Jesus was a Hindu Monk and Survived the Cross
-
Originally posted by Servant:
Dal
This is a most excellent article, thank you very much!
Indeed it is. And Tcmc is strangely silent.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Indeed it is. And Tcmc is strangely silent.
you think people are 27/4 here everytime, like you
people have to eat lunch and do business
-
Originally posted by Rooney_07:
you think people are 27/4 here everytime, like you
people have to eat lunch and do business
Ai ya why so upset? I am also looking forward to Tcmc's postings just like he look forward to mine only what.
-
Repeat Post Deleted. Sorry!
-
Alright then. I'm not knowledgeable about theological issues, but I'll give it a go since no one else is keen.
1. All Christians should be aware, but not many actually are, that the biblical description of the resurrection differs quite significantly between the various gospels. How many people went (one Mary, two Marys w/o Joanna), whether there were angels at the tomb (none, one or two?), when the stone was rolled away -- there were differences for each of these in the different gospels. I've seen efforts to explain away these differences, but these strike me as tenuous. If the gospels are inconsistent and/or omit key details of such an important event, what else can we trust of their account?
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/resurrection_accounts.htm
2. As far as I can gather, the majority of New Testament scholars agree that the gospel of Mark originally ends at 16:8. "Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." (NIV). In other words, the original ending of Mark had very little about Jesus rising from the dead. The subsequent versus 9-16 were found only in later manuscripts, and had stylistic differences from the rest of the gospel. Some scholars therefore believe that this longer ending of Mark was forged, while even the NIV includes a disclaimer:
[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+16%3A9-20&version=NIV
3. In a debate between prominent Christian apologist William Lane Craig and well-known biblical scholar Bart Ehrman on this very issue, Ehrman made the very compelling point that a miracle is by definition the rarest of events. Therefore, a reasonable person would accept explanation by miracle only as the last resort, in the absence of all other possible explanations. So as unlikely as a tomb theft could be, it would still be more likely than the fact that Jesus rose from the dead. For example, if Ong Teng Cheong's body goes missing, would you automatically accept that he had gone to heaven, body and soul?
Now, Craig is a formidable opponent, and he wins more than his fair share of debates with atheists, but I thought he was out of his depth, and simply outclassed in his exchange with Ehrman. You can watch the full debate, broken up into 12 parts, here:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjOSNj97_gk
Again, I'm no expert on theological issues, and I've found it hard to find objective information about the bible. In many cases, it simply comes down to "he said, she said", which makes debate difficult for non-specialists. The above three points seem to me some of the more digestible and objective challenges.
-
continue from here since hitler is around.
In December, 1945, early Christian writings containing many secrets of the early Christian religion were found in upper Egypt, a location where many Christians fled during the Roman invasion of Jerusalem. Undisturbed since their concealment almost two thousand years ago, these manuscripts of Christian mysticism rank in importance with the Dead Sea Scrolls. These writings affirmed the existence of the doctrine of reincarnation being taught among the early Jews and Christians. These Christian mystics, referred to as Christian Gnostics, were ultimately destroyed by the orthodox Church for being heretics. Their sacred writings were destroyed and hidden with the belief that they would be revealed at an appropriate time in the future. The discovery in 1945 yielded writings that included some long lost gospels, some of which were written earlier than the known gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
Brian A. Bain, M.A., has this to say about the 1945 discovery:"Long considered to be heretical, ancient Gnostic Christian texts unearthed this century display compelling similarities between Gnostic conceptions of life and death and modern near-death experiences. The Gnostic texts devoted extensive tracts to what readers could expect to encounter when they died. Other passages make numerous allusions to near-death-like experiences that can be realized in this life, most notably the human encounter with a divine light. The Gnostic Christian literature gives us one more example of NDEs and similar experiences in the ancient world."
Another interesting fact comes from Edgar Cayce (a near-death experiencer) who affirmed that Gnosticism is the highest form of Christianity.
The Christian Gnostics were regarded by some as a new Jewish sect who believed they had finally found the long-awaited Messiah and not a new religion. Some of the apostles became Gnostic and because of this, Christianity could well have grown up as a Gnostic religion had it not been for their eventual persecution by the organized Church centuries later.
The Secret Teachings of Jesus
An important Christian Gnostic teaching was the "Logos" which in Greek is translated as "the image of the Word." It is an important concept found in the gospel of John:"In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1)
Logos is the part of God that acts in the world. It is the perfect unity of the human and the divine. This is affirmed by John when he wrote that "the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." When John stated that Jesus is the Logos, he is stating that Jesus became the Logos, the Christ. The Logos is the divine "spark" of God within humans that needs to awakened. Everyone has the "image of the Word (Logos)" within them and it is for this reason that Genesis describes humanity as created "in the image and likeness of God."The Logos is the divine Spirit in humanity. By using the Christian Gnostic idea of the Logos, John is not only affirming the preexistence and divinity of Jesus, but he is affirming that all sons of God created in the "image of the Word" as Jesus was, preexisted in spirit before being born. In other words, every human is an incarnation of the Logos and every human has to potential of becoming like Jesus, a manifestation of the human-divine unity. Every human can be a "Christ" and because of this, every soul will eventually be drawn back to God.
The Roman Church misunderstood what the Logos was in John and incorrectly concluded from this that only Jesus is divine - the Word made flesh. The orthodox Church either rejected or ignored this Christian Gnostic concept found in John. This may have been a factor when the gospel of John was almost rejected from New Testament canon when it was being put together. This was during a time when Christian Gnosticism became an enemy of the organized Church. Nevertheless, it was the idea of the preexistence of the soul and its corresponding doctrine of reincarnation that the Roman Church had great difficulty with.
The Christian Gnostics emphasized spiritual knowledge rather blind faith as the road to salvation. They indicated that they possessed secret knowledge (i.e., "gnosis" in Greek) concerning the hidden meaning of the "resurrection." This was a part of the secret teachings of Jesus handed down to them by the apostles. This special knowledge was restricted to people who were given the public teachings of Christianity before qualifying to be initiated and receive the secret teachings. In contrast, the very term "Catholic" means "universal", implying that anyone could become a member of the Church by adhering to the public teachings of faith and rituals. The Christian Gnostics were harsh critics of the orthodox Church. The Christian Gnostics accused the Church of watering down the gospel in order to popularize it for the masses. The orthodox Church stressed salvation through faith alone and by the rituals of the Church.
This secret gnosis emphasized spiritual "resurrection" (i.e,. spiritual rebirth) and physical "resurrection" (i.e., reincarnation) as opposed to a resurrection defined as people sleeping in their graves until it is time their corpses to crawl out of their graves at the last day. Christian Gnostics held the view that if spiritual resurrection was not attained in one lifetime, then the soul would be subjected to as many reincarnations as it takes until spiritual rebirth is attained.
One of the great Church leaders was Clement of Alexandria in Egypt (150-211 A.D.) who indicated that he possessed the secret teaching handed down from the apostles.
In the Gnostic text entitled The Secret Gospel of Mark, one of the Christian Gnostic texts discovered in 1945, describes Jesus performing secret initiation rituals. Before the discovery of this secret gospel, our only knowledge of it came from a letter written by Clement. Clement quotes from this secret gospel and refers to it as, "a more spiritual gospel for the use of those who were being perfected." He also states, "It even yet is most carefully guarded [by the church at Alexandria], being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries." Clement mentions elsewhere that Jesus revealed a secret teaching to those who were "capable of receiving it and being molded by it" He also affirmed that, "The gnosis (secret knowledge) itself is that which has descended by transmission to a few, having been imparted unwritten by the apostles." (Miscell. Book VI, Chapter 7)
The existence of a secret teaching can be found in the New Testament:The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding' (Mark 4:11-12)
"He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance." (Matt. 13:11-12)
"We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began." (1 Cor. 2:6-8)
"So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God." (1 Cor. 4:1)
"At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and Earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure." (Matt. 11:25-26)
Paul wrote about teachings which are taught to spiritual "babies," teachings about righteousness for the more mature, and then teachings for the spiritually mature. Paul reveals this fact immediately after equating Melchizedek to Jesus by stating:
"We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil. (Heb. 5:11-14)
According to tradition, after the Roman invasion of Jerusalem, the author of the Gospel of Mark established a church in Alexandria, Egypt. Mark may also have been the author of a "secret gospel" containing more advanced teaching for those being initiated into the Christian mysteries. This secret gospel contains passages portraying Jesus teaching secret doctrines.
The Champion for the Secret Teachings of Jesus
As the orthodox church in Rome gained more and more political power the more it viewed secret teachings as a threat to their own public teachings. But the Church leader who made the final and greatest attempt to revive the secret teachings of Jesus within the orthodox teachings was the first Church Father named Origen (183-253 A.D.) of Alexandria in Egypt who was a disciple of Clement of Alexandra. Origen was the first person since Paul to develop a system of theology around the teachings of Jesus. His effort was the first within the orthodox church to systematize a theology on so vast a scale. Although Origen defended orthodoxy, he included in his system the wisdom of the Christian Gnostics. His theology was a perfect synthesis of "orthodox" and "gnostic" teachings and came the closest to reviving the "Lost Christianity" of the original sects, communities and schools, at a time when the Christian Gnosticism was falling into disrepute. Unfortunately, hundreds of years later, the Church declared him a heretic and his teachings as heresy mostly because they affirmed preexistence and therefore reincarnation.
Origen had this to say about the secret teachings of Jesus:[Jesus] conversed with His disciples in private, and especially in their sacred retreats, concerning the Gospel of God; but the words which He uttered have not been preserved, because it appeared to the evangelists that they could not be adequately conveyed to the multitude in writing or in speech and they saw what things were to be committed to writing, and how this was to be done, and what was by no means to be written to the multitude, and what was to be expressed in words, and what was not to be so conveyed. (Contra Celsus, Chap. VI. 18)
Concerning these secret teachings, Clement stated:
James the Righteous, John and Peter were entrusted by the Lord after his resurrection with the higher knowledge. They imparted it to the other apostles, to the seventy (Outlines Book VI)
The Theology of Christian Gnosticism
According to Gnostic theology, a series of "falling away" from the Whole that is God occurred in eternity which resulted in all that there is today. After the first "fall", the divine consciousness descended to the level of the divided consciousness; now after another "fall", it has fallen even further, into the depths of the unconscious; it has been "forgotten." It is now humanity's privilege to discover the potential realms of human existence and face the great challenge of the "ascension of consciousness" through the Man-God-Spirit transformation.
Once souls fell into the lower levels of consciousness, they became enamored of it and burned with the desire to experience the pleasures of matter. The souls then no longer wanted to disengage itself from these lower levels. Thus the world was born. From that moment souls forgot themselves. They forgot they original habitation, their true center and eternal being.
Gnosticism proceeds from one fundamental insight: this world in which we find ourselves is thoroughly and irretrievably less than holy. The soul is trapped in a prison of flesh, and the flesh is intrinsically less than divine. According to Gnostic theology, the creation of the cosmos came about as the result of a tragicomic mistake: the fall of the soul from God. Thanks to the advent of Christ in the lower realms of consciousness, the power of reconciling the fallen souls has been given to restore the One-ness and usher in the kingdom of light over the kingdom of flesh and matter. The unity of the Godhead is assured thanks to the introduction of the new uniting force, the Logos, the part of God who acts in the flesh and the material. It is important to distinguish the Logos (Christ) from the soul named Jesus. Any person has the potential of becoming a Logos but it was the soul known as Jesus who actually incarnated as a Logos and therefore became a Christ on Earth.
We, as humans, cannot comprehend the omnipotent power available to us until we utilize the Christ power. When we effectively use the divine "Christ awareness" we have the ability to help in the liberation of the imprisoned "sparks of divinity" from flesh and rejoin them to the Source. The divine plan of creation will become complete as the divine outpouring of Christ gnosis liberates humanity from ignorance. The result of this will be the redemption of all human beings.
The Christ power can only liberate souls through the call and revelation of Christ gnosis to, "Awake, remember who you are and where you come from!" But since the soul cannot by itself hear the gnosis, the Christ power resorts to elaborate strategies to create the conditions for which all souls will be saved.
Christian Gnostics felt that initiation into the Cosmic Christ gnosis is inseparable from "the light which lighteth every person coming into the world." It is this light within, our Higher Self, which each individual must bring to at-one-ment with the divine Source if liberation is to occur.
As more and more people hear the call to "Wake up!" and attain the Christ gnosis and become liberated, their souls are received back into the bosom of Divine Consciousness. The soul becomes free from unholy flesh and the cycle of birth and rebirth. Christian Gnostics seek to achieve this by cultivating the Higher Self within people to seek reunification with the Godhead. But each soul returning to its divine source must, after death, pass through the various levels of consciousness. Sometimes Christian Gnostics describe seven of these heavenly realms, other times ten.
Christian Gnostic Writings
The quote from Jesus from the Christian Gnostic gospel, the Book of Thomas the Contender, describes Jesus teaching reincarnation:"Watch and pray that you may not be born in the flesh, but that you may leave the bitter bondage of this life." (Book of Thomas the Contender 9:5)
In another part of the Book of Thomas the Contender, Jesus tells the disciple Thomas that after death, those people who were once believers but have remained attached to things of "transitory beauty," will be consumed "in their concern about life" and will be "brought back to the visible realm."
The following quote from Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas affirms Jesus teaching reincarnation to his disciples:"When you see your likeness, you are happy. But when you see your images that came into being before and that neither die nor become visible, how much you will bear!" (Gospel of Thomas, saying 84)
More excerpts from this very interesting gospel will be profiled later.
In the Secret Book of John, written by 185 A.D. at the latest, reincarnation is placed at the center of the discussion concerning the salvation of souls. The following is a summary of the Secret Book of John's perspective on reincarnation.
Everyone has drunk from the water of forgetfulness and lives in a state of ignorance. Some people are able to overcome ignorance by having the life-giving Spirit descend upon them. These souls "will be saved and will become perfect," that is, escape the cycle of birth and rebirth. John asks Jesus what will happen to those who do not attain salvation. They are hurled down "into forgetfulness" and thrown into "prison," the Christian Gnostic symbol for a new body.
Jesus says the only way for these souls to escape is to acquire knowledge after coming from forgetfulness. A soul can accomplish this by finding a teacher who can lead the soul in the right direction:"This soul needs to follow another soul in whom the Spirit of life dwells, because she is saved through the Spirit. Then she will never be thrust into flesh again." (Secret Book of John 14:20)
Another Christian Gnostic book, the Pistis Sophia (Greek for "Faith Wisdom"), outlines a system of punishment and rewards that includes reincarnation. The book explains the differences in one's fate as a result of past-life actions. A "man who curses" will be given a body that is continually "troubled in heart." A "man who slanders" will be given an "oppressed" body. A thief will be given a "lame, crooked and blind body." A "proud" and "scornful" man will be given "a lame and ugly body" that "everyone continually despises." From this, we can see how this Earth, as well as hell, is a place of education through suffering.
According to the Pistis Sophia, some souls experience hell as a place of shadows and torture. However, after these souls pass through hell, they return to Earth for further experiences. Only a relatively few extremely evil souls are not permitted to reincarnate. These souls are cast into "outer darkness" until a time when they are "destroyed and dissolved."The Pistis Sophia combines the ideas of reincarnation and divine union in a verse beginning with the question:
"[What happens to] a man who has committed no sin, but done good persistently, but has not found the mysteries?" (Pistis Sophia)
The Pistis Sophia reveals such a soul will receive "a cup filled with thoughts and wisdom," allowing the soul to remember its divine origin and pursue the "mysteries of the light" until it finds them and is able to "inherit the light forever." To "inherit the light forever" is a Gnostic term for union with God.
In the Gospel of Phillip, Jesus makes a clear distinction between the resurrection of the spirit (i.e., spiritual rebirth) and the resurrection of the body (i.e., physical rebirth, reincarnation):"People who say they will first die and then arise are mistaken. If they do not first receive resurrection while they are alive, once they have died they will receive nothing." (Gospel of Philip 73:1-4)
In the Apocryphal book, Wisdom of Solomon, recognized as canonical by the Catholic Church, is the following verse:"I was given a sound body to live in because I was already good." (Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20)
This verse raises the following question: How is it possible to get a body after you have already been good, unless reincarnation is true?
Among the works of the Christian Gnostics are some of the early gospels, including secret gospels which were not preserved in the New Testament. The Gospel of Thomas was the first gospel ever written and is considered by scholars to be the most reliable gospel. Much of this gospel contains sayings of Jesus that are contained in the four New Testament gospels.The Christian Gnostic gospels reveal a clear and strong vision of the resurrection as a past and present event. Below is a verse from the Gospel of Thomas that shows the "resurrection" to be a past event:
"His followers said to him, 'When will the rest for the dead take place, and when will the new world come?' He said to them, 'What you look for has come, but you do not know it.'" (Gospel of Thomas, saying 51)
In the verse above, Jesus says the resurrection and the kingdom are already here. In Gnostic terms, this quote from Jesus refers to a person's past "resurrection" (i.e., physical rebirth, reincarnation) and the fact that we are already living in the kingdom of God which exists within us. Only through the Christ gnosis can this kingdom be realized and the cycle of resurrection end.
The sayings that are presented below are excerpts of the Gospel of Thomas that are not present in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.The Gospel of Thomas
"These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Judas Thomas the Twin recorded.
Jesus said, "Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death."
Jesus said, "Let one who seeks not stop seeking until one finds. When one finds, one will be disturbed. When one is disturbed, one will be amazed, and will reign over all."
Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Behold, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds in the sky will get there before you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will get there before you. Rather, the kingdom is inside you and outside you. When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and embody poverty."
Jesus said, "Know what is within your sight, and what is hidden from you will become clear to you. For there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed."
Jesus said, "I have thrown fire on the world and, behold, I am guarding it until it is ablaze."
Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me with someone, and tell me whom I am like." Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a just angel." Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher." Thomas said to him, "Teacher, my mouth is utterly unable to say whom you are like." Jesus said, "I am not your teacher. You have become intoxicated because you have drunk from the bubbling spring that I have tended." And he took Thomas and withdrew, and told him three things. When Thomas came back to his friends, they asked him, "What did Jesus tell you?" Thomas said to them, "If I tell you even one of the things he told me, you will pick up rocks and stone me. Then fire will come forth from the rocks and devour you."
The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us about the end." Jesus said, "Have you already discovered the beginning, that now you can seek after the end? For where the beginning is, the end will be. Blessed is one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end, and will not taste death."
Jesus said, "Blessed is one who came to life before coming to life." Jesus said, "If you become my disciples and hearken to my sayings, these stones will serve you."
Jesus saw some babies nursing. He said to his disciples, "These nursing babies are like those who enter the kingdom." They said to him, "Then shall we enter the kingdom as babies?" Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male and the female will not be female, when you make eyes replacing an eye, a hand replacing a hand, a foot replacing a foot, and an image replacing an image, then you will enter the kingdom."
Jesus said, "Blessed are those who are alone and chosen: you will find the kingdom. For you have come from it, and you will return there again."
His disciples said to him, "When will the final rest for the dead take place, and when will the new world come?" He said to them, "What you look for has already come, but you do not know it."
Jesus said, "I disclose my mysteries to those who are worthy of my mysteries. Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing."
Jesus said, "Whoever knows everything but lacks within lacks everything."
Jesus said, "If you bring forth what is within you, what you have will save you. If you do not have that within you, what you do not have within you will kill you."
Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: all came forth from me, and all attained to me. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Pick up a stone, and you will find me there."
Jesus said, "Whoever is close to me is close to the fire, and whoever is far from me is far from the kingdom."
Jesus said, "Images are visible to people, but the light within is hidden in the Father's image of light. He will reveal himself, but his image is hidden by his light."
Jesus said, "When you see a likeness of yourself, you are happy. But when you see your images that came into being before you, and that neither die nor become visible, how much you will be able to tolerate!"
Jesus said, "When you make the two into one, you will become sons of man, and when you say, 'Mountain, move!' it will move."
Jesus said, "Whoever drinks from my mouth will be like me, and I shall be that person, and what is hidden will be revealed to that one."
Jesus says, "Whoever finds self is worth more than the world."
His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?" "It will not come by looking for it. Nor will it do to say, 'Behold, over here!' or 'Behold, over there!' Rather, the kingdom of the Father is spread out on the Earth, but people do not see it." (Gospel of Thomas)
The Apocalyptic Texts
Among the Christian Gnostic writings were no less than five separate apocalypses. Here they are.
The First Apocalypse of James contains the secret teachings of Christ that were given to James the Just, the Lord's brother. In it, James refers to Jesus as "rabbi." Jesus warns James to leave Jerusalem, for the city is a dwelling place of a great number of "archons" or evil angels. Jerusalem is stigmatized as the city which "gives the cup of bitterness to the sons of light." Jesus coaches James on what to say when he is judged and challenged by the "toll collectors" of heaven in order to pass through the gates of heaven. The Second Apocalypse of James The Apocalypse of Peter is a record of the vision of Peter the apostle in which he speaks with Christ in the spirit. In this, Peter is clearly seen as the true successor to Christ and the founder of the Gnostic community. In the vision, Peter first sees hostile priests who seem to be intent upon stoning him and Christ to death. Next, Peter recalls the crucifixion during which Jesus stood nearby talking with him.Peter asks, "Who is this one glad and laughing on the tree (i.e., cross)? And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?"
Christ replies, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshy part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me."
Peter seemed to realize that it would be a long time before his book was read and understood, for he writes:
"These things, then, which you saw you shall present to those of another race who are not of this age."
He seems to be right, as this apocalypse has only just seen the light of day before we enter the age that many believe will begin with the second coming of Christ.
The Apocalypse of Paul
The Apocalypse of Paul is an account of the apostle's ascent into heaven and what he found there, with instructions for other souls on how to conduct themselves during judgment. One of the most interesting aspects of this text is that it corresponds to events found in the New Testament and includes references to reincarnation. Several Christian Gnostic texts combine the ideas of reincarnation and union with God.As Paul passes through the fourth heaven, he witnesses a soul being punished for murder. This soul is brought "out of the land of the dead" (i.e., Earth) by angels where three witnesses charge the soul with murder. The soul looks sorrowfully down and is cast down into a body that has been prepared for it. The book describes Paul's journey through the heavens, which is also symbolic for the Gnostic process of union with God.
The New Testament contains a letter by the apostle Paul to the Christians in the city of Corinth, Greece, where he had founded a church on his first visit there. The Christians at this church were being divided by the teachings of so-called "false teachers" that were infiltrating the church there and Paul wrote a letter telling them to not forget what they were taught by Paul. These "false teachers" were trying to get people to follow their teachings and not Paul's. In order to put these false teachers to shame, Paul rebukes the Corinthians by using false pride and boasting about himself and telling the church why he is more qualified than the false teachers. He tells them of his sufferings and how he was once stoned and left for dead (2 Cor. 11:23-26). The letter goes on to say:"I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. I know a person in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know - God knows. And I know that this person - whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows - was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that humans are not permitted to tell." (2 Cor. 12:1-4)
In the above passage, Paul continued his "boasting" by telling about visions and revelations he had received from the Lord. "I know a person in Christ" means that he was speaking about himself. He explained that he didn't know if he was taken up in his body or in his spirit, but he was in paradise ("the third heaven"). This incident cannot be positively identified with a recorded event in Paul's career, although some think this may have been when he was stoned and left for dead (Acts 14:19-20). Paul told about this incident to show that he had been uniquely touched by God.
Many people are unaware of this passage of the Bible and that it is a near-death experience which Paul had. The person who wrote most of the New Testament, the sacred writings of orthodox Christianity, had a near-death experience which he based his authority as an apostle of Christ to the Corinthian church. It can even be argued that his near-death experience directly or indirectly inspired his epistles.
The Apocalypse of Paul reveals how each soul must rise as best it can after death through a hierarchy of heavens and face the increasingly difficult challenges posed by the guardian angels of each heaven. The journey begins with Paul meeting a child on the mountain of Jericho on the way to heaven (symbolized by Jerusalem). This child turns out to be the Holy Spirit, who takes Paul first to the third heaven.
The Holy Spirit warns Paul to keep his wits about him for they are about to enter the realm of "principalities ... archangels and powers and the whole race of demons." The Holy Spirit also mentions that they will pass "one that reveals bodies to a soul-seed," that is, the being that takes souls and plants them in new bodies for reincarnation. For the soul who wished to ascend to the highest heaven, reincarnation was to be avoided.
When Paul reaches the fourth heaven, the Holy Spirit encourages him to look down upon his body which he has left behind on the mountain of Jericho. As Paul ascends, he witnesses in the fourth heaven the judgment and punishment of another soul. He says, "I saw the angels resembling gods ... bringing a soul out of the land of the dead." The soul has been resurrected so that it can be judged, one of the four events promised for the end of the world. The angels were whipping it.
The soul spoke, saying, "What sin was it that I committed in the world?" The "toll collector" of this heavenly gate accuses the soul. The soul replies, "Bring witnesses! Let them show you in what body I committed lawless deeds." Three bodies rise up as witnesses and accuse the soul of anger and envy, and finally murder. When the soul heard these things, it gazed downwards in sorrow ... It was cast down.
At this point we expect the soul to be cast into hell, as in later Christian doctrine, but no: "the soul that had been cast down went to a body which had been prepared for it," and was reincarnated.
Paul, somewhat shaken by this experience, was beckoned forward by the Holy Spirit and allowed to pass through the gate of the fifth heaven. Here he saw his fellow apostles and "a great angel in the fifth heaven holding an iron rod in his hand." This angel and three other angels, with whips in their hands, scourge the souls of the dead and drive them on to judgment. Paul remains with the Holy Spirit and the gates to the sixth heaven swing open effortlessly before him.
In the sixth heaven, Paul sees a strong light shining down on him from the heaven above. He is motioned by the "toll collector" through the gates of the seventh heaven. Here, he sees "an old man filled with light and whose garment was white. His throne, which is in the seventh heaven, was brighter than the sun by seven times." This old man bears a striking resemblance to Jehovah as he is described in the vision of Ezekiel.
The old man asks, "Where are you going, Paul?" Only reluctantly, after some encouragement from the Holy Spirit, does Paul speak with him and give the Gnostic sign he has learned. The eighth heaven then opens and Paul ascends. Here he embraces the twelve disciples, most of whom he has not met before, and together they rise to the ninth heaven. Finally, Paul reaches the tenth and highest heaven, where he is transformed.
The Suppression of Christian Gnosticism
The Christian Gnostics believed in reincarnation and the preexistence of the soul. They refused to believe in a resurrection of corpses at the end of time. They emphasized meeting Jesus on a spiritual level to become liberated and attain permanent citizenship in heaven. The Church of Rome of the second century A.D., on the other hand, declared that those who deny a Last Day resurrection of corpses are heretics.
Many Christian Gnostics regarded themselves as part of the organized body of Christians of the early church. However, as the organized Church gained political control of the Roman Empire, the Christian Gnostics were persecuted by the organized Church and many were martyred. The Christian Gnostic tradition is one of many branches of early Christianity labeled as heretical by the early Church fathers. The Gnostic influences and writings were cut out of official Church doctrines as heresy. Because of their suspected Christian Gnostic origins, the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation was almost rejected from the New Testament. Nevertheless, the organized Church succeeded in hiding its Christian Gnostic doctrines.
It is not surprising that the orthodox Church bishops edited out the practical spiritual knowledge which was once an integral part of Christianity and was known and practiced by the apostle Paul. For these fathers, it was far more convenient and gratifying for their egos to assert that spiritual grace could only be attained through them as Christ's representatives on Earth. To control the masses, the political organization of the church declared that salvation was attained only through the church rituals and through the priesthood. Salvation through a personal mystical experience with Christ apart from the organized church was cast away. In a move that is very likely to have met with the disapproval of Christ himself, the worldly political aspirations of a few priests won out over the spiritual enlightenment of the many.
And as it is with any religion or movement, the successors of its founder decided which things to keep and which to throw out. The organized Church discarded the spiritual knowledge of Christian Gnosticism as being too dangerous and kept the concept of blind acceptance of church doctrine.
Ultimately, the organized Church declared Christian Gnosticism a heresy and began killing those who adhered to its doctrines. Thus the powerful Roman Church began its crusade of eliminating all rivals to its authority. Christian Gnosticism was obliterated and relatively little historical and theological information was left to fully understand early Christian history. This all changed in 1945 with the discovery of the Gnostic Christian scriptures discovered in Egypt. Then in 1947, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls of early Jewish Gnostic writings occurred. Today, with many Christians wondering if the Second Coming of Christ is soon to happen, it may not be a coincidence that these secret writings have come to surface after two thousand years of being hidden. Finally, after two thousands years, the secret is finally out again. -
this is the branch of agnostics christianity I heard it elsewhere. facsinating piece of read.
-
Originally posted by Rooney_07:
this is the branch of agnostics christianity I heard it elsewhere. facsinating piece of read.
Thanks for the CSB read!
-
wow didnt know they believe in reincarnation during that era. damn the roman church for persecuting and destroying beliefs not conformed to theirs. so where are they now? heaven or hell?
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
Alright then. I'm not knowledgeable about theological issues, but I'll give it a go since no one else is keen.
1. All Christians should be aware, but not many actually are, that the biblical description of the resurrection differs quite significantly between the various gospels. How many people went (one Mary, two Marys w/o Joanna), whether there were angels at the tomb (none, one or two?), when the stone was rolled away -- there were differences for each of these in the different gospels. I've seen efforts to explain away these differences, but these strike me as tenuous. If the gospels are inconsistent and/or omit key details of such an important event, what else can we trust of their account?
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/resurrection_accounts.htm
2. As far as I can gather, the majority of New Testament scholars agree that the gospel of Mark originally ends at 16:8. "Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." (NIV). In other words, the original ending of Mark had very little about Jesus rising from the dead. The subsequent versus 9-16 were found only in later manuscripts, and had stylistic differences from the rest of the gospel. Some scholars therefore believe that this longer ending of Mark was forged, while even the NIV includes a disclaimer:
[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+16%3A9-20&version=NIV
3. In a debate between prominent Christian apologist William Lane Craig and well-known biblical scholar Bart Ehrman on this very issue, Ehrman made the very compelling point that a miracle is by definition the rarest of events. Therefore, a reasonable person would accept explanation by miracle only as the last resort, in the absence of all other possible explanations. So as unlikely as a tomb theft could be, it would still be more likely than the fact that Jesus rose from the dead. For example, if Ong Teng Cheong's body goes missing, would you automatically accept that he had gone to heaven, body and soul?
Now, Craig is a formidable opponent, and he wins more than his fair share of debates with atheists, but I thought he was out of his depth, and simply outclassed in his exchange with Ehrman. You can watch the full debate, broken up into 12 parts, here:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjOSNj97_gk
Again, I'm no expert on theological issues, and I've found it hard to find objective information about the bible. In many cases, it simply comes down to "he said, she said", which makes debate difficult for non-specialists. The above three points seem to me some of the more digestible and objective challenges.
Brief comments:
1. A difference does not constitute a contradiction. Only when one can show that the differences amounted to a contradition (eg. one Gospel said there was ONLY one woman, but another said there were three). If it is mentioned that "an angel spoke" it does not mean that there was only one angel. There could be two or more, but one of them spoke. Again, one must allow for harmonisation and reconciliations to be done between differing accounts. If they can be shown to be complementary without contradiction, then the objection vanishes. The Christian apologist only needs to show that there is no logical contradiction in the accounts.
2. Granted that there is controversy about the ending verses of Mark. The Bible translators do not hide this issue, it's a chunk marked out or mentioned in the footnotes. Let's for the sake of argument take that chunk out. What then? Does it mean Mark is contradicting the rest of the Gospels? No record of resurrection in Mark means it never happened? That would be an argument from silence, and arguments from silence are notoriously weak. No essential doctrine of the Christian faith is affected or negated by the ending verses of Mark.
3. Indeed a miracle is a rare event and is by definition an unlikely event, which is why it is called a miracle! And no Christian is saying that resurrections or miracles are a daily or common experience! But that's just the nature of miracles, they are events that defy natural/regular/expected explanation. Yes, we should not be quick to shout "God did it!" at first instance. It's good to exercise healthy skepticism. Remember even the apostles did not believe the women who first reported it. The early Christians were not dumb, they also knew that dead people stay dead if they are truly dead. There must be good reasons for declaring that Jesus rose from the dead. And so far none of the reasons for the empty tomb, other than resurrection happening, have withstood scrutiny. Was Craig outclassed by Ehrman? I don't think so. But we can set this aside for now. Gary Herbamas and Mike Licona has written much on the historical evidence for the resurrection. You may wish to check them out.
4. I don't know why you say you cannot find objective information in the Bible. The Bible is mostly narrative history. And many have taken upon themselves the task of setting forth a chronological account of how things have happened. When a few witnesses are reporting on an event it is only expected that there is general agreement on the main things and differences in details. Critics will shout "kelong" if all 4 Gospels are identical, and what's the point of having 4 identical Gospels anyway? And if the Bible was really man-made, wouldn't you think that all these problems would have already been ironed out after 2000 years? Why make things difficult for people to believe you if you wanna con them, ya?
On hindsight, it seems that my comments were anything but brief! LOL!
-
1. Yours is the standard defense of saying that the different gospels focused on different events. It's possible by some stretch of the imagination, but it's certainly not the most likely explanation. If I'm writing a gospel of such import, would I neglect to mention that there was an earthquake just as an angel rolled away the stone? Would I neglect to mention that an angel (an angel!), let alone two angels, spoke to the witnesses? It's far easier to accept the inconsistencies of the account, than to devise some contrived reconciliation.
2. By admitting that the longer ending of Mark was not by the original author (in essence, a later forgery), we already concede that even the canonical bible is a very human document. This, along with the first point, points out the difficulties in using the bible as the literal truth.
3. You haven't explained why a resurrection is more likely than a tomb theft. The scenario painted by Ehrman was that Jesus' body was stolen, and that the thieves were stopped and killed by guards who didn't know that the identity of the body. Both Jesus and the thieves were then dumped into a mass grave, never to be found again. As unlikely as this scenario is, he points out, this is still more likely than a resurrection. Or maybe, as the conspiracy theorists will have it, Jesus survived, was rescued and escaped to India. Again, highly unlikely, but still more likely than a resurrection.
4. To be sure, I was talking about objective information about the bible, and not necessarily objective information in the bible (although the latter is just as suspect). When it comes to biblical analysis, the apologists are so strident that it is impossible to find a balanced view. Ehrman, by his record, should arguably be balanced, considering his former evangelical background, his brilliant academics at Princeton, and his tutelage under and regard for Bruce Metzger. But for a layperson, it is impossible to ascertain the quality of his scholarship given the ceaseless attacks on him by Christian scholars.
-
Originally posted by Rooney_07:
wow didnt know they believe in reincarnation during that era. damn the roman church for persecuting and destroying beliefs not conformed to theirs. so where are they now? heaven or hell?
Nah, the article is clearly slanted to give some measure of credibility to the gnostics (not agnostics which refers to something entirely different). From: www.catholic.com/quickquestions/whats-gnosticism
"Gnosticism, which gets its name from the Greek word gnosis ("knowledge"), was similar in some ways to the modern New Age movement. Like New Agers, gnostics used Christian terminology and symbols, but placed them in an alien religious context that gutted the essential teachings of Christ. It's unclear when gnosticism began. Many Church Fathers thought gnosticism was founded by Simon Magus, the Samaritan sorcerer who converted to Christianity (Acts 8:9-24). Some contemporary scholars think gnosticism started a few centuries before Christianity and then invaded it from the outside through the conversion to Christianity of Jewish and Gentile gnostics. Other scholars believe gnosticism started as a Christian heresy.
It seems clear, though, that the apostles themselves had to contend with a form of gnosticism (Col 2:8, 18; 1 Jn 4:1-3; Rv 2:6, 15). Paul said, "Avoid profane babbling and the absurdities of so-called knowledge [gnosis]. By professing it some people have deviated from the faith" (1 Tm 6:20-21)."
Heresies in the early church were a dime a dozen, and gnosticism was no different from the others in wanting to 'take over' the church by spouting their own ideas and doctrines that were contrary to the teachings of Jesus and his apostles.
So yes, the article you posted is good fodder for those into conspiracy theories like the Da Vinci code. But as a piece of serious scholarship, not really. Its few sources are outside the realm of serious historical research and it makes several unsubstantiated claims, including the one that you have happily regurgitated.
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
1. Yours is the standard defense of saying that the different gospels focused on different events. It's possible by some stretch of the imagination, but it's certainly not the most likely explanation. If I'm writing a gospel of such import, would I neglect to mention that there was an earthquake just as an angel rolled away the stone? Would I neglect to mention that an angel (an angel!), let alone two angels, spoke to the witnesses? It's far easier to accept the inconsistencies of the account, than to devise some contrived reconciliation.
2. By admitting that the longer ending of Mark was not by the original author (in essence, a later forgery), we already concede that even the canonical bible is a very human document. This, along with the first point, points out the difficulties in using the bible as the literal truth.
3. You haven't explained why a resurrection is more likely than a tomb theft. The scenario painted by Ehrman was that Jesus' body was stolen, and that the thieves were stopped and killed by guards who didn't know that the identity of the body. Both Jesus and the thieves were then dumped into a mass grave, never to be found again. As unlikely as this scenario is, he points out, this is still more likely than a resurrection. Or maybe, as the conspiracy theorists will have it, Jesus survived, was rescued and escaped to India. Again, highly unlikely, but still more likely than a resurrection.
4. To be sure, I was talking about objective information about the bible, and not necessarily objective information in the bible (although the latter is just as suspect). When it comes to biblical analysis, the apologists are so strident that it is impossible to find a balanced view. Ehrman, by his record, should arguably be balanced, considering his former evangelical background, his brilliant academics at Princeton, and his tutelage under and regard for Bruce Metzger. But for a layperson, it is impossible to ascertain the quality of his scholarship given the ceaseless attacks on him by Christian scholars.
1. If you are the author of a history book, it is entirely your prerogative what you choose to report and include in it. And if you knew 3 other authors are also writing on the same series of events, perhaps you may not mention this thing or that thing because you think the other guy has also wrote it. In any case, omission of certain details is not tantamount to denial. So I think the objection of "if so important then why never record it" is weak. Come to think about it, all four Gospels record the crucifixion of Jesus yet there are even people who deny that there is even such a person as Jesus Christ! You see, it is not whether you record this or not, but whether what you recorded was true. One can always think of things that should be in a report and hype it out and say it is important. But that's what you think. You are not him. And he is not obligated to share your views of what's important or not. A historian has to be selective in what he chooses. You can complain about why this not there or not, but such complaints are not an argument against the truth of what's being reported. When it comes to the issue of truth there is no place for sloppy thinking that says "oh it is easier to just say it is wrong than to take the trouble to harmonise differing accounts".
2. You are sweating things concerning the ending of Mark, and blowing things out of proportion. The earliest manuscripts may not have that ending, but then there are other extant manuscripts which have. We do not have the autogrpahs but we have an embarassment of riches when it comes to extant manuscripts. Bible scholars and textual critics are simply being honest in handling the thousands of manuscripts by stating their views concerning the ending verses. Again if we wanted to silence Bible critics like you someone could have simply declared what should be the case and made sure it does not become fodder for you to gripe about. But are you forgeting the majority of the text where there is no controversy? Yes, the Bible is a human document. No Christian denies that. But it is not JUST a human document. It also claims to have divine inspiration. And no one less than Jesus Christ said that this is the Word of God.
3. Perhaps you are unaware that the stolen body theory is already right there in the Gospel accounts? The soldiers has been bought over to give this story, that the disciples stole the body. It's not as if this stolen body theory is some new idea! That Ehrman would similarly buy (how nice also to make money by writing books attacking the Christian faith ya?) this idea IMO shows how sloppy his thinking is. He engages in speculation, admits his view is ad hoc and unlikely, and declare it is better than a resurrection anyway. This reeks of anti-supernatural bias more than anything. He doesn't let the text speaks for himself, but approaches the text by already deciding that miracles are impossible and so only naturalistic explanations can be allowed, even if it is ludicrous and admittedly unlikely!
4. It is an ASSUMPTION that just because you are a former evangelical that therefore you make a better testimony or that you should be preferred over an evangelical. That is simply an appeal to authority along the lines of "hey I was once like you, so what I say is better than what you say and you should take my word for it". I think this is fallacious thinking at work. You made mention of Ehrman's tutelage under Metzger. I am well aware of that. But even those wuxia stories can tell you that many times the disciple deviate from the right path and went rogue. Did Metzger agree with Bart? Mind you, there have been books written to refute Bart and he has had debates with Daniel Wallace of NET Bible. You should take a look at them. You call these ceaseless attacks on Bart, as if it is poor old Bart being ganged upon. Yet why shouldn't anyone respond to his works that ceaselessly attack the integrity of Scriptures and which has led many to doubt their faith? Bart rode on the good name of his mentor to write books and profit from attacking the faith. Why do you then frown on Bible scholars who are no less qualified and credentialed than Bart to take him on in the public square?
-
Thats why it is better to be without judgment over these details.
Is it important that it is the truth? If it is true, it would not make one iota of difference to me. Conversely, if it is not true, it would also not make one iota of difference to me. I just keep them in view.
Did Abraham, Jesus, Mohammmed ascended into heaven.
Yes they did, No they did not. Will it affect you?
You are on this earth, it is how you conduct yourself is all that matters. And leave the matters of after death, after death. Your time is here and now. You either have a win or a win-win. Live well and honourably you win here and now. The after, who knows. If there is, you have a win-win, otherwise you already have a win.
I don't believe that membership has its privileges. Belonging to the true religion is no guarantee of after death privileges.
Live well here, that is all that is asked of you. Living well includes being benelovent towards you fellow beings.
-
Originally posted by Dalforce 1941:
Evidence for the Resurrection
by Josh McDowell
For centuries many of the world's distinguished philosophers have assaulted Christianity as being irrational, superstitious and absurd. Many have chosen simply to ignore the central issue of the resurrection. Others have tried to explain it away through various theories. But the historical evidence just can't be discounted.
A student at the University of Uruguay said to me. "Professor McDowell, why can't you refute Christianity?"
"For a very simple reason," I answered. "I am not able to explain away an event in history--the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
How can we explain the empty tomb? Can it possibly be accounted for by any natural cause?
A QUESTION OF HISTORY
After more than 700 hours of studying this subject, I have come to the conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is either one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted on the minds of human beings--or it is the most remarkable fact of history.Here are some of the facts relevant to the resurrection: Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish prophet who claimed to be the Christ prophesied in the Jewish Scriptures, was arrested, was judged a political criminal, and was crucified. Three days after His death and burial, some women who went to His tomb found the body gone. In subsequent weeks, His disciples claimed that God had raised Him from the dead and that He appeared to them various times before ascending into heaven.
From that foundation, Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire and has continued to exert great influence down through the centuries.
LIVING WITNESSES
The New Testament accounts of the resurrection were being circulated within the lifetimes of men and women alive at the time of the resurrection. Those people could certainly have confirmed or denied the accuracy of such accounts.The writers of the four Gospels either had themselves been witnesses or else were relating the accounts of eyewitnesses of the actual events. In advocating their case for the gospel, a word that means "good news," the apostles appealed (even when confronting their most severe opponents) to common knowledge concerning the facts of the resurrection.
F. F. Bruce, Rylands professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Manchester, says concerning the value of the New Testament records as primary sources: "Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective."
IS THE NEW TESTAMENT RELIABLE?
Because the New Testament provides the primary historical source for information on the resurrection, many critics during the 19th century attacked the reliability of these biblical documents.By the end of the 1 9th century, however, archaeological discoveries had confirmed the accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts. Discoveries of early papyri bridged the gap between the time of Christ and existing manuscripts from a later date.
Those findings increased scholarly confidence in the reliability of the Bible. William F. Albright, who in his day was the world's foremost biblical archaeologist, said: "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today."
Coinciding with the papyri discoveries, an abundance of other manuscripts came to light (over 24,000 copies of early New Testament manuscripts are known to be in existence today). The historian Luke wrote of "authentic evidence" concerning the resurrection. Sir William Ramsay, who spent 15 years attempting to undermine Luke credentials as a historian, and to refute the reliability of the New Testament, finally concluded: "Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. "
BACKGROUND
The New Testament witnesses were fully aware of the background against which the resurrection took place. The body of Jesus, in accordance with Jewish burial custom, was wrapped in a linen cloth. About 100 pounds of aromatic spices, mixed together to form a gummy substance, were applied to the wrappings of cloth about the body. After the body was placed in a solid rock tomb, an extremely large stone was rolled against the entrance of the tomb. Large stones weighing approximately two tons were normally rolled (by means of levers) against a tomb entrance.A Roman guard of strictly disciplined fighting men was stationed to guard the tomb. This guard affixed on the tomb the Roman seal, which was meant to "prevent any attempt at vandalizing the sepulcher. Anyone trying to move the stone from the tomb's entrance would have broken the seal and thus incurred the wrath of Roman law.
But three days later the tomb was empty. The followers of Jesus said He had risen from the dead. They reported that He appeared to them during a period of 40 days, showing Himself to them by many "infallible proofs." Paul the apostle recounted that Jesus appeared to more than 500 of His followers at one time, the majority of whom were still alive and who could confirm what Paul wrote. So many security precautions were taken with the trial, crucifixion, burial, entombment, sealing, and guarding of Christ's tomb that it becomes very difficult for critics to defend their position that Christ did not rise from the dead. Consider these facts:
FACT #1: BROKEN ROMAN SEAL
As we have said, the first obvious fact was the breaking of the seal that stood for the power and authority of the Roman Empire. The consequences of breaking the seal were extremely severe. The FBI and CIA of the Roman Empire were called into action to find the man or men who were responsible. If they were apprehended, it meant automatic execution by crucifixion upside down. People feared the breaking of the seal. Jesus' disciples displayed signs of cowardice when they hid themselves. Peter, one of these disciples, went out and denied Christ three times.FACT #2: EMPTY TOMB
As we have already discussed, another obvious fact after the resurrection was the empty tomb. The disciples of Christ did not go off to Athens or Rome to preach that Christ was raised from the dead. Rather, they went right back to the city of Jerusalem, where, if what they were teaching was false, the falsity would be evident. The empty tomb was "too notorious to be denied." Paul Althaus states that the resurrection "could have not been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, for a single hour, if the emptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact for all concerned."Both Jewish and Roman sources and traditions admit an empty tomb. Those resources range from Josephus to a compilation of fifth-century Jewish writings called the "Toledoth Jeshu." Dr. Paul Maier calls this "positive evidence from a hostile source, which is the strongest kind of historical evidence. In essence, this means that if a source admits a fact decidedly not in its favor, then that fact is genuine."
Gamaliel, who was a member of the Jewish high court, the Sanhedrin, put forth the suggestion that the rise of the Christian movement was God's doing; he could not have done that if the tomb were still occupied, or if the Sanhedrin knew the whereabouts of Christ's body.
Paul Maier observes that " . . . if all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable, according to the canons of historical research, to conclude that the sepulcher of Joseph of Arimathea, in which Jesus was buried, was actually empty on the morning of the first Easter. And no shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy, or archaeology that would disprove this statement."
FACT #3: LARGE STONE MOVED
On that Sunday morning the first thing that impressed the people who approached the tomb was the unusual position of the one and a half to two ton stone that had been lodged in front of the doorway. All the Gospel writers mention it.Those who observed the stone after the resurrection describe its position as having been rolled up a slope away not just from the entrance of the tomb, but from the entire massive sepulcher. It was in such a position that it looked as if it had been picked up and carried away. Now, I ask you, if the disciples had wanted to come in, tiptoe around the sleeping guards, and then roll the stone over and steal Jesus' body, how could they have done that without the guards' awareness?
FACT #4: ROMAN GUARD GOES AWOL
The Roman guards fled. They left their place of responsibility. How can their attrition he explained, when Roman military discipline was so exceptional? Justin, in Digest #49, mentions all the offenses that required the death penalty. The fear of their superiors' wrath and the possibility of death meant that they paid close attention to the minutest details of their jobs. One way a guard was put to death was by being stripped of his clothes and then burned alive in a fire started with his garments. If it was not apparent which soldier had failed in his duty, then lots were drawn to see which one would be punished with death for the guard unit's failure. Certainly the entire unit would not have fallen asleep with that kind of threat over their heads. Dr. George Currie, a student of Roman military discipline, wrote that fear of punishment "produced flawless attention to duty, especially in the night watches."
FACT #5: GRAVECLOTHES TELL A TALE
In a literal sense, against all statements to the contrary, the tomb was not totally empty--because of an amazing phenomenon. John, a disciple of Jesus, looked over to the place where the body of Jesus had lain, and there were the grave clothes, in the form of the body, slightly caved in and empty--like the empty chrysalis of a caterpillar's cocoon. That's enough to make a believer out of anybody. John never did get over it. The first thing that stuck in the minds of the disciples was not the empty tomb, but rather the empty grave clothes--undisturbed in form and position.
FACT #6: JESUS' APPEARANCES CONFIRMED
Christ appeared alive on several occasions after the cataclysmic events of that first Easter . When studying an event in history, it is important to know whether enough people who were participants or eyewitnesses to the event were alive when the facts about the event were published. To know this is obviously helpful in ascertaining the accuracy of the published report. If the number of eyewitnesses is substantial, the event can he regarded as fairly well established. For instance, if we all witness a murder, and a later police report turns out to he a fabrication of lies, we as eyewitnesses can refute it.
OVER 500 WITNESSES
Several very important factors arc often overlooked when considering Christ's post-resurrection appearances to individuals. The first is the large number of witnesses of Christ after that resurrection morning. One of the earliest records of Christ's appearing after the resurrection is by Paul. The apostle appealed to his audience's knowledge of the fact that Christ had been seen by more than 500 people at one time. Paul reminded them that the majority of those people were still alive and could be questioned. Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi, associate professor of history at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, emphasizes: "What gives a special authority to the list (of witnesses) as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, 'If you do not believe me, you can ask them.' Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within thirty years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago." Let's take the more than 500 witnesses who saw Jesus alive after His death and burial, and place them in a courtroom. Do you realize that if each of those 500 people were to testify for only six minutes, including cross-examination, you would have an amazing 50 hours of firsthand testimony? Add to this the testimony of many other eyewitnesses and you would well have the largest and most lopsided trial in history.
HOSTILE WITNESSES
Another factor crucial to interpreting Christ's appearances is that He also appeared to those who were hostile or unconvinced.Over and over again, I have read or heard people comment that Jesus was seen alive after His death and burial only by His friends and followers. Using that argument, they attempt to water down the overwhelming impact of the multiple eyewitness accounts. But that line of reasoning is so pathetic it hardly deserves comment. No author or informed individual would regard Saul of Tarsus as being a follower of Christ. The facts show the exact opposite. Saul despised Christ and persecuted Christ's followers. It was a life-shattering experience when Christ appeared to him. Although he was at the time not a disciple, he later became the apostle Paul, one of the greatest witnesses for the truth of the resurrection.
The argument that Christ's appearances were only to followers is an argument for the most part from silence, and arguments from silence can be dangerous. It is equally possible that all to whom Jesus appeared became followers. No one acquainted with the facts can accurately say that Jesus appeared to just "an insignificant few."
Christians believe that Jesus was bodily resurrected in time and space by the supernatural power of God. The difficulties of belief may be great, but the problems inherent in unbelief present even greater difficulties.
The theories advanced to explain the resurrection by "natural causes" are weak; they actually help to build confidence in the truth of the resurrection.
THE WRONG TOMB?
A theory propounded by Kirsopp Lake assumes that the women who reported that the body was missing had mistakenly gone to the wrong tomb. If so, then the disciples who went to check up on the women's statement must have also gone to the wrong tomb. We may be certain, however, that Jewish authorities, who asked for a Roman guard to be stationed at the tomb to prevent Jesus' body from being stolen, would not have been mistaken about the location. Nor would the Roman guards, for they were there!If the resurrection-claim was merely because of a geographical mistake, the Jewish authorities would have lost no time in producing the body from the proper tomb, thus effectively quenching for all time any rumor resurrection.
HALLUCINATIONS?
Another attempted explanation claims that the appearances of Jesus after the resurrection were either illusions or hallucinations. Unsupported by the psychological principles governing the appearances of hallucinations, this theory also does not coincide with the historical situation. Again, where was the actual body, and why wasn't it produced?
DID JESUS SWOON?
Another theory, popularized by Venturini several centuries ago, is often quoted today. This is the swoon theory, which says that Jesus didn't die; he merely fainted from exhaustion and loss of blood. Everyone thought Him dead, but later He resuscitated and the disciples thought it to be a resurrection. Skeptic David Friedrich Strauss--certainly no believer in the resurrection--gave the deathblow to any thought that Jesus revived from a swoon: "It is impossible that a being who had stolen half-dead out of the sepulchre, who crept about weak and ill, wanting medical treatment, who required bandaging, strengthening and indulgence, and who still at last yielded to His sufferings, could have given to the disciples the impression that He was a Conqueror over death and the grave, the Prince of Life,an impression which lay at the bottom of their future ministry. Such a resuscitation could only have weakened the impression which He had made upon them in life and in death, at the most could only have given it an elegiac voice, but could by no possibility have changed their sorrow into enthusiasm, have elevated their reverence into worship."
THE BODY STOLEN?
Then consider the theory that the body was stolen by the disciples while the guards slept. The depression and cowardice of the disciples provide a hard-hitting argument against their suddenly becoming so brave and daring as to face a detachment of soldiers at the tomb and steal the body. They were in no mood to attempt anything like that.The theory that the Jewish or Roman authorities moved Christ's body is no more reasonable an explanation for the empty tomb than theft by the disciples. If the authorities had the body in their possession or knew where it was, why, when the disciples were preaching the resurrection in Jerusalem, didn't they explain: "Wait! We moved the body, see, He didn't rise from the grave"?
And if such a rebuttal failed, why didn't they explain exactly where Jesus' body lay? If this failed, why didn't they recover the corpse, put it on a cart, and wheel it through the center of Jerusalem? Such an action would have destroyed Christianity--not in the cradle, but in the womb!
THE RESURRECTION IS A FACT
Professor Thomas Arnold, for 14 years a headmaster of Rugby, author of the famous, History of Rome, and appointed to the chair of modern history at Oxford, was well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said: "I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead." Brooke Foss Westcott, an English scholar, said: "raking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it."
REAL PROOF: THE DISCIPLES' LIVES
But the most telling testimony of all must be the lives of those early Christians. We must ask ourselves: What caused them to go everywhere telling the message of the risen Christ?Had there been any visible benefits accrued to them from their efforts--prestige, wealth, increased social status or material benefits--we might logically attempt to account for their actions, for their whole-hearted and total allegiance to this "risen Christ ."
As a reward for their efforts, however, those early Christians were beaten, stoned to death, thrown to the lions, tortured and crucified. Every conceivable method was used to stop them from talking.
Yet, they laid down their lives as the ultimate proof of their complete confidence in the truth of their message.
WHERE DO YOU STAND?
How do you evaluate this overwhelming historical evidence? What is your decision about the fact of Christ's empty tomb? What do you think of Christ?When I was confronted with the overwhelming evidence for Christ's resurrection, I had to ask the logical question: "What difference does all this evidence make to me? What difference does it make whether or not I believe Christ rose again and died on the cross for my sins!' The answer is put best by something Jesus said to a man who doubted--Thomas. Jesus told him: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me" (John 14:6).
On the basis of all the evidence for Christ's resurrection, and considering the fact that Jesus offers forgiveness of sin and an eternal relationship with God, who would be so foolhardy as to reject Him? Christ is alive! He is living today.
You can trust God right now by faith through prayer. Prayer is talking with God. God knows your heart and is not so concerned with your words as He is with the attitude of your heart. If you have never trusted Christ, you can do so right now.
The prayer I prayed is: "Lord Jesus, I need You. Thank You for dying on the cross for my sins. I open the door of my life and trust You as my Savior. Thank You for forgiving my sins and giving me eternal life. Make me the kind of person You want me to be. Thank You that I can trust You."
Josh McDowell, according to a recent survey, is one of the most popular speakers among university students today. He has spoken on more than 650 university and college campuses to more than seven million people in 74 countries during the last 21 years.
http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html
Dalforce,
1. Yes previously, I have agreed with despondent that the scriptures have remained generally unchanged for 1800 years (NT) and about 2150 years for (dead sea scrolls, OT).
2. But using the bible to prove the bible is as good as using the quran to prove the quran. This whole article is telling us how reliable the NT and then goes on to prove the bible with itself. Similarly any muslim, hindu or sikh can also prove their miracles using the same method. All they have to do is to prove that their scriptures have remained unchanged and then go on to use their religious text to prove their own religious text. This is an error of confirmation bias. So let me ask anyone or Dalforce, if christians can use the bible to prove itself, can muslims do that too?
3. All I can agree is , yes the scriptures have remained unchanged for a long period of time BUT THAT does not mean
a) the accounts in the scriptures were real and not fabricated
b) that the miracles in the scriptures did happen
4. To validate the accounts, you need to have other sources OUTSIDE of the bible from that period of time to support. E.g. Accounts from the roman empire authorities that jesus did really resurrect OR E.g Accounts from non-christians during that period of time who witnessed jesus resurrecting, OUTSIDE of the bible
Although there are no originals of julius caesar (and I have no problems with the bible not having originals too), there were many supporting external accounts to support the events of julius caesar's life.
BTW, I have read this mcdowell thing when i was a christian.
-
BIC:
1. Well, it is your prerogative to decide whether the omission of such key events as two talking angels and an earthquake is acceptable. Your argument about having three other gospels on backup is also suspect, unless you are telling me that the authors knew which other gospels would be canonized a couple of hundred years later. If I were narrating such a vital piece of history, I might conceivably leave out what the tomb visitors were carrying. I might even conveniently leave out who the full group of visitors were. Maybe if earthquakes were common in the area, I might even leave out the mention of a "great" earthquake. But I would never, ever leave out the fact that there were two angels, not only rolling away the tombstone, but also having a chat with the visitors.
2. The longer ending of Mark as a fabricated addition is only the tip of the iceberg. What about the Pericope Adulterae, another important story now widely believed to be an addition by an overzealous copyist? What about First and Second Thessalonians, which some believe to be forgeries by an author claiming to be Paul? What about the letters by Peter, who was likely to have been illiterate in Aramaic, let alone Greek? The reality is that once you accept that the longer ending of Mark was a later addition by some unknown author, then you have to concede that the bible is flawed. And once you concede that the bible has issues, you have to ask yourself: What other pieces of the bible have problems?
3. Your point about the soldiers being bought over to say that the disciples stole the body (Matthew 28:12?) says nothing about Ehrman's scenario. It could be that a sympathetic member of the guards stole the body, and they were happy to take the money to accuse someone else. It could be that the disciples did steal the body, but the guards had no evidence and therefore had to be bribed to say so. Your objection doesn't hold against Ehrman's scenario.
4. As I said, it is impossible for a layperson to determine the quality of Ehrman's scholarship, precisely due to attacks like yours. Which is why I've evaluated his arguments critically and tried to verify some of his comments with alternative sources.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
1. Yes previously, I have agreed with despondent that the scriptures have remained generally unchanged for 1800 years (NT) and about 2150 years for (dead sea scrolls, OT).
2. But using the bible to prove the bible is as good as using the quran to prove the quran. This whole article is telling us how reliable the NT and then goes on to prove the bible with itself. Similarly any muslim, hindu or sikh can also prove their miracles using the same method. All they have to do is to prove that their scriptures have remained unchanged and then go on to use their religious text to prove their own religious text. This is an error of confirmation bias. So let me ask anyone or Dalforce, if christians can use the bible to prove itself, can muslims do that too?
3. All I can agree is , yes the scriptures have remained unchanged for a long period of time BUT THAT does not mean
a) the accounts in the scriptures were real and not fabricated
b) that the miracles in the scriptures did happen
4. To validate the accounts, you need to have other sources OUTSIDE of the bible from that period of time to support. E.g. Accounts from the roman empire authorities that jesus did really resurrect OR E.g Accounts from non-christians during that period of time who witnessed jesus resurrecting, OUTSIDE of the bible
Although there are no originals of julius caesar (and I have no problems with the bible not having originals too), there were many supporting external accounts to support the events of julius caesar's life.
BTW, I have read this mcdowell thing when i was a christian.
Tcmc,
You said that Christians cannot use the Bible to prove the Bible. In effect you are charging Christians with circular reasoning. Before we go further please read and interact with the contents of a couple of articles here http://creation.com/not-circular-reasoning and here http://blog.carm.org/2011/06/you-cant-use-the-bible-to-prove-the-bible/
I believe both articles will refute your charge.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Dalforce,
1. Yes previously, I have agreed with despondent that the scriptures have remained generally unchanged for 1800 years (NT) and about 2150 years for (dead sea scrolls, OT).
2. But using the bible to prove the bible is as good as using the quran to prove the quran. This whole article is telling us how reliable the NT and then goes on to prove the bible with itself. Similarly any muslim, hindu or sikh can also prove their miracles using the same method. All they have to do is to prove that their scriptures have remained unchanged and then go on to use their religious text to prove their own religious text. This is an error of confirmation bias. So let me ask anyone or Dalforce, if christians can use the bible to prove itself, can muslims do that too?
3. All I can agree is , yes the scriptures have remained unchanged for a long period of time BUT THAT does not mean
a) the accounts in the scriptures were real and not fabricated
b) that the miracles in the scriptures did happen
4. To validate the accounts, you need to have other sources OUTSIDE of the bible from that period of time to support. E.g. Accounts from the roman empire authorities that jesus did really resurrect OR E.g Accounts from non-christians during that period of time who witnessed jesus resurrecting, OUTSIDE of the bible
Although there are no originals of julius caesar (and I have no problems with the bible not having originals too), there were many supporting external accounts to support the events of julius caesar's life.
BTW, I have read this mcdowell thing when i was a christian.
The non-bible evidence is right there in the article before your very eyes, but no surprise by now if you missed them or don't want to read them. I'm beyond pointing them out to you by now.
I'm very curious. If more than a half a dozen accomplished historians and scholars mentioned in this article admit to the historical origins of the Bible and the real occurence of its mentioned events, and they do this after many years of in-depth research and access to historical data and artifacts (which you clearly don't), why should anyone here take your position over their's?
I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .
E. M. Blaiklock
Professor of Classics
Auckland University -
Originally posted by Servant:
The non-bible evidence is right there in the article before your very eyes, but no surprise by now if you missed them or don't want to read them. I'm beyond pointing them out to you by now.
I'm very curious. If more than a half a dozen accomplished historians and scholars mentioned in this article admit to the historical origins of the Bible and the real occurence of its mentioned events, and they do this after many years of in-depth research and access to historical data and artifacts (which you clearly don't), why should anyone here take your position over their's?
I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .
E. M. Blaiklock
Professor of Classics
Auckland UniversityServant
1. You seem to be on a monologue. You did not answer my question. if you can use the bible to prove itself, then can a muslim or sikh also show their scriptures are unchanged and go on to quote muslim/sikh theologians who use the quran/sikh book to prove the quran/sikh book?
2. No surprise that all the "historians" and "professors" quoted in this mcdowell study are all christians or christian theologians. From EM Blaik to Kirsopp Lake, all are christians. When most of these quoted professors are christian, then there is a certain bias and an inclination to commit confirmation bias. Most of the quoted professors are OUTSIDE of the bibleno doubt but they were not from jesus' time. Whatever they claim about jesus' miracles can only be as good as opinion and not facts.
Also, Most of these christian historians do their research based on a huge assumption that jesus is god. It is flawed from the start. If one wants to do a serious research about the historicity of jesus, then one must view him as neutrally as possible and also consider all possibilities (e.g jesus did exist, jesus did not exist, jesus was not divine, jesus was divine etc) But christian historians start their research with their bias belief that jesus is divine. These christian historians claim they are doing a research of the historicity of jesus but in fact they are just doing theology.Why dont i see these christian historians doing a deep and sound research from an "agnostic perspective" or from a "jesus was a human" perspective?
3. Note that most historians (non-christian ones) do acknowledge the existence of jesus but not the supernatural claims tied with him. Supernatural claims lack serious empirical evidence and can only be believed by "faith".
4. Also, you have not address another point - Yes the scriptures have remained unchanged over long periods of time. But does that mean the miracles are did happen in the scripture? Why do christian historians make a big jump from "unchanging scripture" to conclude that "jesus' miracles are real"? HOW do they do this big leap of conclusion?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc,
You said that Christians cannot use the Bible to prove the Bible. In effect you are charging Christians with circular reasoning. Before we go further please read and interact with the contents of a couple of articles here http://creation.com/not-circular-reasoning and here http://blog.carm.org/2011/06/you-cant-use-the-bible-to-prove-the-bible/
I believe both articles will refute your charge.
BIC,
1. You seem to continually blatently commit the error of confirmation bias by quoting from websites that are deeply religious. I wonder why you are not heeding my advice. Maybe you dont care.
2. The first website is riddled with questionable content...
a) Self consistency - Yes bible is consistent in SOME areas but not all areas. Historians and scholars all agree on this. There are christian scholars who also admit that there are scribal errors and catholic church has also agreed that the bible is not 100% scientific (pls dont go into the "catholic are not christians" argument because it is very offending)
b) Consistent with the real world - I dont see how the "miracles" of "walking on water", "living in a fish tummy", "bird-bat" and "coming back to life from death" are consistent with the real world. Yes they are miracles claimed by the bible, but definitely not consistent with the real natural world.
Second website
a) You cant see the circular reasoning because you are in it. Maybe I should show you what you are doing -
Why is Sleeping Beauty a real and true account --> Because in the book it says that Sleeping Beauty ate, slept and kissed a prince. ---> Therefore the Sleeping Beauty story is a real and true account... and so on and so forth.
-
Originally posted by Rooney_07:
you think people are 27/4 here everytime, like you
people have to eat lunch and do business
:)))
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Ai ya why so upset? I am also looking forward to Tcmc's postings just like he look forward to mine only what.
BIC
Yea of course I love to ENGAGE you
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Servant
1. You seem to be on a monologue. You did not answer my question. if you can use the bible to prove itself, then can a muslim or sikh also show their scriptures are unchanged and go on to quote muslim/sikh theologians who use the quran/sikh book to prove the quran/sikh book?
2. No surprise that all the "historians" and "professors" quoted in this mcdowell study are all christians or christian theologians. From EM Blaik to Kirsopp Lake, all are christians. When most of these quoted professors are christian, then there is a certain bias and an inclination to commit confirmation bias. Most of the quoted professors are OUTSIDE of the bibleno doubt but they were not from jesus' time. Whatever they claim about jesus' miracles can only be as good as opinion and not facts.
Also, Most of these christian historians do their research based on a huge assumption that jesus is god. It is flawed from the start. If one wants to do a serious research about the historicity of jesus, then one must view him as neutrally as possible and also consider all possibilities (e.g jesus did exist, jesus did not exist, jesus was not divine, jesus was divine etc) But christian historians start their research with their bias belief that jesus is divine. These christian historians claim they are doing a research of the historicity of jesus but in fact they are just doing theology.Why dont i see these christian historians doing a deep and sound research from an "agnostic perspective" or from a "jesus was a human" perspective?
3. Note that most historians (non-christian ones) do acknowledge the existence of jesus but not the supernatural claims tied with him. Supernatural claims lack serious empirical evidence and can only be believed by "faith".
4. Also, you have not address another point - Yes the scriptures have remained unchanged over long periods of time. But does that mean the miracles are did happen in the scripture? Why do christian historians make a big jump from "unchanging scripture" to conclude that "jesus' miracles are real"? HOW do they do this big leap of conclusion?
Really? Show me:
- That the historians quoted in the article are all Christians
- That if they are Christian, they are allowing their religion to intrude on their academic integrity
- A documented example of a Christian academic historian who is guilty of starting his or her research from a biased angle
- That the historians are formulating theology under the guise of secular research
- That most non-Christian historians believe in the existence of Jesus but not his 'supernatural' events
- That the historians have made 'a big jump' in their conclusions instead of gradual research
You do realise that if you can't substantiate all your charges above, this amounts to slander as you are questioning their professional and academic integrity right? I would love to see you repeat all your accusations in their faces, but going by your track record, I think I'll be disappointed
-
Originally posted by Servant:
I'm very curious. If more than a half a dozen accomplished historians and scholars mentioned in this article admit to the historical origins of the Bible and the real occurence of its mentioned events, and they do this after many years of in-depth research and access to historical data and artifacts (which you clearly don't), why should anyone here take your position over their's?
The difficulty with the bible is that aside from fundamentalist Christians, very few scholars regard the bible as completely accurate.To this day, there is still no corroborating evidence for key events like the "Slaughter of the Innnocents" and Exodus.
One striking aspect of the Dennett/LaScola interviews with non-believing clergy was their accounts of seminary life. This is how the authors summarise the comments:
In seminary they were introduced to many of the details that have been gleaned by centuries of painstaking research about how various ancient texts came to be written, copied, translated, and, after considerable jockeying and logrolling,
eventually assembled into the Bible we read today. It is hard if not impossible to square these new facts with the idea that the Bible is in all its particulars a true account of actual events, let alone the inerrant word of God. It is interesting that all our pastors report the same pattern of response among their fellow students: some were fascinated, but others angrily rejected what their professors tried to teach them. Whatever their initial response to these unsettling revelations, the cat was out of the bag and both liberals and literals discerned the need to conceal their knowledge about the history of Christianity from their congregations.[Edit: Emphasis mine]
If you distrust the summary, some direct quotes from the clergy are also available here:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/Non-Believing-Clergy.pdfThat said, as far as I can see, no serious scholar regards the bible as complete falsehood either. In other words, each incident has to be evaluated on its merits and evidence.This is where the difficulty lies, and where the debate needs to be.
Still even if the majority of the biblical accounts are correct (and I don't know if it is), it ultimately has to be seen as a fallible book.
-
Originally posted by Servant:
Really? Show me:
- That the historians quoted in the article are all Christians
- That if they are Christian, they are allowing their religion to intrude on their academic integrity
- A documented example of a Christian academic historian who is guilty of starting his or her research from a biased angle
- That the historians are formulating theology under the guise of secular research
- That most non-Christian historians believe in the existence of Jesus but not his 'supernatural' events
- That the historians have made 'a big jump' in their conclusions instead of gradual research
You do realise that if you can't substantiate all your charges above, this amounts to slander as you are questioning their professional and academic integrity right? I would love to see you repeat all your accusations in their faces, but going by your track record, I think I'll be disappointed
Servant,
End of discussion with you although i would very much like to give you sources and explanations.
Because you are on a monologue, expecting people to answer you but not answering my questions.
You can go on about your monologue and believe that a research study done by mostly christians to confirm the "divine jesus" is absolutely fair and free of bias. :)
On a sidenote, would you think that a study done by mostly muslims to confirm that jesus was just a human prophet is absolutely fair and free of bias?
You have on many times refuse to answer my questions and yet expect people to answer you. Yours is not a dialogue. It's a monologue.