Public resistance to church...why?

[Lstinthwrld]

I said "generally speaking". Obviously, Christians didn't start the war in Iraq.

Depends on if you ask a muslim their point of view.

[MrsAri]

Depends on if you ask a muslim their point of view.

It depends upon whether or not you ask an extremist Muslim.

[prisonchaplain]

Where other than the bible is this documentation?

Where, other than the Bible, is documentation for the sayings of Jesus??? The question does not even make sense. Four different authors write directly about them (there's four books, not one). The Apostle Paul, the writer of Hebrews, John the revelator all discuss his teachings. There's 7 different authors. I'm sure that you're aware that Josephus makes mention of him.

There's little question as to Jesus' historic existence. That said, how many great religious teachers have more than a half-dozen, mostly independent sources writing down either their words, deeds, or commentary on such?

None of what I say PROVES John was accurate, but your dismissal of his writing as fraudalent and largely disregarded hardly comports with my understanding of academia's take on him.

[Lstinthwrld]

Are you asking because you honestly want to know, Lst? If so, I can point you to several non-canonical writings that talk of the founding fathers of the church.

The Bible is not one writing, but several writings by several different authors. There are more writings on the bible and biblical times, more writings of Jesus than of George Washington.

I can point you to the earliest works in the Patrologia Latina that show people who met the Apostles and can testify that the apostles died defending their belief in Christ.

You can say that the Apostles were mistaken in their belief, but to claim that they didn't believe or didn't exist would be to call in to claim mountains of historical figures. To claim they were inveterate liars would be to claim con men are willing to die for their con.

How many people dispute the presence of Hammurabi? How many contemporaries and writings of Hammurabi do we have? What about of Pliny the Elder? How many historians dispute his existence?

If you are looking for evidence - More evidence than almost any other historical person - I can provide that. I can give you reason enough to believe if you choose to. If, however, you are determined to follow your own course, all the mountains of evidence there are could not convince you.

I want to know where other than the bible preferably a year 0 to year 50 text that says jesus said x y and z.

I can write a book now and base it on questionable texts from the 3rd and 4th centuries and write well enough to be accepted by christianity. Doesn't mean its true just based on popular hearsay.

None of the literature or scripture or whatever was written or based on any of jesus' peers or even anyone who was alive when these events took place.

[prisonchaplain]

Secular humanists have killed over 100 million people, often within their own lands, in the past century alone. Additionally, many evil non-religious leaders have indeed used religious rhetoric to rally support for their malicious agendas. In most ways religion itself is neutral. It can inspire good people to greatness, and wicked people to great wickedness. Consider well though that "religion" should not be equated with the authentic promptings of God.

[prisonchaplain]

I want to know where other than the bible preferably a year 0 to year 50 text that says jesus said x y and z.

I can write a book now and base it on questionable texts from the 3rd and 4th centuries and write well enough to be accepted by christianity. Doesn't mean its true just based on popular hearsay.

None of the literature or scripture or whatever was written or based on any of jesus' peers or even anyone who was alive when these events took place.

It's my understanding that Mark was written in the late 40s, and Matthew and Luke within a couple decades of them. John's writings were a bit later, perhaps as late as the 90s. Considering that Jesus died in roughly 33AD (some say 29), I'd suggest the timing of the writing is not so distant at all for the gospels--especially if they really were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

[Lstinthwrld]

Where, other than the Bible, is documentation for the sayings of Jesus??? The question does not even make sense. Four different authors write directly about them (there's four books, not one). The Apostle Paul, the writer of Hebrews, John the revelator all discuss his teachings. There's 7 different authors. I'm sure that you're aware that Josephus makes mention of him.

There's little question as to Jesus' historic existence. That said, how many great religious teachers have more than a half-dozen, mostly independent sources writing down either their words, deeds, or commentary on such?

None of what I say PROVES John was accurate, but your dismissal of his writing as fraudalent and largely disregarded hardly comports with my understanding of academia's take on him.

Academia's take on 'him' is that the gospel wasn't even written until 100 ad. So at this point we have a man around 150 or so years old writing a religious manuscript. At that age I might be able to write some pretty fantastic stuff to. I have Josephus' complete works in hand please provide me with a page #. The authors of the new testament were writing in proxy for and were not even alive when Jesus was. That is academic understanding. And to use the four gospels as a pseudo proof is shaky they don't even agree with each other and there is mush research and study that shows we don't even have the new testament as it was written when it was written. Blind faith without understanding what you are having faith in is ignorance.

[Hemidakota]

I have seen enough atrocities committed in the name of 'god' and people justifying themselves by 'god' in all senses and branches of the judeo-christian tradition that I believe this stance to be a wrong ego driven one. You keep hiding from those 'worldly' scholars maybe when it all comes down to it you find yourself on the wrong side of the fence. When was the last time you saw or heard of a Buddhist start a war or kill some one or perform even the slightest violence against someone for not believing as they do?

The problem here is your assumption. I don't have to assume when we have the opportunity now to know our standing before our own Creator. Now, who is on the wrong side of the fence here? Do you actually know where Buddha or his followers are at this time? No offense to any labeled individual you had posted earlier, I can tell you without assumption or speculation, without completing what GOD or the Savior have stated since Adam time, by not completing those prescribed to the necessary ordinances, which governs the only entrance criteria for GOD's highest kingdom, none of these men will ever achieve be allowed in that state but remain outside until it is complete. Not even a scholar will dare to enter the gates or pass through portals where GOD presides without completing the said eternal ordinances.

Now, I only know of those are true followers of Christ, which are called the members of the Church of the Firstborn, whether in the scriptures they are called Saints, Christians, followers of the Master or what ever the label given by the culture of the period, these are they whom GOD or Savior chosen out of the world. Yes! You are right when many, I do say many, in this world will claim themselves in the name of GOD, do the unthinkable atrocities in the name of deity, a piety being, or what ever name they offer up to their man made gods, I can attest, those who are the Church of the First Born do not murder. There is a greater weight of penalty awaits them, where it is considered a far worse than even Lucifer or his thugs could muster. This is the difference from those who claimed to be a believer or follower, than a true witness and follower who was chosen by GOD.

[Lstinthwrld]

It's my understanding that Mark was written in the late 40s, and Matthew and Luke within a couple decades of them. John's writings were a bit later, perhaps as late as the 90s. Considering that Jesus died in roughly 33AD (some say 29), I'd suggest the timing of the writing is not so distant at all for the gospels--especially if they really were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

I would go check those facts. And also understand the oldest copies of the old testament we have is a copy of a copy of a copy etc... at a time known for inaccuracy in the copies. And it is well documented that the new testament was a severe victim of omissions and additions and changes for one reason or another.

Also most of the four books are not even original leading to the theory of the Q source.

[Lstinthwrld]

The problem here is your assumption. I don't have to assume when we have the opportunity now to know our standing before our own Creator. Now, who is on the wrong side of the fence here? Do you actually know where Buddha or his followers are at this time? No offense to any labeled individual you had posted earlier, I can tell you without assumption or speculation, without completing what GOD or the Savior have stated since Adam time, by not completing those prescribed to the necessary ordinances, which governs the only entrance criteria for GOD's highest kingdom, none of these men will ever achieve be allowed in that state but remain outside until it is complete. Not even a scholar will dare to enter the gates or pass through portals where GOD presides without completing the said eternal ordinances.

Now, I only know of those are true followers of Christ, which are called the members of the Church of the Firstborn, whether in the scriptures they are called Saints, Christians, followers of the Master or what ever the label given by the culture of the period, these are they whom GOD or Savior chosen out of the world. Yes! You are right when many, I do say many, in this world will claim themselves in the name of GOD, do the unthinkable atrocities in the name of deity, a piety being, or what ever name they offer up to their man made gods, I can attest, those who are the Church of the First Born do not murder. There is a greater weight of penalty awaits them, where it is considered a far worse than even Lucifer or his thugs could muster. This is the difference from those who claimed to be a believer or follower, than a true witness and follower who was chosen by GOD.

Okay if you know and it is fact to you prove it.

To quote one of my favorite forum personalities here

"cant and wont"

Please do not make ignorant statements of fact that which you can only believe to be true. Truth is provable belief is....well something YOU believ

[FunkyTown]

Lst? Take a moment and think very carefully on why you're asking this. We can provide the answers you're looking for.

If you're looking for answers. If you're looking for an argument, then we certainly aren't interested and instead I will only quote Proverbs 26:4-5.

There are answers, if you want them. If you yearn for them, I will provide two links: One that will discuss the issue in some detail, the other a pay site that has dozens of dedicated scholars discussing the historicity of bible content. If you want them, I can give it.

If you don't, just read Proverbs 26:4-5 to get what every response from now on will be.

Academia's take on 'him' is that the gospel wasn't even written until 100 ad. So at this point we have a man around 150 or so years old writing a religious manuscript. At that age I might be able to write some pretty fantastic stuff to. I have Josephus' complete works in hand please provide me with a page #. The authors of the new testament were writing in proxy for and were not even alive when Jesus was. That is academic understanding. And to use the four gospels as a pseudo proof is shaky they don't even agree with each other and there is mush research and study that shows we don't even have the new testament as it was written when it was written. Blind faith without understanding what you are having faith in is ignorance.

EDIT: Put down Proverbs 24:4-5. My bad. It's late is my argument.

Edited September 15, 2009 by FunkyTown

[Lstinthwrld]

Secular humanists have killed over 100 million people, often within their own lands, in the past century alone. Additionally, many evil non-religious leaders have indeed used religious rhetoric to rally support for their malicious agendas. In most ways religion itself is neutral. It can inspire good people to greatness, and wicked people to great wickedness. Consider well though that "religion" should not be equated with the authentic promptings of God.

I agree they don't justify it hypocritically through religion in the name of so and so deity though. That is the difference. Religion has and will continue to be used as an excuse for the human condition. And until it isn't it will never be pure and there will never be just one way to heaven.

You know for a religion that is supposed to be humble christianity sure is egotistic.

[Lstinthwrld]

Lst? Take a moment and think very carefully on why you're asking this. We can provide the answers you're looking for.

If you're looking for answers. If you're looking for an argument, then we certainly aren't interested and instead I will only quote Proverbs 24:4-5.

There are answers, if you want them. If you yearn for them, I will provide two links: One that will discuss the issue in some detail, the other a pay site that has dozens of dedicated scholars discussing the historicity of bible content. If you want them, I can give it.

If you don't, just read Proverbs 24:4-5 to get what every response from now on will be.

You cannot provide answers. Period. All you can provide are your beliefs. They may be backed up by others who believe as you do but they are still your beliefs not my answers.

And that is fine and essential in ones life and development. Where I take exception is when people (read Christians Muslims whatever) state our truth is the only truth there is no other way other than my way. This is narrow minded crap. The only basis of this is flwed literature that the oldest copy we have is from around the fifth or sixth century that shows its flaws. Your belief is not everyone elses truth. Accept it and get over it. I don't have to believe like you do to exist now or after death without penalties or punishment.

[FunkyTown]

Proverbs 26:4-5.

When you state this, what you mean is that you're right and we're all wrong. That's fine, Lost. But don't ask questions to answers you know if you don't want the truth. And don't ask questions you won't accept answers to.

You cannot provide answers. Period. All you can provide are your beliefs. They may be backed up by others who believe as you do but they are still your beliefs not my answers.

And that is fine and essential in ones life and development. Where I take exception is when people (read Christians Muslims whatever) state our truth is the only truth there is no other way other than my way. This is narrow minded crap. The only basis of this is flwed literature that the oldest copy we have is from around the fifth or sixth century that shows its flaws. Your belief is not everyone elses truth. Accept it and get over it. I don't have to believe like you do to exist now or after death without penalties or punishment.

[Lstinthwrld]

Proverbs 26:4-5.

When you state this, what you mean is that you're right and we're all wrong. That's fine, Lost. But don't ask questions to answers you know if you don't want the truth. And don't ask questions you won't accept answers to.

No I don't consider my self 'right' but I don't go around telling people you have to believe like I do either. I will accept answers based on fact not personal belief. Especially since not everyone believes as you do. There are many religions that say the opposite of you and think you are not on the path of salvation for exactly the same reasons you believe you are right and they are wrong. I don't know what is right and wrong in these situations. I do know that there is not just one way to god and heaven no matter what any one may very egotistically claim.

[Moksha]

From The Oregonian review:

...he watched volunteers from Bridgetown Ministries washing the feet of the homeless on Friday nights beneath the Burnside Bridge.

"That's what I always thought Christians would look like if they really existed in nature.' "

For me, that moment in Merchant's new film, "Lord, Save Us From Your Followers," arrived in the fearsome gratitude of a guy from East Biloxi, Miss., watching construction workers tumble off the church buses in the wake of Katrina.

"This type of love I've never experienced before in my life," Peter James says. "I'm 62 years old and I've never encountered this much affection from people who don't even know me."

When Merchant and Jeff Martin began the four-year odyssey that brings us to Friday night's premiere at the Hollywood Theatre, they were appalled that sharing the Gospel is so often left to evangelical grumps who treated the love of God as a curse, not a blessing. They were puzzled why believers seemed more concerned about the war on Christmas than the war in Iraq.

[Lstinthwrld]

Scholars have hardly come to a consensus that the Gospel of john is flawed and discredited. I can't imagine how you come to such certainty, when learned professors of many faiths have dedicated their lives to the study, teaching, and even translation of the very piece of literature you so easily dismiss.

If you believe biased finding from professors of many FAITHS then yes you will get what you want to hear. Look into some of the unbiased scholarship out there. Religion IE blind faith needs bias to perpetuate itself. If you look at any religion without bias they all crumble under scrutiny. Personal belief is not universal truth no matter what spin you or a billion people like you put on it.

Edited September 15, 2009 by Lstinthwrld

[Lstinthwrld]

It depends upon whether or not you ask an extremist Muslim.

No go to your local mosjid and ask any one there and see what answer you get. It may surprise you.

[Lstinthwrld]

Where, other than the Bible, is documentation for the sayings of Jesus??? The question does not even make sense. Four different authors write directly about them (there's four books, not one). The Apostle Paul, the writer of Hebrews, John the revelator all discuss his teachings. There's 7 different authors. I'm sure that you're aware that Josephus makes mention of him.

There's little question as to Jesus' historic existence. That said, how many great religious teachers have more than a half-dozen, mostly independent sources writing down either their words, deeds, or commentary on such?

None of what I say PROVES John was accurate, but your dismissal of his writing as fraudalent and largely disregarded hardly comports with my understanding of academia's take on him.

Why does this not make sense? the bible is biased literature teaching a christian agenda. Truth and accuracy do not rely on bias or an agenda. Please explain how my request does not make sense to you.

[MrsAri]

No go to your local mosjid and ask any one there and see what answer you get. It may surprise you.

Are they intent upon destroying Christianity in America?

[prisonchaplain]

You know for a religion that is supposed to be humble christianity sure is egotistic.

We have been guilty of this, no doubt. It used to be common for preachers in my faith to give "fire and brimstone sermons." Sometimes, you might have thought that both speaker and church thought such sermons, because of their passion and descriptiveness, were exciting...dare I say fun.

I always thought such sermons should be given through tears of sadness, and a strong sense of urgency. Likewise, while I cannot back away from my certainty about the Good News, and about the dangers of neglecting it, at the same time I should have the humility to listen, to converse, to walk in others' shoes, and to keep learning. Jesus was very sure of his call, his message, and his relationship with God. But he wasn't too full of himself to ignore the poor widow's small gift, to declare forgiveness to the adulteress, and to prophesy over a divorcee.

So...apologies that too often the people of God have allowed our certainty about God to spill over into other areas of our lives. So many people who do not have my understanding of God are, nevertheless, generally smarter and more competent than I. Then again...just imagine me without God!

[prisonchaplain]

Why does this not make sense? the bible is biased literature teaching a christian agenda. Truth and accuracy do not rely on bias or an agenda. Please explain how my request does not make sense to you.

It is not that common to find writings from 2000 years ago that corroborate one another. The fact that we have four different gospels, and several other authors writing about Jesus' teachings, and about the church that grew out of Jesus' movement, is pretty impressive, again, given the time frame.

So, it doesn't make sense, because the type of validation you require of such ancient documents, is not, to my understanding, reasonable. I doubt there is any literature biblical era that could meet your standard.

[Lstinthwrld]

Are they intent upon destroying Christianity in America?

Not as a general rule no. Most of them just want to be left to believe as they will. Is christianity intent on destroying every other faith on the planet outside of christianity?

Edited September 16, 2009 by Lstinthwrld

[Lstinthwrld]

It is not that common to find writings from 2000 years ago that corroborate one another. The fact that we have four different gospels, and several other authors writing about Jesus' teachings, and about the church that grew out of Jesus' movement, is pretty impressive, again, given the time frame.

So, it doesn't make sense, because the type of validation you require of such ancient documents, is not, to my understanding, reasonable. I doubt there is any literature biblical era that could meet your standard.

I don't think saying it doesn't meet my standard or requirement is accurate. It should be the standard if you or any christian is stating this is TRUTH then it should be verifiable in by an unbiased source. The points of the bible that are verifiable are secular not religious. The rest of it is personal belief/truth and that is fine and I believe necessary.

I believe things you do not the difference is my beliefs do not require your belief. How dreary would this world be if we all believed the same thing.

Isn't there some reference to a situation like this in revelations?

My issue isn't with christian teachings in general I love Jesus Christ and his message. My issue is with the totalitarian mindset of if you don't believe like we do you are 'lost'. Conform or die.

I cannot and will not believe a man who at the core of his teaching is love would ever have perpetuated a idea as contradictory to his own teaching is as this belief.

We agree on much just not this.

[prisonchaplain]

I don't think saying it doesn't meet my standard or requirement is accurate. It should be the standard if you or any christian is stating this is TRUTH then it should be verifiable in by an unbiased source. The points of the bible that are verifiable are secular not religious. The rest of it is personal belief/truth and that is fine and I believe necessary.

Maybe I do not understand what you are asking. You seemed to want a non-biblical source to corroborate that Jesus said what the gospels have him saying. Obviously there is no such source that we know of. However, the same could be said for many aspect of more ancient history, that we, nevertheless, take is probable. The other truth is that Christians do believe that the Bible is true. So, faith and history get intertwined.

I believe things you do not the difference is my beliefs do not require your belief. How dreary would this world be if we all believed the same thing.

Well, if I'm right, then wouldn't the world be a better place if you believed what I believed? Or, even more basic, if you are right about something, or even are pretty convinced of something, if you have any concern for me at all, wouldn't you let me in on your knowledge? Would you not especially do so if I was espousing something that you knew was wrong?

My issue isn't with christian teachings in general I love Jesus Christ and his message. My issue is with the totalitarian mindset of if you don't believe like we do you are 'lost'. Conform or die.

But what if God does require us to be reconciled to Him? What if He really does expect us to worship him, "in spirit and in truth?" If so, and you knew it, I'd hope you cared enough to share.

I cannot and will not believe a man who at the core of his teaching is love would ever have perpetuated a idea as contradictory to his own teaching is as this belief.

We agree on much just not this.

I'm more concerned that you refuse to believe a teaching than that you don't. Charles Taze Russell started his religion because he refused to believe in hell. He attacked the doctrine by studying the Bible, predisposed to discredit it. What a way to approach God's word! Today, over 6 million follow his organization.

If you disagree, but seek truth, God can reveal. But if you disagree with God, and refuse to agree, then is it not rebellion?

Edited September 16, 2009 by prisonchaplain