute "Most Bible scholars and historians?"

A lot of the supposed Wikipedia "corroboration" that I've seen leans towards secularist and "historical Jesus" perspectives who comparatively don't really have all that much active interest in Jesus or primitive Christianity. I suspect more of your seminary professors across a wider number of denominations would be as knowledgeable, or at least aware, and PROBABLY have a distinctly different view than what you're trying to sell me.

Wrt. John's gospel, it is distinctly different from the Synoptics. Of that there is no argument. Some scholars do attribute it to a later date of writing. However, the purpose of John is more of a theological bent, which is lost in the other three gospels. It seems to presuppose the others. The Synoptics gives the who/what/when/where. John seems to focus on deeper meaning, clarifying theologically the significance of Jesus' sayings. It's nicely complementary with the other three.

The fourth anonymous gospel, "John", is written sixty or more years after the events and contains page long speeches with great detail and the highest view of Jesus. There is a reason that it's treated so skeptically even by many nt scholars. It's a perfect example of the evolution of the view of Jesus over time.

The gospels start simply with the "Mark'" exaltation story, then the virgin births are added, and finally "John" adds in the eternally existing divinity aspect. As evolutionary as the development of yahweh. Paul has his own strange view of Jesus as both a preexisting heavenly creature and a creature who is later exalted further. Some sort of angel maybe

.....and yet supposedly when one becomes a Xtian they supposedly experience the "peace of God which surpasses all understanding"

Where is the peace?

Let me tell you something, BeauZa, the problem IS NOT WITH YOU!! !! !! !! !!
Do NOT engage in further self-deception.
You are suffering, life is confusing and difficult(for all of us), the answers you seek are WITHIN YOU not outside of you.

I assure you I have intimate knowledge of the kind of struggle you are experiencing, many of us do.
The tormented mind, the fear, the intractable existential angst....it is true misery.

There are techniques that have been used successfully for at least 5000 years that mitigate the experience of suffering. These mental techniques have NOTHING TO DO with any kind of diety or spirit or ghost, etc...
They have been studied and proven by Science to change the structure and function of the brain.

If you would like to discuss this with me, you can PM me.
I will accept you completely with ZERO judgement.
May peace replace your pain.
Be well.

Last edited by slave on 20 May 2014, 7:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The Walrus-

In response to your question to AngelRho, if there had been any Christians who had saved themselves by recanting Christ:
As a matter of fact, there was. Under the reign of Domitian, persecution of Christians had fired up again as bad or worse than it had been under Nero, and it was at this time that many martyrs were made. We know a great many Christians saved their lives by recanting or fleeing. And there was an imperial order to spare Christians who did indeed recant. Then the luck of the Christians changed, and Domition had been assassinated by a palace coup, because as a homocidal lunatic, he was a threat to everyone else besides followers of Christ. After that, the Christian community had dusted itself off, and perhaps without the love and understanding of their movement's founder, they made it clear that those who had recanted weren't welcomed back, while those who had fled were told they had a lot to prove in regard to their faith before being welcomed back.

That isn't what I said.

You are thinking I have taken their word as representative of "most Bible scholars and historians". Actually, they have told me "the consensus view amongst scholars is...". I cannot say for sure that it is the consensus view, but I don't see why clergy would understate the evidence to support their religions.

Sure. And it depends on which "scholars" we're actually talking about. If you limit "scholars" to ivory tower academic types, then, yeah, you have your consensus. There's also the "textual criticism" movement, which is mostly where simon_says is coming from, and their claims don't really hold much water, either. Most of my arguments in favor of Biblical text have been in response to textual criticism, and it's not that I really mean to avoid answering any time people throw that bait out?it's just I'm caught somewhere among lack of time, focusing on a different issue at the moment and forget to come back to it, or I'm just bored with it. All four gospels were likely written BEFORE the destruction of the temple. I'm thinking John was probably the leader of the Ephesus church and the other three gospels had been in circulation for some time. All John did was fill in the theological gaps left by the others. Simon_says represents the "scholarly" view, and I find it highly questionable.

I believe church history actually states that about John's Gospel.

I think we might be finding the "flawed epistemology" issue rears its head here...

If any challenges to your worldview are deemed invalid because they are "too scholarly", not only is that pretty straight-up anti-intellectual, but it means that your position is unfalsifiable. Of course, that is no issue for you if you don't think falsification is an important concept when establishing the truth.