Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Divinity of Jesus
autumnman
Member (Idle past 5012 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 181 of 517 (461649)
03-26-2008 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Dawn Bertot
03-26-2008 6:41 PM


Re: On the Divinity of Jesus
bertot: Here we go.
Quote from Jon
quote:
For this post Thread Divinity of Jesus, I'd just like to say that I want to focus on the historical aspects behind this matter, and not the supernatural ones”so no posts saying 'Jesus really was God, that's why'. We must assume that there is a reasonable, realistic, real-world and non-supernatural-invoking answer to this question. Jon
And by HISTORICAL ASPECTS he means everything outside of the New Testament?
The clause Jon uses is “non-supernatural-invoking”, and since the NT invokes the “supernatural” I would say, Yes, ”HISTORICAL ASPECTS” in this particular thread means anything outside the New Testament.
And by REAL WORLD, he means his view and perception of the real world and all that is possible within existence itself.
Jon specifies by saying, “Reasonable, realistic, real-world.” This clause denotes an objective perception of reality. A subjective view of reality would be a Christian, supernatural, and superstitious view of the “real-world.”
A loaded, unreasonable and unrealistic quetion at best.
Why is Jon’s question “loaded, unreasonable, and unrealistic”? Come up with something {a.k.a. some hard evidence} outside the NT and make your case.
But for he sake of arument Ill follow him down his bunny trail. His assumption, as he puts it, is and should be based on something he has not exacally stated. Exacally what is being assumed and exacally what do mean by historical event. Specify.
bertot, I thought you did not want to get into a discussion regarding what is “meant” by the English terminology, “historical event.” When Jon says, “non-supernatural-invoking answer,” the “historical event” he is looking for would have to come from outside the NT.
quote:
What historical aspect of the Jesus situation could explain why he was deified into one with God?
None, to the satisfaction of all people, so whats the point of the question. Watch me reword the question. What aspect of history could explain to everyones satisfaction , that all aspects of a persons life (say G Washington) atually happened as stated in history. Whats the point.
Now you are comparing “G Washington” to "Jesus Christ"? We are talking about the “G Washington”, the first president of the U.S.A. right? Now then, we are talking about the “Jesus Christ” who is touted by Christians to be the “Father” of the cosmos and planet earth? Why should we {whoever may be interested} not want to know the extra-biblical history of He who is said to be the “Father” of all creation? If He in fact is the “Father” of all creation, and was in fact manifest in a human mammal form so that humanity could be saved from sin/death, would it not be helpful if He made available to us a number of extra-biblical, historical accounts of his time spent on planet earth? So, what was the extra-biblical situation that caused Jesus of Nazareth to be deified into one with God? I return the question to you, What was the point?
Its a poorly worded question that isolated by itself, without taking into consideration all the information, tries to establish prejudice in the minds of hearers. however, if we take into consideration all the Historical information to include the NT, then you have a valid answer to a legitimate question. See how it works.
We want to “take into consideration all the Historical information” that is outside the NT first. After reviewing all the extra-biblical Historical information, we {well, at least, I} am willing to “include the NT. See how it works?
AM writes
quote:
Why did Valentinus and his disciples revere the authority of Jesus as equal to or above the Hebrew Scriptures of the Jews a hundred years before the NT canon? Ptolemy, a disciple of Valentinus, goes so far as to makes the claim that the sayings of Jesus offer the only unerring way to comprehend reality. However, Irenaeus - Bishop of a Christian group in 2nd century Gaul - called Valentinus and Ptolemy, “evil interpreters of the Scriptures who have cast truth aside.” Some followers of Ptolemy eventually went so far as to say that divine Wisdom came forth in the beginning and assisted God in bringing forth the cosmos and the earth as described in Gn chapters 1 - 3.
So your whole argument is that because certain people disagreed about things and the nature of Christ, we can conclude that Jesus was not diety?
Where was the Holy Spirit/Comforter when all this early disagreement was going on within the early Christian communities? That was a rather profound disagreement, and it is of extra-biblical historical record that the early Christian disagreement over the nature of Jesus Christ did in fact continue until Roman Emperor Constantine convened the early church Bishops at Nicaea in 325 AD. After intense argument, the Christian creed that emerged from the council of Bishops at Nicaea proclaimed that Jesus Christ was God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, God’s only begotten (Letter of Eusebius of Caesarea to his church, in Socrates’ Historia Ecclesiae 1.8). This is extra-biblical history, what are your extra-biblical sources and evidence?
Interesting way of debating. Im sure if we used the sources these people were using, we would see that it is same as the sources we have today. Your argument is that a certain class of people won the debate by force. I say they did not do it that way. the earliest manuscripts and the earliest Church fathers will attest to that.
What are those earliest extra-biblical manuscripts of which you speak? Who are these extra-biblical early church father? If you have the goods, produce the goods.
If not completly, they would certainly be a counterfactual hypthosis to your contention. They were aware of the diety of Jesus long before Constantine.
Irenaeus, the 2nd century Christian Bishop in Gaul was well before Constantine and Nicaea in 325, the four century AD. He very much disagreed with Valentinus’ and Ptolemy’s extreme supernatural and superstitious interpretations of the biblical texts.
Disagreement is not equivalent to falsifacation.
Not always, but, with what was at stake at that time in Roman history, losing a disagreement of this magnitude could cost one “wealth, property, family, and even one’s own life.” Although, the latter was preferred, for death would end one’s pain and humiliation.
The fact that they were debating it, indicates that they were well aware of the tradition and belief.
An indication of tradition and belief due to an argument over the divinity of Jesus does not argue well for the “truth” of Jesus’ being God. In fact, such an argument so early in the traditional Christian movement, speaks volumes insofar as the “lack of truth” expressed by those early Christian traditions and beliefs.
There my friend is a great HISTORICAL ATTESTATION to Jon question.
It’s so good to see you so happy.
We can do this all day long.
I am packing breakfast, lunch, and dinner; all day long for as long as it takes.
Arguments that equate themselves with historical events and the way history and natural events occur typically, are not a valid method of dismissing a thing completly, such as the diety of Christ.
Jesus is said to be the God of creation, but we cannot use “creation” to determine if Jesus is God of creation. So, how do you, in an extra-biblical way, prove that Jesus is the God of Creation? If someone asks you, “How do you know with certainty that Jesus is the God of creation?” How do you reply?
They fall short because they are a limited way of establishing facts, now or then.
So, establish for me some “facts, now and then.”
All the best,
Ger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-26-2008 6:41 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-27-2008 5:31 PM autumnman has replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 182 of 517 (461650)
03-26-2008 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Dawn Bertot
03-26-2008 9:09 PM


Re: On the Divinity of Jesus
Your point being What, exacally?
That we have days of the week named after three of them and a month after the other. So to follow your line of arguement, with respect to Jesus and BC/AD, do you think that there is a pretty good historical aspect to testament, somewhat of their influence and possible Diety?
Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-26-2008 9:09 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-27-2008 9:10 AM DrJones* has not replied
 Message 184 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-27-2008 10:35 AM DrJones* has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 183 of 517 (461713)
03-27-2008 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by DrJones*
03-26-2008 9:18 PM


Re: On the Divinity of Jesus
To Dr (not a real Dr) Jones and Autunman I will try and get to these as quickly as I can to day and your other one Eden-2 the sequel. It may take some time so dont think I have begged off, I have alot of real wold, possibily supernatural things happening today.
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by DrJones*, posted 03-26-2008 9:18 PM DrJones* has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 184 of 517 (461722)
03-27-2008 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by DrJones*
03-26-2008 9:18 PM


Re: On the Divinity of Jesus
That we have days of the week named after three of them and a month after the other. So to follow your line of arguement, with respect to Jesus and BC/AD, do you think that there is a pretty good historical aspect to testament, somewhat of their influence and possible Diety?
A full house beats two of a kind. Sure I will give them the same veneration and status of possibly Diety, when they move up from days of the week or month, to TIME itself. Besides not even being Real, they havent even made it to the Year, Decade, Century, or Millinia, status. There small time players, Ha Ha. It was just an example that I offered, not something that I offered to involk scholarly discussion. I do believe that the time designation around God himself is no accident or coincident.
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by DrJones*, posted 03-26-2008 9:18 PM DrJones* has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 185 of 517 (461761)
03-27-2008 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by autumnman
03-26-2008 9:18 PM


Re: On the Divinity of Jesus
The clause Jon uses is “non-supernatural-invoking”, and since the NT invokes the “supernatural” I would say, Yes, ”HISTORICAL ASPECTS” in this particular thread means anything outside the New Testament.
Jon specifies by saying, “Reasonable, realistic, real-world.” This clause denotes an objective perception of reality. A subjective view of reality would be a Christian, supernatural, and superstitious view of the “real-world.”
Why is Jon’s question “loaded, unreasonable, and unrealistic”? Come up with something {a.k.a. some hard evidence} outside the NT and make your case.
bertot, I thought you did not want to get into a discussion regarding what is “meant” by the English terminology, “historical event.” When Jon says, “non-supernatural-invoking answer,” the “historical event” he is looking for would have to come from outside the NT.
It is unrealistic, because it he sets the rules up as unrealistic. Example if we were to use Thomas Jeffersons Bible, that removes all the miracles, would you allow it, I doubt you would even see that as a Historical document. Question, would you accept it as reliable if we use his vewrsion?
Objective perception of reality (as Jon puts it)is as about as relative and subjective statement as anyone can produce. My objective perception would say that because God exists, as you do, that which becomes normal or natural is anything that is possible for him to do. It is therefore UNREALISTIC to proceed with his presumptious and classificaions.
Who said I did not want to use the dictionary. From what post do you derive this statement.
If He in fact is the “Father” of all creation, and was in fact manifest in a human mammal form so that humanity could be saved from sin/death, would it not be helpful if He made available to us a number of extra-biblical, historical accounts of his time spent on planet earth? So, what was the extra-biblical situation that caused Jesus of Nazareth to be deified into one with God? I return the question to you, What was the point?
Please forgive the bluntness of the next this statement. The above statement is nothing more than complaining. There is nothing from a historical context that would convince you. If there were numerous examples you would say, that does not prove the miracles. He has you physical evidence in the person of Christ andleft you a group of writings, that are both historical in content and reliable as a source, you do not believe them, it is reasonable to believe you would dismiss any other evidence that could be offered. This again is why Jons request is silly and unreasonable. You your self use language that boubts Christs actual physical existence and there are others that question the historical evidence that is obvious. My statement stands. None, to the satisfaction of all or most.
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by autumnman, posted 03-26-2008 9:18 PM autumnman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-28-2008 11:16 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 187 by autumnman, posted 03-28-2008 8:26 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 186 of 517 (461869)
03-28-2008 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Dawn Bertot
03-27-2008 5:31 PM


Re: On the Divinity of Jesus
The above arguments constitute my first part of the reply to post 185, the rest will follow, when I getr enough time to dedicate myself to it. You are keeping me very busy on the other thread as well.
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-27-2008 5:31 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
autumnman
Member (Idle past 5012 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 187 of 517 (461954)
03-28-2008 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Dawn Bertot
03-27-2008 5:31 PM


Re: On the Divinity of Jesus
bertot:
quote:
The clause Jon uses is “non-supernatural-invoking”, and since the NT invokes the “supernatural” I would say, Yes, ”HISTORICAL ASPECTS” in this particular thread means anything outside the New Testament.Jon specifies by saying, “Reasonable, realistic, real-world.” This clause denotes an objective perception of reality. A subjective view of reality would be a Christian, supernatural, and superstitious view of the “real-world.” Why is Jon’s question “loaded, unreasonable, and unrealistic”? Come up with something {a.k.a. some hard evidence} outside the NT and make your case. bertot, I thought you did not want to get into a discussion regarding what is “meant” by the English terminology, “historical event.” When Jon says, “non-supernatural-invoking answer,” the “historical event” he is looking for would have to come from outside the NT.
It is unrealistic, because it he sets the rules up as unrealistic. Example if we were to use Thomas Jeffersons Bible, that removes all the miracles, would you allow it, I doubt you would even see that as a Historical document. Question, would you accept it as reliable if we use his vewrsion?
I don’t have a “Thomas Jefferson Bible,” but if you have one feel free to use it.
Objective perception of reality (as Jon puts it)is as about as relative and subjective statement as anyone can produce.
Objective means: existing outside and independent of the mind. Objective reality pertains to what actually exists in reality as opposed to whom we personally “think” created it or is in charge of it. The conception of Deity is a subjective perceptive of reality. That reality is filled with awesome mysteries is an objective perception of reality.
My objective perception would say that because God exists, as you do,
The above statement is a “subjective” perception. Reality is filled with mysteries. That is a fact. That those mysteries prove the existence of one particular God from one particular Christian view, that is dependent on the Judeo-Christian conception of the God of Israel is a highly subjective, theocratically biased perception of reality. It is all in your head.
that which becomes normal or natural is anything that is possible for him to do. It is therefore UNREALISTIC to proceed with his presumptious and classificaions.
No. it is quite realistic to proceed. What you are trying to say is incongruent with the rest of the objective, natural world in which we live. What you “believe” is subjective. What I believe is subjective. That which exists outside of our heads is what is referred to as “objective reality.”
Who said I did not want to use the dictionary. From what post do you derive this statement.
I may have misunderstood you in Post #172 when you essentially scolded me, saying:
Maybe we can get past this rigid view of truth and facts, so we can have further discussion and not slow the progress of the others progress. Do you agree.?
quote:
If He in fact is the “Father” of all creation, and was in fact manifest in a human mammal form so that humanity could be saved from sin/death, would it not be helpful if He made available to us a number of extra-biblical, historical accounts of his time spent on planet earth? So, what was the extra-biblical situation that caused Jesus of Nazareth to be deified into one with God? I return the question to you, What was the point?
Please forgive the bluntness of the next this statement. The above statement is nothing more than complaining. There is nothing from a historical context that would convince you.
You have not put forth “anything from a historical context as yet.” You keep employing theological data, but not historical data. Pull some “historical” out of the theological NT and we can discuss it.
If there were numerous examples you would say, that does not prove the miracles.
Nothing can prove the miracles that supposedly occurred two thousand years ago. Prove a religious miracle that happened in the twentieth century. I think to “prove” something you need facts. What are the facts? Hearsay does not constitute “facts.” But, hey, use hearsay. Give us something to chew on.
He has you physical evidence in the person of Christ andleft you a group of writings, that are both historical in content and reliable as a source, you do not believe them, it is reasonable to believe you would dismiss any other evidence that could be offered.
The Heb. term meshiycha {Greek/Latin: Christ} does not in and of itself denote “only begotten son of God.” You are aware of this grammatical and historical fact, right?
This again is why Jons request is silly and unreasonable. You your self use language that boubts Christs actual physical existence and there are others that question the historical evidence that is obvious. My statement stands. None, to the satisfaction of all or most.
bertot: Please present “the historical evidence that is [so] obvious.” Go ahead and use the NT. Then we can discuss your “historical” evidence.
All the best,
Ger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-27-2008 5:31 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-28-2008 9:27 PM autumnman has not replied
 Message 189 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-28-2008 9:52 PM autumnman has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 188 of 517 (461964)
03-28-2008 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by autumnman
03-28-2008 8:26 PM


Re: On the Divinity of Jesus
AM writes
I don’t have a “Thomas Jefferson Bible,” but if you have one feel free to use it.
Objective perception of reality (as Jon puts it)is as about as relative and subjective statement as anyone can produce.
Objective means: existing outside and independent of the mind. Objective reality pertains to what actually exists in reality as opposed to whom we personally “think” created it or is in charge of it. The conception of Deity is a subjective perceptive of reality. That reality is filled with awesome mysteries is an obective perception of reality.
Your a Diest and dont posess a Thomas Jefferson, Bible, just kidding AM, calm down this is not the UFC. I also, have my breakfast, lunch and dinner packed but its just to eat. Question does God exist outside the mind, literally. Your statement makes no sense, it makes God real and not real at the same time. Gods existence does not depend on my subjective view. He is not just that which exists in reality Autunman, he is reality.
Bertot said
My objective perception would say that because God exists, as you do,
The above statement is a “subjective” perception. Reality is filled with mysteries. That is a fact. That those mysteries prove the existence of one particular God from one particular Christian view, that is dependent on the Judeo-Christian conception of the God of Israel is a highly subjective, theocratically biased perception of reality. It is all in your head.
Please finish my quote next time. You know that this is not what I was saying or implying, I was speaking strickly of God at that point.
No. it is quite realistic to proceed. What you are trying to say is incongruent with the rest of the objective, natural world in which we live. What you “believe” is subjective. What I believe is subjective. That which exists outside of our heads is what is referred to as “objective reality.”
You are a much better Hebraist than philosopher. Yes, what I believe without factual information is subjecive. that which I can demonstrate, through the process of deductive reasoning applied to the real world is true , objective and real. More in a minute.
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by autumnman, posted 03-28-2008 8:26 PM autumnman has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 189 of 517 (461967)
03-28-2008 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by autumnman
03-28-2008 8:26 PM


Re: On the Divinity of Jesus
Who said I did not want to use the dictionary. From what post do you derive this statement.
I may have misunderstood you in Post #172 when you essentially scolded me, saying:
Maybe we can get past this rigid view of truth and facts, so we can have further discussion and not slow the progress of the others progress. Do you agree.?
You most certainly misunderstood me. I was simply saying that we had reached a logical impass at that point. We Must have, you never responded to that specific argument.
You have not put forth “anything from a historical context as yet.” You keep employing theological data, but not historical data. Pull some “historical” out of the theological NT and we can discuss it.
You clearly did not read my statement when I said, "none to the satisfaction of all or most", then I gave an explanation of why. That part is surprisingly left out of your post here, maybe you could go back and insert it.
If I produce a statement that says Joseph, Jesus and Mary came up out of Egypt would you believe it? Would there be any reason to doubt or would you reject it out right. You tell me
Nothing can prove the miracles that supposedly occurred two thousand years ago. Prove a religious miracle that happened in the twentieth century. I think to “prove” something you need facts. What are the facts? Hearsay does not constitute “facts.” But, hey, use hearsay. Give us something to chew on.
That was my point in my post, if you had taken the time to quote it completely. You mean CHEW ON AND SPIT OUT, dont you.
The Heb. term meshiycha {Greek/Latin: Christ} does not in and of itself denote “only begotten son of God.” You are aware of this grammatical and historical fact, right?
And you are aware that the statement you just made, makes no sense to the issue. Did I say that it did?
bertot: Please present “the historical evidence that is [so] obvious.” Go ahead and use the NT. Then we can discuss your “historical” evidence.
We have already done this in your first thread, what reason do I have to believe you will agree on what constitues a historical document here or accept anything that was said there. Thi question here, while dealing with historical, is of different nature due to the proposition. My postion still stands that it is an invalid question and proposition as stated, because it is illogical and unreasonable as stated.
D bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by autumnman, posted 03-28-2008 8:26 PM autumnman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by autumnman, posted 03-28-2008 11:02 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
autumnman
Member (Idle past 5012 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 190 of 517 (461972)
03-28-2008 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Dawn Bertot
03-28-2008 9:52 PM


Re: On the Divinity of Jesus
bertot, my friend:
It's getting late for me, and my head is about to explode. You gave some really wonderful responses, and hopfully tomorrow I can address them.
You have said "Christ" as opposed to Jesus a number of times, that is why I brought up the Messiah point.
All the best,
Ger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-28-2008 9:52 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5471 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 191 of 517 (462008)
03-29-2008 10:29 AM


I hope you guys don't mind if I join this discussion. I have been following this thread for a stretch.
bertot,
I think what autmunman is saying is, you are attempting to offer a conclusion about the Historical Jesus based on the Theological Jesus.
The historical evidence that is available is the same for all parties, regardless of your Theological position regarding Jesus' divinity. This evidence consists of not only the religious manuscripts and writings themselves, but also all other historical documents of the periods up to and including the time in which Jesus lived, and the period that immediately follows his death.
If one accepts on faith that what the Gospels state about Jesus is true then there is nothing to discuss; However, if your goal is to dicuss Jesus in a historical context and arrive at an objective conclusion, this requires one to momentarily divorce oneself from faith and pose the question, what is this all evidence of? What does all of the accumulated historical information tell us is the most likely scenario about who Jesus was, what he thought and believed, as opposed to what the authors of the documents believed about Jesus?
Mainstream Christian discussions of the nature of Jesus are invariably Theological rather than Historical. When Mainstream Christians do discuss the history, such discussions concentrate entirely on the four Canonical Gospels and Pauline writings, while ignoring the rest of the evidence that can be used to reach a position. Historians have much more than the Canon to work with; all non-Canonical Gospel accounts and Apocrypha are also sources that must be given equal consideration when piecing things together. Christian Theologians simply throw these other sources into the waste basket as unworthy of historical discussion because they have not been officially sanctioned. Offering a Historical account of who Jesus was based simply on the four Canonical Gospels offers a woefully incomplete picture.
Of course, the historical information available is always open to interpretation and opinion regarding meaning and content, so it is natural that different scholars will arrive at different opinions. Regardless, when asking, 'Who was Jesus?', any objective analysis must consider all of the historical evidence and put it into the context of the political, social, cultural, and religious environments of the period in which Jesus lived. Without this approach, you don't get a complete picture - one just ends up reading into the picture what one wants to see.
To demonstrate the scope and depth of the issue:
Below is an abbreviated list of early christian writings in Chronological order of composition. Keep in mind, this is not comprehensive and does not include the myraid of other fragementary manuscripts and all other historical documents related to Christianity and Judaism during this period. Combine this with all the other historical material avialable, both prior to and following the period.
Now, what kind of inferences would you reach based simply on the four Canonical Gospel accounts and the Pauline letters, ignoring all the other sources? Would you say the conclusions reached would be rather limited?
Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers
Edited by Grizz, : add link

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-29-2008 10:42 AM Grizz has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 192 of 517 (462009)
03-29-2008 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Grizz
03-29-2008 10:29 AM


Grizz, thanks for your response. It is always good to have new members and participants. To help you understand a bit more of the bacground about our discussion on 'Historical' and what we argued about in this category, you could read, Autunman's thread Biblical translation, Eden 1, it will give you some background. I understand what you are saying and please continue to particapate. The more the marrier, they say.
D Bertot
ps. we get after eachother form time to time, so dont let distract you, I cant help it if all the others opinions are wrong. Ha, Ha
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Grizz, posted 03-29-2008 10:29 AM Grizz has not replied

  
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5471 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 193 of 517 (462031)
03-29-2008 3:31 PM


What historical aspect of the Jesus situation could explain why he was deified into one with God? With so many prophets in the day, what about Jesus and his followers brought about the following cult? There's been a lot of people since then who have been highly-regarded; why didn't they get a super-mega religion named after them?
What was it about the movement that made it so appealing to the populace? Certainly something was very special and unique about the message for it to catch on while other upstart movements died off. What was it offering that others were not?
You have to look at the world in which the movement took hold. The message of the Gospels, regardless of their truth, offered something that other prophets, religions, and sects did not - a unique vision of hope and a measure of self-respect in the middle of a barbaric existence with an uncertain future.
Notions of forgiveness, pity, and divine love were something that simply did not exist in the Pagan religions of the time. Classical Philosophers reviled the notion of compassion. In the Roman world, Pity and Mercy were defects of character, not virtues. This is part of the reason that some early Christian communities were persecuted - they were weak and stubborn and the weak need to be eradicated. If someone is poor, you don't feed him, you throw him off your property. If someone asks for mercy, you revile him for his weakness.
Furthermore, the Gods had no love for man -- mankind only existed to appease the Gods by offering sacrifice and worship. A significant portion of taxable income in the classical world was spent on building temples of worship and sacrifice. Both Citizens and subjects of the Empire were forced to pay into this system.
The people of the time were hearing the message that the Christian God loves his creation. This God does not demand any sacrifices, offerings, or taxes - God is only demanding that you love him back. This God also commands you to love your neighbor, forgive your enemies, and give assistance to the poor and weak. The Christian message about God was totally unique.
Amidst the wars and occupation, the population was being told, 'Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's' -- You don't need to fight the occupation to win, you belong to God and God will have the last say. Unlike the Pagan God's, the Chrisitian God is on your side and Jesus is coming back soon to resuce his followers.
Judaism had similar themes to the Christian message, but converts to Judaism not only took on the belief system but were integrated into the Judaic ethnic culture as well. As a Christian, you could retain your cultural identity. You did not have to stop being who you are - you were still a Roman, a Greek, or an Egyptian.
I don't really find it surprising that Christianity took hold. I would find it surprising if it didn't.

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-30-2008 2:10 PM Grizz has not replied
 Message 195 by iano, posted 03-30-2008 7:25 PM Grizz has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 194 of 517 (462092)
03-30-2008 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Grizz
03-29-2008 3:31 PM


Grizz, I will get to this as soon as I can, I am very busy presently.
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Grizz, posted 03-29-2008 3:31 PM Grizz has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 195 of 517 (462097)
03-30-2008 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Grizz
03-29-2008 3:31 PM


Grizz writes:
The people of the time were hearing the message that the Christian God loves his creation.
The section starting at 1:18 happens to be entitled "God's Wrath Against Mankind" in the NIV version.
quote:
Romans 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness..
The "come to buddy Jesus" gospel wouldn't have been the one preached then. The good news was good news in the light of the bad news.
-
This God does not demand any sacrifices, offerings, or taxes -
He does demand a sacrifice. You gotta get off the throne. To be born again its you who has to die. Not your pet gerbil.
-
God is only demanding that you love him back.
I'm not sure how "demand" and "love" work together in the same sentence. But anyway: its love God "..with all your heart soul and mind". Paying taxes would be childsplay in comparison.
-
This God also commands you to love your neighbor, forgive your enemies, and give assistance to the poor and weak.
.and promises that those who don't follow his commands to the letter will go to Hell. Those who didn't pick up on the mercy element would prefer paying taxes. Those who did pick up on it would realise that they are not subject to the law and are no longer obligated (in terms of gaining access to a "favorable eternal destination") to follow the law. This God demands nothing from us but our surrender.
-
I don't really find it surprising that Christianity took hold. I would find it surprising if it didn't.
IF God of wrath message THEN give me the gods any day.
IF God of grace message THEN why Islam?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Grizz, posted 03-29-2008 3:31 PM Grizz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Grizz, posted 03-30-2008 8:01 PM iano has not replied
 Message 197 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-31-2008 1:29 AM iano has replied
 Message 199 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-31-2008 9:07 AM iano has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024