27 Sep 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadI guess it depends on what Christ we're talking about. I would not mind seeing a thread started about the truth about Christ (the real historical truth).
I don't know much about Socrates, but you should question Christs existence.
For one, people may not realize that Jesus Christ was not his name.
I think of him as Josh.
So, Josh, a Jew from Galilee, like Socrates, spent some years talking to his close friends about spirituality. He was wise and charismatic. He gave the down-trodden and confused a hero. A man of the people discriminating against the rich/powerful/educated (according to scriptures).
This is another thread though. I'm enjoying the conversations.
27 Sep 07
Originally posted by mdhallYou should also question the existence of Josh, as your only source of information appears to be the 'scriptures' which are hardly a reliable source.
So, Josh, a Jew from Galilee, like Socrates, spent some years talking to his close friends about spirituality. He was wise and charismatic. He gave the down-trodden and confused a hero. A man of the people discriminating against the rich/powerful/educated (according to scriptures).
27 Sep 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt really wouldn't bother me at all if he never did as I only discuss him from an allegorical perspective to converse with Christians.
You should also question the existence of Josh, as your only source of information appears to be the 'scriptures' which are hardly a reliable source.
So I'm not going to argue with you over it.
Interestingly enough though, I have read proof of Socrates' existence.
Military history, family abandonment, etc; and I find him a much more believable character.
And when I think about it I used to wonder about those infamous "lost years" the Jesus character seems to have
27 Sep 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadHere are few other sources I found:
You should also question the existence of Josh, as your only source of information appears to be the 'scriptures' which are hardly a reliable source.
(1) Cornelius Tacitus (A. D. 55-120) - Tacitus affirms that the founder of Christianity, a man he calls Chrestus (a common misspelling of Christ, which was Jesus’ surname), was executed by Pilate, the procurator of Judea during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberias. Tacitus was hostile to Christianity because in the same paragraph he describes Christus’ or Christ’s death, he describes Christianity as a pernicious superstition. It would have therefore been in his interests to declare that Jesus had never existed, but he did not, and perhaps he did not because he could not without betraying the historical record.
". . .Nero procured others to be accused, and inflicted exquisite punishment upon those people, who were in abhorrence for their crimes, and were commonly known by the name of Christians. They had their denomination from Christus (Christ, dm.), who in the reign of Tibertius was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate. . . .At first they were only apprehended who confessed themselves of that sect; afterwards a vast multitude discovered by them, all of which were condemned, not so much for the crime of burning the city, as for their enmity to mankind. . . ." (Tacitus, Annals, 15, 44).
"Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome . . ." (Tacitus, Annals 15.44).
(2) Josephus - Josephus was a Jewish historian who was born in either 37 or 38 AD and died some time after 100 AD. He wrote the Jewish Antiquities and in one passage described Jesus as a wise man, a doer of wonderful works and calls him the Christ. He also affirmed that Jesus was executed by Pilate and actually rose from the dead.
"At that time lived Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man; for he performed many wonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. . . .And when Pilate, at the instigation of the chief men among us, had condemned him to the cross, they who before had conceived an affection for him did not cease to adhere to him. For on the third day he appeared to them alive again, the divine prophets having foretold these and many other wonderful things concerning him. And the sect of the Christians, so called from him, subsists at this time" (Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 1).
(It should be noted that some have questioned whether or not Josephus, a non-Christian, would ever have written this statement. It may have been altered. However, in an earlier text Josephus refers to Christ's brother, James, "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ" (Josephus, Antiquities xx. 200, cited in Bruce, Christian Origins, 36.), at least affirming Christ's historical reality. Which also happens to jive with Paul's description of James in Galatians 1:19 as "the Lord's brother."
(3) Pliny the Younger - He was responsible for executing Christians for not worshiping or bowing down to a statue of the emperor Trajan. In a letter to the emperor Trajan, he describes how the people on trial for being Christians would describe how they sang songs to Christ because he was a god.
"They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind" (Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 199).
(4) Reference to Jesus from the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between A.D. 70-500 -
"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy" (The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, 281, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 203).
(5) Lucian of Samosata - Lucian was a Greek satirist of the latter half of the second century. He therefore lived within two hundred years of Jesus. Lucian was hostile to Christianity and openly mocked it. He particularly objected to the fact that Christians worshipped a man.
"The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws" (Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 11-13, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, transl. by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), vol. 4., cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 206.).
---------------------------------------------
Forgive the cut and paste - I am not a scholar. 🙂 Source = Michael Gleghorn, Probe Ministries, www.probe.org.
27 Sep 07
2 edits
Originally posted by mdhallBut I don't think Christ was trying to deliver any message of salvation through worshiping him.
I question Christs' (or whatever his real name was) existence as much as I question Socrates: not at all.
But I don't think Christ was trying to deliver any message of salvation through worshiping him. That is a decisively religious move. And I do not think Christ was resurrected, because, why would he?
What makes him special is not the mythical tales t eaming about how to egocentrically gain entrance to the promised land after a mortal death.
If Christ is Who He claimed to be, then worship of Him would only be natural. Here are few scriptures where recognition of Christ as Lord immediately inspired worship:
"Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshiped him" (John 9:35-38).
"And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God" (John 20:28).
-------------------------------
Jesus uses the same title for Himself that God uses of Himself:
John 8:58, "Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." Exodus 3:14, "God said to Moses, I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: I AM has sent me to you."
--------------------------
Jesus claimed to be God:
John 10:30-33, "'I and the Father are one.' The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, 'I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?' The Jews answered Him, 'For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.'"
--------------------------
If Christ is Who He claimed to be, then worship of Him is not "icon" worship nor idol worship. If He is indeed "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" as He claims He is, then worship of Him and following Him are of the highest necessity, wouldn't you say?
Leading a moral and ethical life alone won't gain you entrance into God's eternal life. Jesus Himself says that only by believing in the Son of God can a person gain everlasting life, "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" (John 3:18).
The only "waste of time" would be striving to be "moral and ethical" yet fail to appropriate God's grace in Christ Jesus!
27 Sep 07
Originally posted by epiphinehas/sigh
The only "waste of time" would be striving to be "moral and ethical" yet fail to appropriate God's grace in Christ Jesus!
Ep, man, I am sure you're a nice guy and all, but can you please stop with the cutting and the pasting of the same crap most of us on this forum already know? I swear it's like you think I missed it or something.
If you're so hip to witness why don't you go help destroy the cultural heritage in the Amazons like all the other missionaries?
And just to be clear, the above statement is exactly where I think you are totally wrong. Your ethnocentric egoistic idea that you and your god are going to "save" anyone are beneath you and I. Rise above this flawed spiritual construct you are stuck in and recognize the turd in your hand isn't going to magically become salvation.
In 10 years, it's still going to be a turd.
27 Sep 07
Originally posted by mdhallOne man's trash is another man's treasure.
And just to be clear, the above statement is exactly where I think you are totally wrong. Your ethnocentric egoistic idea that you and your god are going to "save" anyone are beneath you and I. Rise above this flawed spiritual construct you are stuck in and recognize the turd in your hand isn't going to magically become salvation.
In 10 years, it's still going to be a turd.
27 Sep 07
Originally posted by vistesdI would disagree that it is a matter of theory. Biblically speaking, salvation is the preservation of individual existence (the soul), which includes every aspect of the "I" however one may define the "I." Whatever makes a person unique: memories, experiences, innate personality, talents and interests -- all these are what God intends to preserve through the salvation of an individual soul. Again, biblically speaking.
I think perhaps we’re all talking in huge generalities here. Reincarnation, for example (or transmigration of souls), is neither all-pervasive in “eastern” mysticism, nor absent from “western” mysticism (it’s very prominent in Judaism, for example).
So—without speculating or thinking or theorizing—what exactly is the nature of that “I” that you essenti ...[text shortened]... affle me (ego or personality or self or soul...). What exactly disappears or doesn’t disappear?
My knowledge of Eastern mysticism has led me to believe that the deepest aspect of individual existence, the consciousness, is all that remains eternally. And therefore it can be said, because of the impersonal aspect of pure consciousness, that the after-life, according to the majority of Eastern mystics, does not involve the preservation of a personal identity.
27 Sep 07
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI had to think about the Theology for a while before I realized that I equivocate Theology and Metaphysics per Aristotelean philosophy.
Do tell. You charge poor scholarship and/or explanation on three fields of study, but very little of theology is mentioned in either of the two posts, and you fail to mention the error(s) regarding the first two fields.
28 Sep 07
Originally posted by SwissGambitAh , yes , but it IS suggestive of the metaphysical at least. QP could have suggested that there was nothing more fundamental than physical reality and that would have been counter to spiritual/mystical speculation. But it didn't , so whilst it's not a confirmation of christianity it is one sign that basic religious thinking about the nature of reality is not too far off the money.
The problem is that science and religion are different fields. Science doesn\'t really prove that a religion is more, or less, likely to be true. The \"underlying reality\" from QP theory could indicate anything from the Christian spiritual realm to the Tao. It fits in with just about any religion that has some sort of belief in the metaphysical.
You missed the point.
28 Sep 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterNowhere in the Bible is there a suggestion that the reality we see is illusionary. CHristianity makes no such assertion and to suggest that QM lends any support to a Christian world view is bunk. The Bible rather clearly states that God made real things out of nothing ("creation"😉.
Ah , yes , but it IS suggestive of the metaphysical at least. QP could have suggested that there was nothing more fundamental than physical reality and that would have been counter to spiritual/mystical speculation. But it didn't , so whilst it's not a confirmation of christianity it is one sign that basic religious thinking about the nature of reality is not too far off the money.
You missed the point.