|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: My Beliefs- GDR | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Faith writes: The usual Reformed understanding is very clear that He only died for those who belong to Him Just one other thought on this. Paul was a Pharisee and that was still a large part of what he was. The Pharisees carried on the belief that the by faithfully following the laws they could purge the nation of its sins and God would see them returned to their homeland and God, (or his representative) would be King. In the meantime they would be exiled in sin. The Gospel message is that through Jesus God had established His Kingdom with Jesus the Christ as King. The entire nation, and with the renewed covenant the entire world had been forgiven and brought out of exile, as Jesus died for the sins of the world, and with it defeated the power of death. When men did, what men often do and put Jesus to death as he threatened their beliefs and position, God redeemed that sin and brought Jesus through death into a new resurrected bodily life in advance of the resurrection of all creation at the end of time.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
The point I was making that Christian belief spread rapidly in spite of having never gained any military or political power. Yes, and this point is wrong since they have had both military support and political power.
Our understanding of the nature of God evolved over time. That's not my point and you're just grasping. Our stories of supernatural beings and metaphysical worlds have evolved over time - nothing in these stories indicates an "understanding" of anything. If anything it's actually more of a misunderstanding of the natural world.
As God continued to speak through people's hearts, minds and imaginations our understanding of His nature collectively became more focused. And you know god spoke to them how? How do you know that to be true?
I can't be sure but I am convinced, just as you can't be sure I'm wrong but you seem convinced that I am. I don't know what this means. I asked how can you be sure the stories of Jesus are true and accurately depicted in the Bible. Your answer is "I'm conviced they are" - Ok, how are you convinced? - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
The Bible is evidence that we can accept or reject. Evidence of what exactly? It's just a bunch of stories, mostly inaccurate about even the history of that time. So what can it possibly be evidence of?
The fact that you and I exist and that we can have this conversation is evidence. Evidence of what? Frankly you're starting to not make sense.
The evidence isn't black and white and sure it is easy just to throw up our hands and so we can't know, but that seems like a cop-out. You've not presented any evidence. I hope you don't think you have. The Bible is not evidence of god, it is evidence that someone/people wrote a book. That is all. And as I have shown you in this thread, the Bible stories are not unique and have their origin in Greek and Egyptian mythology.
Science keeps advancing into the unknown and IMHO so does our understanding of God. Impossible, since none of you have ever seen or heard from god. You are all coming up with your own concepts of god which is the equivalent of throwing paint on a canvas repeatedly and saying you're getting closer to painting the Mona Lisa.
Faith and I completely disagree on the nature of God and yet we both call ourselves Christian. There is ambiguity which in my view is what we should expect of a god who wants us to freely choose to love unselfishly. What this proves is that each of you has chosen a different point of view that other people have come up with to put your faith into. God has nothing to do with this personal choice that you and Faith have made.
The fact that it exists throughout all cultures is what I would expect if God does truly speak into the hearts of all mankind. I guess you can say that, if it makes sense to you. What it tells me is that social primates like living in groups where the members want to be treated as they would treat others and have created certain rules to assure this.
It all boils down again to the question of the resurrection. It all boils down to the origin of these stories and if they are actually depicting an accurate history. That is all science and evidence can get you closer to understanding. NOT the nature of god. What you need to figure out is if these authors were being honest, and are these stories original stories or just a revised version of mythology. Why do you believe that they are true, accurate, and original stories about a real person named Jesus? Is my question to you. In the other post you said "I'm convinced". Cool. Then tell me how you're convinced. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
It seems that I'm more of a believer than you are, then. I certainly don't need the resurrection to find value in the New Testament.
...the one ting that it is clear that it all hangs on is the bodily resurrection of Jesus. GDR writes:
Once again, there is a vast difference between a historical event such as the Battle of Hastings, with multiple lines of evidence, including physical evidence, and the hearsay stories in the Bible which rest on nothing but belief.
There are any number of historical events that can't be proven as fact. but we believe them. GDR writes:
If something cannot be confirmed, tested, etc. it isn't "factually correct". It may happen to coincide with the facts; it may eventually be confirmed to be a fact but until it is confirmed it isn't really a fact.
Beliefs can be factual correct even if they can't be proven. GDR writes:
I have a book that purports to be the real biography of James Bond. There is no indication whatsoever that it's fiction. Is that any reason to believe that James Bond is real? Is there any reason why somebody couldn't base their understanding of life on it?
There was never any claim that Robinson Crusoe was anything but fiction and nobody ever based their understanding of life on it. GDR writes:
I didn't ask you what you think the essense of Genesis is. This is what I asked you:
I would say that the essence of Genesis is that we are created beings and that there is a standard of behaviour that we should adhere to.quote:I'm asking why you cherry-pick one fictional acount to believe and reject the others. GDR writes:
Easy. Go to a cemetery and wait three days after a funeral. You can verify statistically the worldwide rate of resurrection the same way you can verify the worldwide population of fairies.
How is resurrection verifiabl? GDR writes:
So you have eyewitnesses in the New Testament who agree that they thought Jesus was dead and then they thought they saw him alive. The problem with eyewitnesses is that they tell you what they thought they saw, not what actually happened.
Why are eyewitness accounts the least reliable. Sure you can have people argue about the details of an accident but they will all agree that an accident happened.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
onifre writes:
Just what political or military support did early Christians get in the first hundred years after the resurrection?
Yes, and this point is wrong since they have had both military support and political power. onifre writes: Whether or not God exists our idea of the nature of God has evolved over time. I’m not saying that this in any way proves the existence of God, but I am saying that on the assumption that God does exist it is consistent with the belief that God does connect with us in some way through our hearts, minds and imaginations.
Our stories of supernatural beings and metaphysical worlds have evolved over time - nothing in these stories indicates an "understanding" of anything. If anything it's actually more of a misunderstanding of the natural world. onifre writes: And you know god spoke to them how? How do you know that to be true? I don’t know, but as I just said that if we start with the assumption that God exists then what I said seems consistent with human history. We have gone from gods battling it out in the heavens to a God that is loving and just.
onifre writes: I don't know what this means. I asked how can you be sure the stories of Jesus are true and accurately depicted in the Bible.Your answer is "I'm conviced they are" - Ok, how are you convinced? I covered all that in the OP.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
onifre writes: Of course it is evidence. Various writers have written their accounts of what they purport to be historical events. We can come to our own conclusions about the accuracy of those accounts. Actually the accounts are very consistent with the history of that time from a geo-political point of view.
Evidence of what exactly? It's just a bunch of stories, mostly inaccurate about even the history of that time. So what can it possibly be evidence of? GDR writes: The fact that you and I exist and that we can have this conversation is evidence.onifre writes: Evidence of what? Frankly you're starting to not make sense. You and I exist and we have an intelligence etc. There is some reason that we exist whether it is by natural or other causes. It is evidence that something happened that resulted in us existing. We can ignore the question or we can do our best to answer it.
onifre writes: You've not presented any evidence. I hope you don't think you have. The Bible is not evidence of god, it is eviden ce that someone/people wrote a book. That is all. And as I have shown you in this thread, the Bible stories are not unique and have their origin in Greek and Egyptian mythology. Of course the Bible is evidence. It isn’t conclusive but the authors had a point that they were trying to make and we can accept or reject all or part of the writing. The fact that other cultures have similar stories IMHO only supports my contention of how our understanding of God is evolving.
onifre writes: Impossible, since none of you have ever seen or heard from god. You are all coming up with your own concepts of god which is the equivalent of throwing paint on a canvas repeatedly and saying you're getting closer to painting the Mona Lisa. I’ll requote from the OP what the non-theistic materialist Robert Wright writes. quote: I agree that there is no empirical evidence that confirms the existence of God, just as there is no empirical evidence that there is no god or gods. As to whether or not that we have actually heard from God is open to question as well. If our conscience gives us pause, is it God speaking to us? I don’t know but from our perspective we have no way of knowing if the thoughts from what we call our conscience are being externally influenced.
onifre writes: What this proves is that e ach of you has chosen a different point of view that other people have come up with to put your faith into. God has nothing to do with this personal choice that you and Faith have made. How do you know whether or not God had anything to do with our personal choice? That is your opinion. As far as Faith and I holding different views on the nature of God, I find that completely consistent with a god who gives us freedom of thought and belief.
onifre writes: It all boils down to the origin of these stories and if they are actually depicting an accurate history. That is all science and evidence can get you closer to understanding. NOT the nature of god. I agree with the first part, but if the stories are accurate then we can learn about the nature of God.
onifre writes: What you need to figure out is if these authors were being honest, and are these stories original stories or just a revised version of mythology. The stories are written in such a way that I think it is reasonable to believe that they were being honest in what they wrote. The question in my view is whether or not they got it right. There are some contradictions particularly around timing and locality of events so we know it isn’t 100% accurate, but in my view that only adds to their credibility concerning the primary points they were making. If this was all being fabricated there would have been collusion in the making sure the accounts were all in agreement.
onifre writes: Why do you believe that they are true, accurate, and original stories about a real person named Jesus? Is my question to you.In the other post you said "I'm convinced". Cool. Then tell me how you're convinced. As I mentioned in my last post I did go through this in the OP, but I’ll try going a little further. I’ll start of by quoting C S Lewis. quote: I know that you will discount this but at some level it speaks to me. I could simply say that it is faith but then that is very weak answer IMHO. I started out from my agnostic position pretty tentatively, and frankly I was largely influenced by Lewis’ Mere Christianity. In a lot of ways I was influenced by Lewis’ intellect as much as his arguments which was enough to get me started going to church and learning more. As the years progressed Christianity became more and more part of my life and now that quote from C S Lewis that I just used became more meaningful for me. I realize that it is very difficult for someone like yourself to give any credibility to the fact that my Christian beliefs just make so much sense of the world that I experience, but the fact is in my opinion they do. Also I do believe that I have been guided by something outside myself in this life. I talked about this in Message 9. I have read literally hundreds of books from Dawkins to Lewis to NT Wright to fundamentalists. I have gone through the Qur’an and the Book of Buddha. I am simply searching for truth and I believe that I have found it while recognizing that I have no doubt that some things I believe are not accurate. I am influenced by those who write about science whether they are secular or not with the understanding that I can only grasp the most basic of concepts. I do however view science as a sort of theological endeavour as we strive to understand the world that we have been given. I’m not sure I can do any better.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1
|
ringo writes:
Welcome to the fold Brother. The difference is though that without the resurrection the words of Jesus are no more authoritative than Buddha or Mahatma Gandhi. Actually if the resurrection didn't happen I would give more credence to Gandhi as he is more current.
It seems that I'm more of a believer than you are, then. I certainly don't need the resurrection to find value in the New Testament. ringo writes: Once again, there is a vast difference between a historical event such as the Battle of Hastings, with multiple lines of evidence, including physical evidence, and the hearsay stories in the Bible which rest on nothing but belief. While let’s compare it with the accounts of the life of Judas Maccabeus. He lived close to 200 years before Jesus. We have historical accounts of his life that we can reject or accept. Actually the accounts of his life seem somewhat suspect as they the accounts make him out to be heroic. The accounts of Jesus having Him sweating blood in fear and have the disciples consistently misunderstanding the message and even deserting Him at the end.
ringo writes: Of course that isn’t true. Just because we don’t know something to be factual doesn’t mean that it isn’t. It is a fact that the world was round before anybody ever figured it out.
If something cannot be confirmed, tested, etc. it isn't "factually correct". It may happen to coincide with the facts; it may eventually be confirmed to be a fact but until it is confirmed it isn't really a fact. ringo writes: I have a book that purports to be the real biography of James Bond. There is no indication whatsoever that it's fiction. Is that any reason to believe that James Bond is real? Is there any reason why somebody couldn't base thei r understanding of life on it? The NT is written by various authors who obviously intended it as non-fiction. Certainly authors of fiction don’t start out by saying they are writing fiction; it is understood. The disciples, Paul and others obviously based their world view and understanding of life from the life of Jesus and their understanding of how Jesus was related to the Hebrew Scriptures. I believe that they were right in that and so I essentially come to the same conclusions.
ringo writes: I'm asking why you cherry-pick one fictional acount to believe and reject the others. I believe that the accounts should be read in light of how the author intended while keeping in mind the cultural context.
GDR writes: How is resurrection verif iabl?ringo writes: Easy. Go to a cemetery and wait three days after a funeral. You can verify statistically the worldwide rate of resurrection the same way you can verify the worldwide population of fairies. The whole point of the resurrection account is that it was unique.
ringo writes: So you have eyewitnesses in the New Testament who agree that they thought Jesus was dead and then they thought they saw him alive. The problem with eyewitnesses is that they tell you what they thought they saw, not what actually happened. As I've said before when you have witnesses to an accident they will disagree on details but they will all agree that an accident happened. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Just one other thought on this. Paul was a Pharisee and that was still a large part of what he was. What terrible slander of the Apostle Paul who was THE preacher against the doctrines of the Pharisees, against their insistence on the Law as necessary to salvation. Scripture strongly disagrees with you about Paul.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
Just what political or military support did early Christians get in the first hundred years after the resurrection? Here's the deal, there was no Chrisitian "church" the first one hundred years. You said the church before. The first church was the RCC that DID have political and military support from the government. After that the "word" was spread with the sword. However, within those first one hundred years there was no real rise of Christianity, just a lot of confusion and fighting.
Whether or not God exists our idea of the nature of God has evolved over time. You're switching words a lot. First with the "church" issue, now here. You first said our understanding of god before. To that statement, I say again, you don't understand the nature of god more now than anyone in the past. Let's make that clear since that was your first position. But fine, now you want to use the word "idea". Well here still, no it hasn't evolved. The stories are different but it's still the same idea - an invisible entity created everything and in some cases speaks to humans.
but I am saying that on the assumption that God does exist it is consistent with the belief that God does connect with us in some way through our hearts, minds and imaginations. This is as meaningless as saying all of that about unicorns.
I covered all that in the OP. As much as you think you did, you didn't. So I'll ask again, how are you convinced the stories of Jesus are true and accurately depicted in the Bible? - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
Of course it is evidence. Various writers have written their accounts of what they purport to be historical events. We can come to our own conclusions about the accuracy of those accounts. Like I said, it is evidence that some people wrote some stories. But then again, that is what a book is.
Actually the accounts are very consistent with the history of that time from a geo-political point of view. Evidence please...
You and I exist and we have an intelligence etc. There is some reason that we exist whether it is by natural or other causes. It is evidence that something happened that resulted in us existing. We can ignore the question or we can do our best to answer it. Reproduction happened. All the way back to single cell organisms. That is the history of biological life. What else do you think happened?
The fact that other cultures have similar stories IMHO only supports my contention of how our understanding of God is evolving. Since no one is using any actual evidence, just simply writing stories, and not even original ones, nothing about the understanding of a god has evolved. You know as much now about god as anyone that has ever lived. Which is to say you know nothing other than what books with imaginative writers has yeilded.
I agree that there is no empirical evidence that confirms the existence of God, just as there is no empirical evidence that there is no god or gods. That's not the way it works. You can't just imagine a concept then ask me to disprove it. That is dishonest. If I imagine a pink unicorn how shitty of me would it be to then turn to you and ask you to disprove it?
If our conscience gives us pause, is it God speaking to us? No, because first you need to prove there is a god. Otherwise, why is it not the pink unicorn speaking to you? Or some other purely imagined thing? You must prove your premise first before you start to assign it abilities and attributes, like being able to speak to us.
How do you know whether or not God had anything to do with our personal choice? That is your opinion.
How do you know it's not the pink unicorn? The reason I know is because there is no evidence for god. Therefore anything you want to say god did or does is a moot point. You haven't shown how the premise is true. We can't move forward beyond that point until someone does.
The stories are written in such a way that I think it is reasonable to believe that they were being honest in what they wrote. In what way? How is it reasonable to think they were being honest when their stories resemble and mimic the same stories in Greek and Egyptian mythology? There is no historical accounts at the time from a separate source of Jesus, his death, or the Romans punishing him. We have no real evidence for there being a person named Jesus outside of the Bible and the four Gospels, which, didn't actually become a collective book until 150 years after his supposed death. Original authors are dead, and what's left who really knows what was true or made up. Then you look at Egyptian mythology and you see the same stories of death and being brought back to life and of the "Son of God" - all used by the Bible in their stories. This is all suspect. How one can put faith on that is beyond me.
I know that you will discount this but at some level it speaks to me. I could simply say that it is faith but then that is very weak answer IMHO. I agree it is. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Faith writes: What terrible slander of the Apostle Paul who was THE preacher against the doctrines of the Pharisees, against their insistence on the Law as necessary to salvation. Scripture strongly disagrees with you about Paul. Did you even read what I said in that relatively short post? I explained how Paul adapted his beliefs as a Pharisee to conform to what Jesus taught, and it is very Scriptural. Read Isaiah 41 as one example. In that Chapter Isaiah talks of how God will raise up Israel and subdue its enemies. Paul says that it isn't just Israel that is being raised up but it is for the world. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
GDR writes:
So would I. The message is more important than the messenger.
The difference is though that without the resurrection the words of Jesus are no more authoritative than Buddha or Mahatma Gandhi. Actually if the resurrection didn't happen I would give more credence to Gandhi as he is more current. GDR writes:
The disciples misunderstood the message because they put too much emphasis on the messenger. If they had internalized the message properly, deserting the messenger would have been irrelevant. You're taking the disciples' desertion as a sign of authenticity when you should be taking it as a sign that the messenger isn't the theme of the story.
The accounts of Jesus having Him sweating blood in fear and have the disciples consistently misunderstanding the message and even deserting Him at the end. GDR writes:
But knowledge isn't knowledge until we know it. Until we know something is "factually correct", it isn't. It is hypothetical and may be correct or not.
Just because we don’t know something to be factual doesn’t mean that it isn’t. It is a fact that the world was round before anybody ever figured it out. GDR writes:
That isn't obvious at all.
The NT is written by various authors who obviously intended it as non-fiction. GDR writes:
As I already mentioned, with reference to The Last Temptation of Christ, Paul's actions work equally well whether Jesus existed or not.
The disciples, Paul and others obviously based their world view and understanding of life from the life of Jesus and their understanding of how Jesus was related to the Hebrew Scriptures. GDR writes:
But you don't know their intentions.
I believe that the accounts should be read in light of how the author intended while keeping in mind the cultural context. GDR writes:
You asked how resurrection is verifiable and I told you. If you're just going to dismiss verification, you might as well dismiss it for evolution too.
The whole point of the resurrection account is that it was unique. GDR writes:
They agree that it looked like an accident. The gospel writers agreed that it looked like Jesus was dead and then later it looked like he was alive. Eyewitnesses are unreliable not only because they disagree on details but also because they jump to conclusions. And people living in a similar cultural context are likely to jump to similar conclusions.
As I've said before when you have witnesses to an accident they will disagree on details but they will all agree that an accident happened.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
onifre writes: Here's the deal, there was no Chrisitian "church" the first one hundred years. You said the church before. The first church was the RCC that DID have political and military support from the government. After that the "word" was spread with the sword. However, within those first one hundred years there was no real rise of Christianity, just a lot of confusion and fighting. This is from this wiki site quote: onifre writes: You're switching words a lot. First with the "church" issue, now here. You first said our understanding of god before. To that statement, I say again, you don't understand the nature of god more now than anyone in the past. Let's make that clear since that was your first position. Compare the western understanding of God to the ancient Romans. Our understanding of the nature of God has evolved. I can't prove it isn't just a result of societal influences but if God does exist our understanding of His nature has changed.
onifre writes: As much as you think you did, you didn't. So I'll ask again, how are you convinced the stories of Jesus are true and accurately depicted in the Bible? I've answered that but obviously not to your satisfaction. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
onifre writes: Like I said, it is evidence that some people wrote some stories. But then again, that is what a book is. Sure but it is obvious IMHO that the stories are meant to be believed and that the authors themselves believed the stories. Obviously I can't prove that as I can't with any ancient historical account. You don't accept that so we are at an impasse.
GDR writes: Actually the accounts are very consistent with the history of that time from a geo-political point of view.onifre writes: Evidence please... It was obvious throughout the Gospels that much of what Jesus taught was in the context of the Roman occupation. Much of his message was the idea that those who live by the sword die by the sword which would be aimed at the revolutionaries. He reached out to tax collectors who were collaborators with the Romans. He dealt with the issue of the divisions with the Samaritans. Those are some examples off the top of my head.
onifre writes: Reproduction happened. All the way back to single cell organisms. That is the history of biological life. What else do you think happened? Sure but so what. The question remains as to whether or not this all came about from non-intelligent or intelligent origins.
onifre writes: That's not the way it works. You can't just imagine a concept then ask me to disprove it. That is dishonest. If I imagine a pink unicorn how shitty of me would it be to then turn to you and ask you to disprove it?No, because first you need to prove there is a god. Otherwise, why is it not the pink unicorn speaking to you? Or some other purely imagined thing? You must prove your premise first before you start to assign it abilities and attributes, like being able to speak to us.
I agree that I can't prove it but I do believe it. How I am to prove the accuracy of historical accounts written nearly 2000 years ago? For that matter the whole idea of a God that gives us the free will to aspire to a life based on the golden rule without thought of reward requires that there is no proof. It is faith.
onifre writes: In what way? How is it reasonable to think they were being honest when their stories resemble and mimic the same stories in Greek and Egyptian mythology? Ancient mythologies used the term resurrection but it meant something quite different than what the authors of the Gospels wrote.
onifre writes: There is no historical accounts at the time from a separate source of Jesus, his death, or the Romans punishing him. We have no real evidence for there being a person named Jesus outside of the Bible and the four Gospels, which, didn't actually become a collective book until 150 years after his supposed death. Original authors are dead, and what's left who really knows what was true or made up. As you point out there are 4 accounts of the resurrection and then you also have Paul who was a contemporary of the disciples and other followers of Jesus. In terms of who really knows I have to say nobody knows in the empirical sense. There are millions who believe the stories are essentially accurate. At the time the term "Son of God" was used by early followers as a repudiation of Rome. This is from this wiki site quote: The early Christians were essentially saying that Jesus is King and Caesar isn't. The term Son of God in the Jewish tradition was essentially a messianic term but the early Christians fairly quickly started using it as a term to denote the deity of Christ.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Here's the deal, there was no Chrisitian "church" the first one hundred years. That is not true. Wherever the gospel went, churches were formed, usually in people's houses. The Church is the body of believers, where they meet is incidental. Jesus addressed seven churches in the first chapters of the Book of Revelation, all of them in Asia Minor, Revelation considered by conservative scholars to have been written around 90 AD. There were more than seven churches in Asia Minor at the time, and many hundreds spread elsewhere in the Middle East and Mediterranean area.
However, within those first one hundred years there was no real rise of Christianity, just a lot of confusion and fighting. Where are you getting this idea? What confusion? What fighting?There was a rapid spread of Christianity in that period and in fact the first few hundred years, despite the persecutions of believers by both the Jews and the Roman pagans.
You said the church before. The first church was the RCC that DID have political and military support from the government. That is RCC propaganda and it's not the truth. There were hundreds, even thousands of churches in the first few hundred years that had nothing to do with Rome, and some of those churches continued down the centuries refusing to have anything to do with Rome. There were also regional Bishops, the Bishop of Rome being only one of half a dozen or so. The RCC as such did not get going at least until Constantine in the fourth century, which then did have political and military support as you say, though even that didn't really get going until hundreds of years later. But many put the beginning of the RCC as such later, in 606 AD when the papacy was officially established. But again, although Rome tried to bring all the churches under its wing, many refused.
After that the "word" was spread with the sword. Sometimes, not always. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024