Christian Theology Thread

[Angleter]

He is not fictional

Prove it, and I wouldn't recomend using the Bible since it has been discredited as an accurate source for historical information.

What about Josephus? Or Tacitus?

Here's a list!

[Newest Accord]

How about they just loosen up a bit and retcon christianity into saying that jesus is a bread elemental?

Does this mean he died in the toaster for our sins? And did they put St. Peter in upside down?

Damn...now I have a craving for cheesy bread. Thanks for that.

[Kyr Shorn]

Prove it, and I wouldn't recomend using the Bible since it has been discredited as an accurate source for historical information.

What about Josephus? Or Tacitus?

Here's a list!

Those were not written in Jesus's "lifetime", they were written a century or two after the fact and focused mostly on the cult that had emerged from Judaism worshiping "Jesus" as the Messiah.

Try again.

[Newest Accord]

Gee, I don't know. I've met Christians who are capable of taking jokes. Same as I've met Muslim who can do that too, not to mention those who adhere to other denominations like Pagan.

Which is why I said most people take their faith seriously, Christian or not. Most people follow blindly, most people are ignorant of what they believe, most people can't take a knock against it. I'm able to say that I am not one of those people. Who's heard a good rabbi and a priest joke lately?

Yup. Stole this from online:

A priest, a preacher and a Rabbi walked into their favorite bar, where they would get together two or three times a week for drinks and to talk shop.

On this particular afternoon, someone made the comment that preaching to people isn't really all that hard. A real challenge would be to preach to a bear.

One thing led to another and they decided to do an experiment. They would all go out into the woods, find a bear, preach to it, and attempt to convert it.

Seven days later, they're all together to discuss the experience.

Father Flannery, who has his arm in a sling, is on crutches, and has various bandages, goes first.
"Well," he says, "I went into the woods to find me a bear. And when I found him I began to read to him from the Catechism. Well, that bear wanted nothing to do with me and began to slap me around. So I quickly grabbed my holy water, sprinkled him and, Holy Mary Mother of God, he became as gentle a lamb. The bishop is coming out next week to give him first communion and confirmation."

Reverend Billy Bob spoke next. He was in a wheelchair, with an arm and both legs in casts, and an IV drip. In his best fire and brimstone oratory he claimed, " WELL brothers, you KNOW that we don't sprinkle! I went out and I FOUND me a bear. And then I began to read to my bear from God's HOLY WORD! But that bear wanted nothing to do with me. So I took HOLD of him and we began to wrestle. We wrestled down one hill, UP another and DOWN another until we came to a creek. So I quick DUNKED him and BAPTIZED his hairy soul. And just like you said, he became as gentle as a lamb. We spent the rest of the day praising Jesus."

They both looked down at the rabbi, who was lying in a hospital bed. He was in a body cast and traction with IV's and monitors running in and out of him. He was in bad shape.

The rabbi looks up and says, "Looking back on it, circumcision may not have been the best way to start."

[Bondashk]

1. "If there were no God, there would be no atheists."
-G.K. Chesterton

The ultimate quote

[Manahakatouki]

I'm agnostic...for several thousand reasons...

[Malikov]

Which is why I said most people take their faith seriously, Christian or not. Most people follow blindly, most people are ignorant of what they believe, most people can't take a knock against it. I'm able to say that I am not one of those people. Who's heard a good rabbi and a priest joke lately?

Yup. Stole this from online:

A priest, a preacher and a Rabbi walked into their favorite bar, where they would get together two or three times a week for drinks and to talk shop.

On this particular afternoon, someone made the comment that preaching to people isn't really all that hard. A real challenge would be to preach to a bear.

One thing led to another and they decided to do an experiment. They would all go out into the woods, find a bear, preach to it, and attempt to convert it.

Seven days later, they're all together to discuss the experience.

Father Flannery, who has his arm in a sling, is on crutches, and has various bandages, goes first.
"Well," he says, "I went into the woods to find me a bear. And when I found him I began to read to him from the Catechism. Well, that bear wanted nothing to do with me and began to slap me around. So I quickly grabbed my holy water, sprinkled him and, Holy Mary Mother of God, he became as gentle a lamb. The bishop is coming out next week to give him first communion and confirmation."

Reverend Billy Bob spoke next. He was in a wheelchair, with an arm and both legs in casts, and an IV drip. In his best fire and brimstone oratory he claimed, " WELL brothers, you KNOW that we don't sprinkle! I went out and I FOUND me a bear. And then I began to read to my bear from God's HOLY WORD! But that bear wanted nothing to do with me. So I took HOLD of him and we began to wrestle. We wrestled down one hill, UP another and DOWN another until we came to a creek. So I quick DUNKED him and BAPTIZED his hairy soul. And just like you said, he became as gentle as a lamb. We spent the rest of the day praising Jesus."

They both looked down at the rabbi, who was lying in a hospital bed. He was in a body cast and traction with IV's and monitors running in and out of him. He was in bad shape.

The rabbi looks up and says, "Looking back on it, circumcision may not have been the best way to start."

Nice. Thanks for that.

[Bondashk]

"How to trap an atheist: Serve him a fine meal, then ask him if he believes there is a cook." Another fine point

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Prove it, and I wouldn't recomend using the Bible since it has been discredited as an accurate source for historical information.

What about Josephus? Or Tacitus?

Here's a list!

I was under the impression that both Josephus and Tacitus weren't good sources to cite from about historical information about the accounts in the Bible.

[Angleter]

What about Josephus? Or Tacitus?

Here's a list!

Those were not written in Jesus's "lifetime", they were written a century or two after the fact and focused mostly on the cult that had emerged from Judaism worshiping "Jesus" as the Messiah.

Try again.

Josephus' work was certainly a 1st century piece about Judaean history in general, and so would not have mentioned Jesus' existence were it not an event of any significance in Judaean history.

Furthermore, your dismissal of the Bible dismisses with it all the in-depth scholarly analysis of the New Testament to determine its varying degrees of truth. Indeed, according to Wikipedia, the notion that Jesus was simply a mythical being is rejected by the scholarly orthodoxy.

[Newest Accord]

My believes are of the Neo-paganist religion of Åsatrú

http://www.asatru.org/aboutasatru.php
For those that don't know see the above link.
It is an interesting religion with merit.

[Bondashk]

Thats sad

[Kyr Shorn]

Those were not written in Jesus's "lifetime", they were written a century or two after the fact and focused mostly on the cult that had emerged from Judaism worshiping "Jesus" as the Messiah.

Try again.

Josephus' work was certainly a 1st century piece about Judaean history in general, and so would not have mentioned Jesus' existence were it not an event of any significance in Judaean history.

Furthermore, your dismissal of the Bible dismisses with it all the in-depth scholarly analysis of the New Testament to determine its varying degrees of truth. Indeed, according to Wikipedia, the notion that Jesus was simply a mythical being is rejected by the scholarly orthodoxy.

I think they reject it because they would all be out of a job if the focus of their careers was completely and utterly exposed as a fictional creation. Imagine if thousands of scholars spent their entire lives across the span of two thousand years writing about and discussing to death the various possibilities of Popeye the Sailor Man and then had to face the fact that he was just a made up comic strip character.

I could picture quite a bit of screaming and denial at the declaration that the emperor had no clothes.

[Farnhamia]

Thats sad

What is?

[Newest Accord]

Yup. Stole this from online:

A priest, a preacher and a Rabbi walked into their favorite bar, where they would get together two or three times a week for drinks and to talk shop.

On this particular afternoon, someone made the comment that preaching to people isn't really all that hard. A real challenge would be to preach to a bear.

One thing led to another and they decided to do an experiment. They would all go out into the woods, find a bear, preach to it, and attempt to convert it.

Seven days later, they're all together to discuss the experience.

Father Flannery, who has his arm in a sling, is on crutches, and has various bandages, goes first.
"Well," he says, "I went into the woods to find me a bear. And when I found him I began to read to him from the Catechism. Well, that bear wanted nothing to do with me and began to slap me around. So I quickly grabbed my holy water, sprinkled him and, Holy Mary Mother of God, he became as gentle a lamb. The bishop is coming out next week to give him first communion and confirmation."

Reverend Billy Bob spoke next. He was in a wheelchair, with an arm and both legs in casts, and an IV drip. In his best fire and brimstone oratory he claimed, " WELL brothers, you KNOW that we don't sprinkle! I went out and I FOUND me a bear. And then I began to read to my bear from God's HOLY WORD! But that bear wanted nothing to do with me. So I took HOLD of him and we began to wrestle. We wrestled down one hill, UP another and DOWN another until we came to a creek. So I quick DUNKED him and BAPTIZED his hairy soul. And just like you said, he became as gentle as a lamb. We spent the rest of the day praising Jesus."

They both looked down at the rabbi, who was lying in a hospital bed. He was in a body cast and traction with IV's and monitors running in and out of him. He was in bad shape.

The rabbi looks up and says, "Looking back on it, circumcision may not have been the best way to start."

Nice. Thanks for that.

You're quite welcome.

[Bondashk]

http://www.asatru.org/aboutasatru.php

That is

[Innsmothe]

http://www.asatru.org/aboutasatru.php

That is

How is it sad?

*Draws Breitsax*

Have at ye Grendel, troll of Hel!

[Mullah Mohammed Omar]

I am a Muslim.

مرحبا
لطف منك إلى آخر في موضوع اللاهوت المسيحي.
الرعاية لإضافة أي شيء؟

Yes as a Muslim I recognize Jesus as a prophet, not the son of God. I'm not interested in some long arguement, keeping it short and sweet.

[Bondashk]

Troll? i was just saying my opinion

[The Archregimancy]

He is not fictional

Prove it, and I wouldn't recomend using the Bible since it has been discredited as an accurate source for historical information.

You are quite wrong - or perhaps, charitably, misleading - on the latter point, and I would be interested to see your academic citations to demonstrate your argument.

If I can be permitted the luxury of quoting myself on this issue, from a post on this topic in January:

The general scholarly opinion is that Yeshua ben Yosef never existed, and is a mythological amalgam of the historical Yeshua ben Pantera, the mythological Dionysus, and the mythological Mithras to a lesser extent.

I've generally stayed out of these discussions on NSG because of the level of unscholarly speculation and assertion that typically masquerades as assumed fact, but for what it's worth...

As one of those 'general scholars' (though not, I concede, an entirely unbiased one), it's worth stressing that Bluth Corporation is entirely correct on the specific point raised above. There is little serious academic dispute over the historicity of Jesus. There can certainly be any amount of good faith (see what I did there....) disagreement over whether he was whom his followers claim(ed) him to be, the extent to which the events in the New Testament can be considered accurate, and the extent to which subsequent Pauline theology reflects Jesus' actual message - but the overwhelming majority scholarly opinion is that he existed. From the perspective of a historian and/or archaeologist of the period, hypotheses of a non-historical mythical Jesus have roughly the same status in my academic disciplines that denial of a link between HIV and AIDS has in epidemiology and a denial of a human element in modern climate change has in climatology; you can certainly find some people who'll make the opposing case, some of whom will even have a serious background in the subject, but they are very much in the minority.

Maurepas' call for 'sources', while common in these debates, is a distraction that shows a misunderstanding of the nature of classical historiography. Certainly there is no wholly independent verifiable precisely contemporaneous textual (the specific mentions in Josephus are most probably interpolations) or archaeological (the recent 'tomb of Christ' claims are farcical) evidence, but in my professional capacity I wouldn't realistically expect any given the time and place.

I lack both the time and inclination to type up a detailed post on this topic this morning, but for a scholarly but accessible discussion of some of these points which is particularly strong on the pros and cons of the potential use of the New Testament as a historical document, I recommend:

Trocmé, Etienne
1997 The Childhood of Christianity. SCM Press, London.

Professor Trocmé (who died in 2002) was a historian of early Christianity (and Commandeur de la Légion d’Honneur) at the University of Strasbourg, France. His summation of the core issue in the above discussion was:

First of all, there is no reason to doubt the historical existence of Jesus, as has sometimes been done. His figure is too well attested; he is too completely probable in his time and his setting; he is too important for explaining the sequence of events to be eliminated from history and to be made into a kind of abstract deity who was only gradually given human attributes. Secondly, however, it is clear that any reconstruction of the biography of Jesus is impossible, beyond a few basic facts. We can say with certainty that Jesus was a Palestinian Jew, that he was born shortly before our era [Trocmé prefers 'CE' over 'AD'], that he lived mainly in Galilee, that he was a popular preacher and healer, and that he was executed by crucifixion in Jerusalem, around 30 CE. We can also reconstruct some of the main themes of his message and get quite a clear idea of the kind of audiences that he encountered. But we cannot claim to establish the historicity of every story and every saying; we cannot construct a chronology and a topography of his public activity with any degree of certainty; nor can we reconstruct the outer or inner course of his ministry. Once we recognise and accept these limits, we have to escape trivialising Jesus and try to grasp the [historical] meaning of his activity...
(Trocmé 1997: 9)

But no doubt there are some on NSG who feel they know better than one of 20th-century Europe's most respected historians of the early development of Christianity.

To this old post (and it's worth noting that it only quotes part of a far more extensive discussion on the subject by Trocmé), I would add the following notes about the historicity of the Gospels, paraphrasing and quoting from the more recent A History of Christianity by Diarmaid MacCulloch (Penguin Books 2010). MacCulloch is a very highly regarded historian, not a practicing Christian (as his introduction explicitly makes clear), and is currently Professor of the History of the Church at Oxford University; I would recommend this book to anyone on NSG who insists on thinking they known something about the topic.

On page 78, MacCulloch sums up many of the issues involved in treaty the Gospels as historical evidence. Summing up a detailed discussion quickly... no, of course the four Gospels (and the rest of the New Testament) can't be considered unbiased or neutral history in a modern sense, but then they weren't written as such, nor would we expect them to be given the time and place they were written in, and none of this invalidates the ability of the historian of the period to use them as historical documents, just so long as - like any surviving historical document of the classical period - they aren't approached uncritically.

Crucially, in his subsequent discussion of 'The Adult Jesus' (MacCulloch 2010: 82-91), MacCulloch dismisses the minority view on the ahistoricity of Jesus by simply not acknowledging that this marginal minority viewpoint exists. Rather, much like Trocme (albeit more pithily), he starts from the premise that: "What can we know about Jesus's life, death and original message? There is some shakiness about dating, but that might be expected for a man who came from an obscure corner of the ancient world and whose death seemed at first a matter of little consequence amid the great affairs of the empire". On pages 85-86, he goes on to offers multiple examples of how the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark & Luke) can be used as a form of historical document in order to "reveal distinctive quirks of speech in Jesus's sayings which suggest an individual voice".

People who simply refuse to accept the existence of a historical Jesus - and whose agenda is presumably to 'prove' Christianity is inherently false because its founder was himself a mythic invention - are unlikely to accept arguments from even such distinguished internationally-regarded scholars as Trocmé and MacCulloch, but I note again that to take that position is to accept a minority opinion that few serious academic scholars of the period would really take seriously. And if you don't want to take my word for it, you can always read the Trocmé and MacCulloch books cited above.

[Farnhamia]

http://www.asatru.org/aboutasatru.php

That is

Sad? Nah, no sadder than any other belief in supernatural beings.

By the way, have you noticed the "Quote" button in the upper right corner of each post? You can click it and the system automatically puts the post to which you wish to respond in your post so people know what you're talking about when you decide to be minimalist and just post two words at a time. Have a nice day.

[Innsmothe]

Troll? i was just saying my opinion

Yeah, that's the problem, you have no recognised freedom of speech here onthis site, openly mocking someones beliefs without stating a sourced claim or some semblance of a sob story. (^.^;) You can be punished for flame-baiting or trolling.

[The Archregimancy]

I think they reject it because they would all be out of a job if the focus of their careers was completely and utterly exposed as a fictional creation. Imagine if thousands of scholars spent their entire lives across the span of two thousand years writing about and discussing to death the various possibilities of Popeye the Sailor Man and then had to face the fact that he was just a made up comic strip character.

I could picture quite a bit of screaming and denial at the declaration that the emperor had no clothes.

My, but you're an intellectually inconsistent debater.

Earlier you claimed that, and I quote:

Prove it, and I wouldn't recomend using the Bible since it has been discredited as an accurate source for historical information.

But now, with evidence outlined to the contrary, you take the completely different line that, well, maybe the overwhelming majority of scholars haven't discredited the Bible as some form of historical source after all, but that's because their inherent biased self-interest stops them from agreeing with you. Leaving aside for the moment my note that at least one of the sources I used isn't, by his own admission, a practicing Christian, I'd be interested in having you outline the expert credentials that you've no doubt accumulated from a lifetime of academic study of this topic.

Or perhaps you're one of these people who think that all academics should be dismissed because they're part of an establishment conspiracy that stops everyone from finding out the truth, as outlined by sensible, common sense people like you. I believe Erich von Däniken takes a similar position about us pesky archaeologists, so no doubt you sympathise with him.

[The Archregimancy]

Josephus' work was certainly a 1st century piece about Judaean history in general, and so would not have mentioned Jesus' existence were it not an event of any significance in Judaean history.

Furthermore, your dismissal of the Bible dismisses with it all the in-depth scholarly analysis of the New Testament to determine its varying degrees of truth. Indeed, according to Wikipedia, the notion that Jesus was simply a mythical being is rejected by the scholarly orthodoxy.

To be fair, while you're correct on the latter point, Nanatsu is correct you really shouldn't use Josephus in this sort of debate. While the historicity of Jesus is accepted by the overwhelming majority of recognised experts on the period, the two mentions of Jesus in the Jewish Antiquities are far more problematic.

The first passage reads:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

The second passage reads:

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent.

The second passage is accepted as authentic by almost all scholars, though there's considerable debate over whether the "who was called Christ" is authentic, or a later interpolation; but there is a variety of evidence to demonstrate that the early leadership of the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem was initially hereditary, with (referring quickly to MacCulloch), James replaced by "another 'kinsman'", Simeon (MacCulloch 2010:105).

The first passage is far more hotly debated, with a by no means inconsiderable body of opinion arguing that it's entirely an interpolation, or that if not all of it is an interpolation, then part of the passage is an interpolation. Given that opinion is so sharply divided on this point, reference to Josephus can be used by people who don't know nearly as much about the topic as they think they do to attempt to demonstrate that reliance on Josephus undermines the entire argument regarding the otherwise fairly firm scholarly consensus on the historicity of Jesus. So best to leave such a contested source out of debate entirely - unless, perhaps an acknowledgement of the broader debate is explicitly made, and both sides of that debate are fairly outlined.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

I used to be a Christian, pentecostal denomination.

It was all that flag waving, tamborine bashing and jumping up and saying praise the lord every two minutes like you'd expect a pentecostal church to be.
I seriously still don't get how people can't worship in church like that, everything else in comparison just seems like such a drag.