The C.C.O.I. (Christian Cult Of Ignorance) and Willful Ignorance

This is a red herring and I have no doubt that Julius Caesar lived with a high degree of certainty. However, the Bible is not one source. There are several authors talking about Jesus in several books that are collected together. In addition as Luke says in his Gospel the Gospels themselves come from a variety of sources. However, I agree we can't know that Jesus existed just as we can't know he didn't. There is no evidence to show that He didn't. (I know you can't prove a negative.) You tell me. You asked the question.Edited by GDR, : typo

That is only partially true. Christianity was based on the belief that the resurrection was a fact.I know you've read this before but here is what Paul wrote in his first letter to the Corinthians Chap 15.

quote:

---

14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. 20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.

---

This is not proof that Paul was correct but it is clear this is what he believed. Paul and the others preached a resurrected Jesus. That is the foundation of the Christian faith. ..as is the case with atheism. You hold to a Christian philosophy which is great but with no more reason to hold that philosophy than to any other philosopher that you want to name. And for that matter, as I said earlier, it makes less sense to believe what Jesus said when you consider that Jesus without the resurrection is just another failed messiah with visions of grandeur. Frankly this just demonstrates again how weak your position is. These authors were all clear they were writing fiction. Paul and the other NT authors were very clear that what they wrote they intended to be believed.Luke introduces his Gospel with this.

quote:

---

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

---

None of this proof of the resurrection. In the end we choose to believe or not to believe, but the resurrection is the central element of the Christian faith and to reject it is to reject that faith.I am not saying that rejecting that faith damns anyone to hell. I think that is also consistent with what Jesus, Paul and the others taught, but that is another topic.

Of course and I like all Christians I'm sure will find that some of the things we believe turn out to be wrong. (In the next life I'm going to all the lectures. ) If it is just a sense of some sort of presence that isn't in some sense physical then that it is all empty rhetoric. I have a friend who lost a son and sensed his presence at the foot of her bed. There are no shortage of people with experiences such as that.If those 1st century Jews didn't touch Him, speak to Him etc after the resurrection then the whole Christian faith is a sham and not worth following. One is better to look elsewhere to find a moral foundation for their lives. If I didn't believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus then I wouldn't call myself Christian. (I know many do and that's fine - people can call themselves whatever they like). I suppose I'd simply call myself a theist with no fixed address. Jesus, in spite of what Crossan says saw Himself as the Messiah. (Being Messiah in itself does not in any way make Him divine. There are other ways to come to that.) Simply riding into Jerusalem on a donkey demonstrates clearly that He saw Himself fulfilling the prophecy of Jeremiah and proclaiming Himself as the Messiah. Belief in what?

I know you like to use the word club in a pejorative manner that doesn't actually lend credence to your argument.I'm simply agreeing with Paul that without the resurrection then as Christ followers we are misguided and it is all a wast of time.That does not mean that when Jesus taught that we are to love our enemies etc that it isn't a good idea. It simply means that there is less reason to consider it valid because Jesus said it then when someone else like Gandhi says it.

You are putting your own spin on what I said. I was simply pointing out again that if Jesus wasn't resurrected then there is no good reason to follow what it was He said, just because He said it. That doesn't mean that what He said was wrong but it does mean that you are putting a lot of faith in someone who was delusional. In many ways it doesn't. IMHO God is far more concerned about whether our hearts love unselfishly or not but that isn't the point. I agree that it is a good thing to follow the idea that we should love God and neighbour. However if we believe that to be the case but reject the physical resurrection, then it again is Christian philosophy it is not Christianity the religion.Even at that though, those beliefs aren't at all confined to Christianity. The Rotary Club believes in those thing as well. Wouldn't it be better to go to Rotary rather than church. It is far more cost effective....no clergy, no buildings etc. From the perspective that you seem to espouse the church is just another social club. That doesn't mean that it is a bad thing.

I understand that completely Phat. However, I'm only pointing out that view is a philosophy and not a religion, and that without Jesus and the resurrection there is nothing other than personal philosophical beliefs that make Christian philosophy and more valid than any other philosophy, and for the reasons that I stated even less so.

It would depend on the credibility of that someone. That's great, but there are millions of people who believe those things as well that don't call themselves Christian. I have already answered this several times but I'll try again.Case 1. Jesus was Jesus resurrected. If God resurrected Jesus the we can safely assume that God has validated Jesus' life and teachings. This gives Jesus ultimate credibility.Case 2. Jesus died and there is no physical resurrection. Jesus has no more credibility than any other philosopher, prophet or theologian. I also go further and say He has less due to the delusional claims He made about Himself.I have shown you that the early Christians believed that Jesus was physically resurrected and have quoted Paul who says that if it isn't true then people like myself are to be pitied.All of Christianity hangs on the physical resurrection of Jesus. Yes, it is entirely possible that one can adhere to the all encompassing command to love our neighbour but anyone Christian or not can do that. Ultimately what God wants IMHO is to live by the verse that I use in my signature. How we come to that is our choice. However, if Jesus was physically resurrected then God has validated Jesus' life and teaching. Jesus claimed that He was initiating the Kingdom. This Kingdom was to be made up of those who followed Him and His message of what God was doing and will do for the world and what part we are to play in it that ongoing narrative. God through Jesus is calling on us to follow Jesus, who embodied God's Word and wisdom to bring truth, love, forgiveness, mercy, justice etc. to the world.Once again though, I am not saying that those qualities cannot be present in non-Christians. Exactly. It is a cultural thing with you. You believe that we should be good. That is different than believing that God specifically involved Himself in the world in the life and resurrection of Jesus. Yes. They are two different things. That can be true as well. With my minimal understanding of Buddhism I think that is a case where the two coincide but then that is what Buddhism teaches. The Abrahamic religions do not do that. They talk about a God who has specifically intervened in human history.Here is the definition of philosophy.

quote:

---

the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.

---

Philosophy has nothing to do with any deity. You appear to hold the view that there is a god and that he wants us to be good. You grew up in a Christian culture and so it is from that that you have taken on what it means to be good. You believe in Christian philosophy without believing in the Christian religion.Once again, this is not a heaven or hell thing, it is simply a matter of defining our terms and defining what it means to be a Christian.

I have no problem with you calling yourself a Christian, but as you said earlier you are a Christian as that is the environment you grew up in. It is your culture.Can you tell me what you believe that any theist couldn't believe? What is it that you believe for example that a moderate Jew, Muslim or Buddhist couldn't believe?As near as I can tell you believe that a god exists and that he is good. You also believe in life after death. Is that incorrect? I believe in the resurrection and I agree that it is a belief. Who else but God do you think could resurrect Jesus, and seeing as how there only appears to be one resurrection, (not resuscitation ), in human history then it seems clear that God is validating Jesus' message. Just maybe he was fanatically right. Sure, but once again all sorts of beliefs endorse the Golden Rule which is essentially what we are talking about. That's a throwaway line that is meaningless.

Then the only think that makes you specifically a Christian is your claim that you are one. This is a total red herring and not germane to the conversation, however being raised from the dead as in Lazurus etc is not the same as being dead and raised in a renewed bodily form that isn't subject to deeath in the future.If you want to consider the Jesus' resurrection as being a parallel to Osiri etc I really have to wonder why you would want to even call yourself Christian. We can find like thinking people of all persuasions. I believe you are part of the Episcopalian church.Here is a quote from the Archbishop of Canterbury who is the head of the church that you are a part of.

quote:

---

It is, in the end, Jesus Christ, crucified and risen, whom we serve. And our long term is assured, and our experience of the faithfulness of God certain, if, to use a phrase of Tony Baron’s, a psychologist and theologian in California, we are the people of the towel and the cross, not of the sword and the shield.

---

So your beliefs are actually outside the beliefs of the church to which you belong, which isn't saying that there aren't others that agree with you. Of course our cultures impact our beliefs. I'm just saying that your culture has brought you to a belief that can be found in virtually all religions which begs the question of what makes you specifically Christian.Actually, if you don't believe in a resurrected Jesus, and you think that if He existed at all that He was a prophet or Jewish philosopher then why don't you consider yourself Jewish. That is essentially what a Jew would believe. Which of course leaves you free to be critical of everyone else's beliefs and nothing of your own to defend.

I know that you are a great guy and have done great things. I have no problem with you calling yourself a Christian. I am only saying that you are a philosophical or cultural Christian as opposed to one who holds to the basic creeds of the faith. How do you do with the 39 articles of faith of our church such as:

quote:

---

Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of Man’s nature; wherewith he ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all Men at the last day.

---

Well, I'll leave it to others to decide whether anyone that believes that it doesn't even matter whether Jesus existed or not is actually an adherent of the Christian faith.I'm a member of the equivalent of your church in Canada, (the Anglican Church of Canada), and your views are totally incompatible with the most fundamental elements of our church and faith.

What has when they were written got to do with anything? You agree that you don't believe anything that any theist of any faith, or for that matter an agnostic, couldn't agree with. You reject the fundamentals of the specific church you belong to as well as the Christian faith in general. Just because you claim it to be wrong doesn't make it so. I have not agreed that the Bible is the only record of the life of Jesus. There is Josephus and Tacitus and Tacitus talks about the crucifixion of Jesus. However that isn't the point.Christianity is about believing those things to be historically true. If they aren't true then Christianity is a sham and you seem to think that it is just fine to base one's life on something that is totally fictitious.If I didn't believe that Jesus lived and was resurrected by God then I certainly wouldn't call myself a Christian.

Well, you've changed the subject again, but I contend that truth matters. If Jesus wasn't resurrected then maybe the Islamic suicide bombers understand God better than we do.Sure you can say that my beliefs aren't going to hurt anybody and might even do some good, but it would still mean that my whole life is based on a lie, and you seem to think that is still a good thing.If Jesus doesn't matter then why waste your time and money on ministers and church buildings with all of the maintenance that goes with it. Why not spend your time and money as part of a good service club? It sure appears to me to be far more efficient.The whole Christian faith is based on the idea that God perfectly revealed His nature in the one man Jesus and then confirmed that life and message in His resurrection. Christian theology is based on determining how we are to understand the message with the first theologian being Paul. It is the acceptance of that that makes one an adherent of the Christian faith.Certainly one can accept the concept of love and peace that we read about in the Gospels without believing but then anyone can take that concept on board from many other sources. If you live in Saudi with your beliefs you could just as easily call yourself a Muslim.

Hi AZPaul3I think that you actually presented jar's POV better than mine. I agree that we can't KNOW the truth of the resurrection in empirical terms.I agree that it is a matter of faith and that ultimately what we do in this life is what matters. (I would add the caveat that it isn't strictly what we do but what it is that motivates us to do what we do. ) I applaud jar for all those things that he has done.My point is simply this. Jar agrees that the beliefs he holds could be held by any of the Abrahamic religions, (as well as others) and if he had been born in Saudi that he would hold exactly the same views he does now and would in all probability be a Muslim.His beliefs then are essentially that of a generic theist and not specifically Christianity. I'm simply showing that there is a difference between calling oneself a Christian on the basis of culture as opposed to calling oneself a Christian on the conviction that God did something extraordinary in Jesus Christ which vindicates and validates Jesus' life and message.

I Muslim or a Jew could pray that. However I agree that that is one of the more meaningful parts of the liturgy along with asking forgiveness for "what I have done and for what I have left undone".I suggest that motivation does matter from a Christian perspective and that is clear in the Gospels. If I am going to serve in the food bank I think it matters ultimately whether I am doing it so that I will look good to others or am I doing it out of simple love and compassion for others. It may not matter to the homeless person that is being fed, but I suggest that it matters to God because of us His love for us and for His desire that our hearts love unselfishly.When you look at Matthew 25 and the sheep and the goats parable the sheep didn't know they were feeding the hungry etc for/to Jesus. They just did it because that is what their heart told them they should do.

It isn't and I never claimed it was. You just said that you disagreed with the concept so I gave my answer to what you disagreed with.