Originally posted by whodey Is this how scientists work out their problems? Do they vote on various theories by casting colored beads?
Whist there is a fundamental difference between science and the social sciences, namely empirical evidence (although, admittedly things like questionnaires may be counted as "empirical data", essentially yes.
We may have competing theories, and whichever one the science community takes up (based upon experimental evidence) is likely to be the correct one. Of course, this isn't always perfect, so they are always willing to change as new data comes in.
Originally posted by whodey No, who chose the 12? Why did he choose the 12? If he had planned on doing it all himself he would not have needed the 12. God works with us not for us.
This doesn't answer my question. You are following the bible, not Jesus himself. You are pre-supposing that the disciples and the people who put the bible who put it together did so correctly, and without bias. That's a VERY large assumption.
Originally posted by josephw You don't need evidence, you just need faith. And if you had faith, you would have all the evidence you would need.
Consider this though. In all of human history no one else has ever been able to make this claim. Why? One would think there would be all kinds of people claiming to have risen from the dead. I'm not talking about a nut here and there. I mean ...[text shortened]... make such a claim. The resurrection of Jesus Christ can not be counterfeited or duplicated.
What utter rot.
You "don't need evidence"? Okay, the world was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There. It's official. I don't need any proof. I want it covered as an official religion.
As for your claim that a mere claim is enough to make something true, well, come on, you know better than that! If I claim that I can magically disappear and reappear as a large pair of slippers does that make it true simply because no-one has ever claimed it before?
Originally posted by josephw The Ebionites were a revisionist extremist fringe group, and like anyone else that denies the basic tenets of the faith, are deceived.
If they were there from the beginning, even before (hanging out with John the Baptist), how could they be revisionist?
Originally posted by josephw No point in believing in someone who's dead.
Yet you do. Everytime you read the bible. You believe in Paul and the rest of his hippie friends. You believe in their representation of Jesus, which may or may not have been true. Why didn't Jesus just write it out for us? It's not like it would be the first time God wrote it down for us, right?
Originally posted by josephw Consider this though. In all of human history no one else has ever been able to make this claim.
What utter nonsense. Lots of people have made that claim.
Why? One would think there would be all kinds of people claiming to have risen from the dead. I'm not talking about a nut here and there. Ahh. But surely anyone claiming to have risen from the dead can be classified as a nut so you are essentially excluding all such claims.
I mean, why is there no claim of resurrection of any other person in any other religious system? There are.
The answer is because there's no "credible evidence" for them to make such a claim. The resurrection of Jesus Christ can not be counterfeited or duplicated. Nor is there any "credible evidence" for it.
The real answer is that the whole concept behind it is not very common and not the only reason to start a religion. A good hero in most religions would be one who doesn't get crucified in the first place.
Originally posted by scottishinnz [b]This doesn't answer my question. You are following the bible, not Jesus himself.
Yes, but all we have in terms of Christ is the Bible. Interestingly enough, however, Christ went around quoting from the Bible. He showed how he was an answer to prophesy and how he came to fulfill the law. According to Jesus, the word of God is just that and he was an actural incarnation of that Word, therefore, he did not speak on his own authority, rather, he spoke in terms of the authority of the Word. You might say he was a reflection of the word of God. For example, Christ's disciples asked Jesus to show them the Father and his response was that if you have seen me you have seen the Fatheer.
Originally posted by whodey Yes, but all we have in terms of Christ is the Bible. Interestingly enough, however, Christ went around quoting from the Bible.
Jesus went around quoting from the Jewish Bible, or the Old Testament. The New Testament didn't exist in Jesus' time, so it was not physically possible for him to quote from it.
Closely related to the Ebionites, but distinct from them, was another early Christian group known as the Essenes. They are sometimes associated with the Qumran group that wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls. From Wikipedia:
According to Josephus, they had customs and observances such as collective ownership (War 2.122; Ant. 18.20), elected a leader to attend to the interests of them all whose orders they obeyed (War 2.123, 134), were forbidden from swearing oaths (War 2.135) and sacrificing animals (Philo, §75), controlled their temper and served as channels of peace (War 2.135), carried weapons only as protection against robbers (War 2.125), had no slaves but served each other (Ant. 18.21) and, as a result of communal ownership, did not engage in trading (War 2.127). Both Josephus and Philo have lengthy accounts of their communal meetings, meals and religious celebrations.
Since the 19th century attempts have been made to connect early Christianity and Pythagoreanism with the Essenes: It was suggested that Jesus of Nazareth was an Essene, and that Christianity evolved from this sect of Judaism, with which it shared many ideas and symbols.
Originally posted by rwingett Closely related to the Ebionites, but distinct from them, was another early Christian group known as the Essenes. They are sometimes associated with the Qumran group that wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls. From Wikipedia:
According to Josephus, they had customs and observances such as collective ownership (War 2.122; Ant. 18.20), elected a leader to attend t ...[text shortened]... Christianity evolved from this sect of Judaism, with which it shared many ideas and symbols.
IIRC, the Essenes weren't a Christian group per se - they were a Jewish sect that predated Christianity but adopted some Christian or pseudo-Christian doctrines (particularly dealing with the Logos though not necessarily Christ himself).
Originally posted by lucifershammer IIRC, the Essenes weren't a Christian group per se - they were a Jewish sect that predated Christianity but adopted some Christian or pseudo-Christian doctrines (particularly dealing with the Logos though not necessarily Christ himself).
That's part of my point. Jesus was a Jew. Christianity itself (properly understood) is a sect of Judaism. We see this with some of the earliest proto-christian sects, like the Ebionites and the Essenes, who were Judaizing Christians. They maintained that in order to become a Christian, one must first convert to Judaism. It was Pauline theology, in the aftermath of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, that brought the final schism between Judaism and Christianity.
Jesus Seminar
11 Jul '07 09:58
Back to Top