The Flood (2)

[Molal]

Good. When I really get into a book, I want to keep reading as much as I can, but don't want to finish.

I feel sad when I finish books. Strange, I know!

Let us know what you think when you start tto read them. Trust me, you will have a lot of questions!

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

I feel sad when I finish books. Strange, I know!

Not at all.
Because when you finish, the fun is over.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The date gives authority to some Creeds because it demonstrates what the early Church believed. Like that in Corinthians 15, or the 'Old Roman Symbol' reflect the veiws of the Early Church who were connected with Jesus teaching.

Ah, so the closer a Creed's formation is to the time of Jesus, the more accurate it is likely to be, yes? Of course, the boon a Creed recieves from it's compilation date becomes negligable after, say, the first century CE. But I can see how a Creed composed at 33CE would be a more accurate representation of Jesus' teachings than one composed in, say, 2007CE.

And that, I think, is the clarification I need: the 'true' Christianity is the belief system espoused* by Jesus (turn the other cheek, the Jewish god is the only god, etc).

People like Paul, along with the other disciples were inspired by the Holy Spirit which came out in their writing.

Allegedly

As for things like the Nicene Creed, it stakes its claim on scholarship, and the certain farmiliarity with the disciples writings and knowledge of the Early Church and the disciples.

But by what criteria do you judge the Nicene Creed's accuracy?


*Allegedly. I have doubts as to Jesus' existance.

 

[Naraoia]

*Allegedly. I have doubts as to Jesus' existance.

Well, there are Roman sources mentioning... someone that could be him, aren't there?

 

[Molal]

Well, there are Roman sources mentioning... someone that could be him, aren't there?

Hmm, Roman historian Tacitus mentions christians. Interms of christians being evil and destructive, IIRC.

 

[Naraoia]

Hmm, Roman historian Tacitus mentions christians. Interms of christians being evil and destructive, IIRC.

Didn't he also mention someone who got sentenced to death by Pontius Pilatus? I know this was quoted several times around this forum...

*googles* Ah, found the Annals. And the quote.

Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

Though apparently the Annals were written in 109 AD... Not quite contemporary.

Anyone knows of any other source?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Well, there are Roman sources mentioning... someone that could be him, aren't there?

As far as I am aware, there are no contemporary documents attesting to the life of Jesus. You'd think that if a self-proclaimed Messiah sacked the Temple of Jerusalem, at least one of the several dozen historians of the time would note it down somewhere.
And FYI, our collection of Roman records is rather complete. We even have divorce papers and love notes.
This is my biggest problem with the existance of such a revolutionary character: his utter absence from contemporary history.

 

[Molal]

Didn't he also mention someone who got sentenced to death by Pontius Pilatus? I know this was quoted several times around this forum...

*googles* Ah, found the Annals. And the quote.



Though apparently the Annals were written in 109 AD... Not quite contemporary.

Anyone knows of any other source?

Thanks - that's what I remembered reading.

 

[Loudmouth]

As far as I am aware, there are no contemporary documents attesting to the life of Jesus. You'd think that if a self-proclaimed Messiah sacked the Temple of Jerusalem, at least one of the several dozen historians of the time would note it down somewhere.

And you would think that someone rising from the dead and speaking to hundreds of people, not to mention ascending into the sky right in front of them, would produce extrabiblical records. Instead, all we have are gospels credited to the followers of Jesus, and even that authorship is questionable.

And FYI, our collection of Roman records is rather complete. We even have divorce papers and love notes.
This is my biggest problem with the existance of such a revolutionary character: his utter absence from contemporary history.

I'm with you on this one. The depiction of Jesus differed geographically and culturally, not to mention sects that have since disappeared such as the Gnostics.

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

But by what criteria do you judge the Nicene Creed's accuracy?

lol tell me a little more what you are looking for... what I was going to say in response to this, you quoted using your above quote as a response to that.

And you would think that someone rising from the dead and speaking to hundreds of people, not to mention ascending into the sky right in front of them, would produce extrabiblical records.

Yeah he ascended in front of how many people? 12?

There probably are a lot of records that were destroyed or something to that effect. Not too long after this Jerusulem was torched to the ground and many of its inhabitants were slaughtered.

Other than certain texts like Josephus et al, the Romans would not really take such pains to preserve any old document. Assuming a lot of people wrote about it, those documents would still probably be lost. The ones that survived were preserved by the Church (and some were written post 70 ad of course).

Even if they were in Rome, Rome was sacked. It is notable that many of the Early Church Fathers and their critics quoted back and forth from documents that we no longer have. There very well may have been a plethora of writing about him at one time, but so much has been lost to history. Also I really want to see what the Vatican is hiding in their library. There are a lot of texts that they won't let anyone touch, and conveniently pull out if they are needed.
In any case, pretty much all writing we have about Jesus Christ treats him as a historical person, and attests to his ability to preform miracles. Sure we cannot 'prove' that he did that simply using history, but we can demonstrate that people believed he could do so.

 

[Inan3]

Originally Posted by Wiccan_Child
Do you also believe that God is good? If so, how do you reconcile the problem of evil?


The "Problem of Evil", well let me explain it this way. Whenever a creature thinks that he is greater than his Creator that is evil. EVERYTHING and EVERYONE that God created was good and perfect but then sin entered and God's creation evolved, so to speak into darkness and death and evil.

Lucifer was created perfectly but when he thought he could exalt himself above God he began to deteriorate and evil came into existence.

Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! Isa 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Eze 28:15 Thou [wast] perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. Eze 28:16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Eze 28:17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.

Then, simply stated, when Adam followed satan's blatant lies and believed that he too, could know as much as God and be even wiser, he, also, began to deteriorate.

Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

I like this definition from Merriam/Webster dictionary and please note the bold.

1 a: morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked <an evil impulse> b: arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct

When Adam sinned satan's character was imputed unto him and he became separated from God, Who is the source of all that is pure and good and holy. Hence, when Adam stepped over into the kingdom of darkness, he was no longer able to maintain his original state.

That is why Jesus Christ came, to reinstate man back into the Kingdom of God.


The question of why evil continues on today is that satan's time is not up yet. And as long as there are those who side with satan there will be evil. There is coming a day when that will end. satan will be gone and evil will be gone with him.


That is the answer to the "problem of evil".

 

[Split Rock]

As far as I am aware, there are no contemporary documents attesting to the life of Jesus. You'd think that if a self-proclaimed Messiah sacked the Temple of Jerusalem, at least one of the several dozen historians of the time would note it down somewhere.
And FYI, our collection of Roman records is rather complete. We even have divorce papers and love notes.
This is my biggest problem with the existance of such a revolutionary character: his utter absence from contemporary history.

The idea that Jesus of Nazareth never existed is becoming a pet peeve of mine. Just what was Christianity based on if Jesus never existed? Did a bunch of Jews get together and decide to make up a savior so they could start their own religion? Where did the gospels come from? Were they all made up from scratch? If so, why were there so many conflicting gospels, the majority of which were discarded? Shouldn't there be only a few and shouldn't they all match up better than they do?

I find it hard to believe that Jesus never existed. I no longer believe he is God, nor do I believe he ever claimed to be (even in the gospels it is never claimed that he said he was God). I think that Jesus' influence on his followers was so profound, that he was deified after his death. That is why the accepted gospels have him rising from the dead, etc.

Why the lack of contemporary written history? Jesus was likely illiterate, so wrote nothing himself (a terrible shame, that). The Romans likely saw him as nothing more than a trouble-maker who was dealt with like so many others. As far as the miracles not being written of, I doubt they actually happened. That does not mean Jesus did not exist, and did not preach his view of the Hebrew God.

 

[Inan3]

lol tell me a little more what you are looking for... what I was going to say in response to this, you quoted using your above quote as a response to that.

Yeah he ascended in front of how many people? 12?

There probably are a lot of records that were destroyed or something to that effect. Not too long after this Jerusulem was torched to the ground and many of its inhabitants were slaughtered.

Other than certain texts like Josephus et al, the Romans would not really take such pains to preserve any old document. Assuming a lot of people wrote about it, those documents would still probably be lost. The ones that survived were preserved by the Church (and some were written post 70 ad of course).

Even if they were in Rome, Rome was sacked. It is notable that many of the Early Church Fathers and their critics quoted back and forth from documents that we no longer have. There very well may have been a plethora of writing about him at one time, but so much has been lost to history. Also I really want to see what the Vatican is hiding in their library. There are a lot of texts that they won't let anyone touch, and conveniently pull out if they are needed.
In any case, pretty much all writing we have about Jesus Christ treats him as a historical person, and attests to his ability to preform miracles. Sure we cannot 'prove' that he did that simply using history, but we can demonstrate that people believed he could do so.

And to add to that when they believed their lives changed dramatically and not only that but the lives of countless millions down through the ages who believed the word they preached. Just as the Lord had intended.

 

[Patashu]

And to add to that when they believed their lives changed dramatically and not only that but the lives of countless millions down through the ages who believed the word they preached. Just as the Lord had intended.

So...

How many accounts of Jesus's life or even existence aside from that in the Bible are there?

PS, saying Adam made evil come doesn't solve the problem of evil. You still have an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God who created a species with the capability to sin, do evil and ruin something that is supposedly 'perfect' and is continually not solving these problems he is ultimately responsible for, supposedly being without flaw or err.

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

So...

How many accounts of Jesus's life or even existence aside from that in the Bible are there?

PS, saying Adam made evil come doesn't solve the problem of evil. You still have an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God who created a species with the capability to sin, do evil and ruin something that is supposedly 'perfect' and is continually not solving these problems he is ultimately responsible for, supposedly being without flaw or err.

Dude that lame argument has been shot down a million times by theodicy for over a millenia. As for other accounts from Jesus life outside the four Gospels, there are a number. Or at least a number dealing very heavily with his life. There is not any sort of 'lack' of evidence despite what the pseudo-intellectual pop culture will tell you.

 

[Patashu]

Dude that lame argument has been shot down a million times by theodicy for over a millenia. As for other accounts from Jesus life outside the four Gospels, there are a number. Or at least a number dealing very heavily with his life. There is not any sort of 'lack' of evidence despite what the pseudo-intellectual pop culture will tell you.

Well, cite them then.

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

Well, cite them then.

I reccommend C.S. Lewis' work he is a more recent one, but I think you might be more into his work than that of old crusty bishops and such.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

lol tell me a little more what you are looking for... what I was going to say in response to this, you quoted using your above quote as a response to that.

I... see.

Yeah he ascended in front of how many people? 12?

There probably are a lot of records that were destroyed or something to that effect. Not too long after this Jerusulem was torched to the ground and many of its inhabitants were slaughtered.

So how come we have such a complete collection of documents from that immediate period, yet no mention of Jesus or his actions within a decade of his (alleged) death?

Other than certain texts like Josephus et al, the Romans would not really take such pains to preserve any old document. Assuming a lot of people wrote about it, those documents would still probably be lost. The ones that survived were preserved by the Church (and some were written post 70 ad of course).

Which is why I ask for contemporary documents. If the death of Princess Diana was only reported by the media 1 year after her death, would you call that contemporary?

Even if they were in Rome, Rome was sacked.

Nevertheless, the documentation survives to this day. They were meticulous keepers of Rome's affairs. The fiasco at the Temple would not have gone unnoticed.

Dude that lame argument has been shot down a million times by theodicy for over a millenia. As for other accounts from Jesus life outside the four Gospels, there are a number. Or at least a number dealing very heavily with his life. There is not any sort of 'lack' of evidence despite what the pseudo-intellectual pop culture will tell you.

As a spokesperson of the pseudo-intellectual pop culture of the University of Birmingham, could you present me with these accounts?

FYI: a theodicy is an attempt to reconile the problem of evil.

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

I... see.


So how come we have such a complete collection of documents from that immediate period, yet no mention of Jesus or his actions within a decade of his (alleged) death?


Which is why I ask for contemporary documents. If the death of Princess Diana was only reported by the media 1 year after her death, would you call that contemporary?


Nevertheless, the documentation survives to this day. They were meticulous keepers of Rome's affairs. The fiasco at the Temple would not have gone unnoticed.


As a spokesperson of the pseudo-intellectual pop culture of the University of Birmingham, could you present me with these accounts?

FYI: a theodicy is an attempt to reconile the problem of evil.

So how come we have such a complete collection of documents from that immediate period, yet no mention of Jesus or his actions within a decade of his (alleged) death?

We didn't lose any documents from directly AFTER it was destroyed as a result of its destruction. Why wouldn't we have a lot? Maybe if we had more Christian writings PERIOD from around 40 AD much less earlier, we could give you what you are looking for. then again see the above post I made about this. Also arguments from silence in history are rather weak.

Which is why I ask for contemporary documents. If the death of Princess Diana was only reported by the media 1 year after her death, would you call that contemporary?

You do realize that there is a difference between the way information is written and travels now verses how it happened back then... don't you? And actually yes I would consider that contemporary.

Nevertheless, the documentation survives to this day. They were meticulous keepers of Rome's affairs. The fiasco at the Temple would not have gone unnoticed.

Lol are you kidding? The temple fiasco was a jewish temple not the temple of artemis or something... even if it was I doubt they would record a madman turning over their tables while passing through. Documentation of what survives? That rome was sacked? Of course it would. There was in fact documentation of Jesus trial. We don't actually have it now, the document was lost, but it was quoted by early Christian apologists.

As a spokesperson of the pseudo-intellectual pop culture of the University of Birmingham, could you present me with these accounts?

All you need.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Originally Posted by Wiccan_Child
Do you also believe that God is good? If so, how do you reconcile the problem of evil?


The "Problem of Evil", well let me explain it this way. Whenever a creature thinks that he is greater than his Creator that is evil.

This is not what is meant by the problem of evil:

1. Evil (suffering, etc) exists.
2. An omnipotent being gets what it wants.
3. An omnibenevolent being wants only good to exist / wants no evil to exist.
4. From (2) and (3), an omnibenevolent omnipotence will not allow evil to exist.
5. Therefore, an omnibenevolent omnipotence does not exist in our universe, since if it did, evil would not exist (see (4)), but it does (see (1)).

Therefore, any deity that does exist cannot be both all-powerful and all-loving. Why worship a being that is not all-loving? Why worship a being that is not all-powerful?

EVERYTHING and EVERYONE that God created was good and perfect but then sin entered and God's creation evolved, so to speak into darkness and death and evil.

Why did God do nothing about it? If he is powerful, he could do it. If he is good, he would want it. What, then, is holding him back?

Note that the 'free will' argument belies a good god.