Progress

[B-Fly]

Does anyone doubt that Jesus Christ was crucified?

Not I

Does anyone not believe that at the very least Jesus thought He was dying to save those He loved?

This one is much, much different than the historical fact of his crucifixion. I have no reason to believe anything specific about "what Jesus thought" about why he was dying or anything else.

Well back to the motives or sanity of the one called Jesus. No one seems to question his sanity.

I don't know about that. If he did think himself to be the divine Son of G-d, then I probably would have to question his sanity. Of course, as I noted above, I don't think anyone can have any confidence about what the historical Jesus really thought.

If he was a politcal martyr what was his agenda?

Again, you're asking us to get into his head, which I don't think we have a credible basis to do. My best guess from what is known and told about Jesus and about that time and place in history is that his primary agenda was to raise some very serious questions about the Sanhedrin's interpretation and execution of divine will and divine law. One might analogize to Martin Luther's challenge to the Catholic Church.

He gave us the gift for free, there is nothing we can add to it. He did this so we cannot brag about our own works. That alone should tell you there is no politcal agenda.

Here you're citing your faith as Truth, to explain why we should accept your faith as Truth. That's not going to work on skeptics.

[billbuckner]

I don't remember getting any gift

[Kevin Seitzer]

Christmas and Easter are the two holiest days in the Christian church, the only actual historical evidence for Jesus tags his birth to the roman census in the spring, yet the church decides to ignore it and pick another birthday. Is it that much of a jump to think they might also "embellish" or "alter" the truth around things like resurrection, miracles, etc?

You're hitting around two major issues which I believe deserve some serious grappling and scholarship.

1. Historical and textual criticism of the biblical texts
2. How did a movement like Christianity emerge out of Second Temple Judaism, and why did it take the form that it did?

And a third which hangs over both of those, which is how do we know anything when our own minds and experiences are limited and what we have has been transmitted to us by other imperfect, and at times nefarious, human beings?

I believe those are all legitimate and good questions.

Evangelical/fundamentalist Christianity in America tends to be anti-intellectual and opposed to taking research into these questions seriously, but the church as a whole throughout the world and throughout its history has not been so anti-intellectual and has actually done a lot of good scholarship in these areas. I'm not talking about Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel style of propaganda/pablum, but real serious university-level study that's not afraid of dealing with ambiguity and things that challenge one's thinking to the core.

[B-Fly]

Please do not confuse the Catholic Church with The Bible.

See, here's the thing. You're asking us questions about Jesus's motives. We can't even get to that point, because we have serious questions about the motives of the people who wrote/compiled/edited the book that you're relying upon as your source for statements about Jesus's motives. Because we believe it is highly possible and highly likely that the human authors of the works that make up the New Testament had their own motives and agendas, and because we're not confident about who those authors were or whether any of them were eyewitnesses to any of the events or conversations described, or that they were reliable narrators in any other way, we can't simply accept the Bible itself as proof of the historicity of its contents.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Because we believe it is highly possible and highly likely that the human authors of the works that make up the New Testament had their own motives and agendas

Of course they did. If nothing else, at least that much is pretty obvious when you read the four gospels. The material is arranged to make a point, as any good writer would. Luke's gospel is attempting a straight history (which doesn't free the author from an agenda/motive), but the others are fairly obviously pursuing other goals than compiling a history.

[B-Fly]

Of course they did. If nothing else, at least that much is pretty obvious when you read the four gospels. The material is arranged to make a point, as any good writer would. Luke's gospel is attempting a straight history (which doesn't free the author from an agenda/motive), but the others are fairly obviously pursuing other goals than compiling a history.

Right. So is Gregg advocating for the Truth of the Bible based on the serious historic scholarship you've referenced, or is he advocating for the Truth of the Bible based on the Bible? As far as I understand it, there is enough serious historic scholarship to support a conclusion that Jesus lived, ruffled a lot of feathers with his teachings, and was executed. But I don't believe there is serious historic scholarship to "prove" that Jesus performed miracles, rose from the dead, or was otherwise divine. Those things require a leap of faith, and leaps of faith are not really subject to scholarly proof or disproof.

[Kevin Seitzer]

I absolutely have doubts about the existence of Jesus the Christ. I don't doubt that there was probably a guy named Jesus who committed assault in a temple and was crucified as an insurrectionist. I don't think that Jesus probably ever said that he was the son of god.

I think that there are far too many coincidences with the mythical story of Jesus' life for them to be totally truthful. His life follows almost exactly the same path as many, many other mythical heroes before him, from the virgin birth to the miracle-making to the resurrection. An inscription to Mithras reads: "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made on with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation."

I think the tale of Jesus is essentially a retelling of the same story of Mithra and many other gods before him. The Christians copied the Pagans in many ways.

The tale of Jesus is a VERY Jewish one. A lot of the stuff that gospels claimed about Jesus doesn't make much sense outside of the Jewish context. Unfortunately with the rise of dispensationalism as the predominant thinking in American evangelical Christianity and the ascendance of evangelicals in the American scene (which may have other positives, but not in this arena), the understanding of Jewish thought, particularly second-temple Jewish thought, in the common American Christian understanding has faded a lot.

A few quotes from Jesus here or there in the gospels are not the proof upon which his nature or his claims to his own nature rest. The particular nature of his crusade to reform/transform Judaism, on the other hand, speaks volumes, such that even if his followers forgot or distorted some parts of it, the whole of it speaks so loudly that it's hard to ignore.

That doesn't mean that it's not worth figuring out how the evidence balances on whether he said or did a particular thing that is claimed by the gospels and what meaning we might gather from that. But our discerning of what he was trying to do need not rely on one or two odd quotes here or there that might have been inserted by an early copyist, for instance.

[regular-guy]

why not, they were the ones that assembled the New Testament, they were the editors (at worst, I'd actually argue that they were the authors), they decided which gospels got used at a minimum. Where's the Gospel of Thomas, you know, the one that says that you don't need a physical church or hierarchy, opps, what a surprise, that one doesn't get to make the final draft....

Actually, the early church before Constantine should not be confused with the Roman Cahtolic Church. i know that Catholics insist that the early church was Catholic, but the fact is the early church is quite different than what we know of as the Catholic church after Constantine. There was a lot of paganism that was adopted into the post-Constantine era, and most especially after Augustine. Protestant churches of today are not excluded from this allegation either. Constantine himself pushed a considerable amount of paganism into the church--his focus was to get a unified empire, and he believed Christianity as a religion, to provide the most benefit to the empire. It didn't stop him from messing with it. Constantine was not a Christian as evangelical Christians define the word (a follower and disciple of Jesus). However, there are some traditional stories that he did decide to become a follower of Jesus near the end of his life, some say on his deathbed.

Constantine did no favors for the Christian faith. He crippled it.

This is why a person looking to understand Jesus should go to the Bible first, or examine with people who look to the scriptures and certainly not to a denominational website.

As for the validity of the New Testament--the Nicene council did the right thing. They brought together bishops from all over to decide on a canonized New Testament. These were men who had experienced severe persecution and were not about the future seekers of Christ to get confused by a corrupted text. There was no way these kind of men would allow text into the Bible that they were not absolutely certain belonged in there. If there was any doubt at all, it didn't go in.

Here was some of the criteria for deciding if a book should go into the New Testament or not--ALL criteria had to be met, not just one or two:
1) Apostolic authority--if there was any doubt as to whether the book originated with someone who actually knew Jesus personally, it was canned. The alternate books called "The Gospel of..." that are not in the New Testament failed this first criteria (i.e. the Gospel of Thomas, Mary Magdalene, Judas, etc.)
2)The rule of faith--if any one things in the entire text taught something against what they knew Jesus taught, it was canned. In other words, it had to completely match what was already known about Jesus, the stories and teachings that the bishops knew with absolute certainty came from the apostles.
3)Early church approval--if it was used universally by most churches, over the vast expanse of area where Christians met regularly (Asia, Europe, North Africa), especially the earliest churches, it was accepted. Otherwise, it was canned.

[Gregg]

Not I



This one is much, much different than the historical fact of his crucifixion. I have no reason to believe anything specific about "what Jesus thought" about why he was dying or anything else.




I don't know about that. If he did think himself to be the divine Son of G-d, then I probably would have to question his sanity. Of course, as I noted above, I don't think anyone can have any confidence about what the historical Jesus really thought.



Again, you're asking us to get into his head, which I don't think we have a credible basis to do. My best guess from what is known and told about Jesus and about that time and place in history is that his primary agenda was to raise some very serious questions about the Sanhedrin's interpretation and execution of divine will and divine law. One might analogize to Martin Luther's challenge to the Catholic Church.



Here you're citing your faith as Truth, to explain why we should accept your faith as Truth. That's not going to work on skeptics.

It has been awhile since I had one of these discussions. I forgot how careful I have to be with my wording. I should have used testimony or "in his words" rather than thoughts. We do have written testimony. Of course that is one of the points of arguments isn't it?

Regarding my last statement. I made a mistake in assuming some things that are well known to many Christians. If you knew what he commanded us to do (from the Bible) than I think you would know he didn't have a "politcal" agenda. Do I take this as truth? Yes. My intent on my last statement was not to use my faith as truth. It was to show that his words told us about the gift of salvation. To be consistent with his words would be to illiminate his death for a politcal agenda. Looking back I did not do a good job explaining that at all.

Just a side note, thank you for joining in. I have always liked your style in these matters.

[regular-guy]

again, I put it out there....If everyone can accept that something as basic as when Jesus was born was manipulated to co-opt pagan practices, why is a stretch to think that some guys pulled his body out of the tomb and that someone found some extra bread and fish, rather than to think miracles occurred.

Jesus was never accused of tricking people. However, He was accused of doing supernatural things by the power of the devil.

The following is not an attempt to be snarky. i offer it with due respect to the question.

Something caused a bunch of people to die because they believed it was true. People don't die for something they don't believe in heart and soul, and the first martyrs certainly believed what they had seen and experienced about Jesus was real. i'm talking about James, who was the first disciple martyred. Peter was crucified upside down because he believed it. There are a lot more, none of whom were ever considered to be crazy or a "little off." Movements happen because followers believe in whatever the original people of the movement were doing and teaching.

i don't know how a wandering carpenter could get people to follow Him, especially since what He taught was extremely radical-- unless He did some pretty amazing things that defied logic and failed attempts of some very intelligent people. John the Baptist, in the spirit of Elijah, taught some pretty radical stuff before Jesus came on the scene--eventually was beheaded for it.

Matthew 28 indicates the soldiers who were guarding the tomb were given large sums of money to report that the disciples stole the body of Jesus. They couldn't know what happened if they were unconscious. The only way the body could have been taken is if the soldiers on guard were asleep or not present, either of which would result in the soldiers' execution. The story of being told to lie makes more sense than professional soldiers, under threat of execution, would allow fishermen to fool them or knock them out or whatever.

Crazy people typically don't generally have followers outside their circle of influence, and they don't start cultural movements that last. i suppose one could say Hitler was highly influential, though i don't think he was crazy, but what he started didn't last. And anyway, Jesus didn't start a political movement or try to create a kingdom. Unfortunately several centuries later, the church did, with the inquisition and promoting the crusades.

incidentally, it wasn't until hundreds of years later that the birth of Jesus was celebrated, and yes, it was put around a pagan holiday. The celeration that mattered to the early Christians was the resurrection. It wasn't called Easter until paganism was mixed into it.

Now, i doubt that i answered your question to any great satisfaction, but i have a question, and it is posed to anyone who reads this post:

What would it take for you to become a follower of Jesus?

[Gregg]

Right. So is Gregg advocating for the Truth of the Bible based on the serious historic scholarship you've referenced, or is he advocating for the Truth of the Bible based on the Bible? As far as I understand it, there is enough serious historic scholarship to support a conclusion that Jesus lived, ruffled a lot of feathers with his teachings, and was executed. But I don't believe there is serious historic scholarship to "prove" that Jesus performed miracles, rose from the dead, or was otherwise divine. Those things require a leap of faith, and leaps of faith are not really subject to scholarly proof or disproof.

Actually both.

In the begining when I was seeking, it was more the historical scholarship. Then when I followed the evidence I decided to try to live it. Now the living it has enhanced my faith.

[Fresno Bob]

Jesus was never accused of tricking people. However, He was accused of doing supernatural things by the power of the devil.

The following is not an attempt to be snarky. i offer it with due respect to the question.

Something caused a bunch of people to die because they believed it was true. People don't die for something they don't believe in heart and soul, and the first martyrs certainly believed what they had seen and experienced about Jesus was real. i'm talking about James, who was the first disciple martyred. Peter was crucified upside down because he believed it. There are a lot more, none of whom were ever considered to be crazy or a "little off." Movements happen because followers believe in whatever the original people of the movement were doing and teaching.

i don't know how a wandering carpenter could get people to follow Him, especially since what He taught was extremely radical-- unless He did some pretty amazing things that defied logic and failed attempts of some very intelligent people. John the Baptist, in the spirit of Elijah, taught some pretty radical stuff before Jesus came on the scene--eventually was beheaded for it.

Matthew 28 indicates the soldiers who were guarding the tomb were given large sums of money to report that the disciples stole the body of Jesus. They couldn't know what happened if they were unconscious. The only way the body could have been taken is if the soldiers on guard were asleep or not present, either of which would result in the soldiers' execution. The story of being told to lie makes more sense than professional soldiers, under threat of execution, would allow fishermen to fool them or knock them out or whatever.

Crazy people typically don't generally have followers outside their circle of influence, and they don't start cultural movements that last. i suppose one could say Hitler was highly influential, though i don't think he was crazy, but what he started didn't last. And anyway, Jesus didn't start a political movement or try to create a kingdom. Unfortunately several centuries later, the church did, with the inquisition and promoting the crusades.

incidentally, it wasn't until hundreds of years later that the birth of Jesus was celebrated, and yes, it was put around a pagan holiday. The celeration that mattered to the early Christians was the resurrection. It wasn't called Easter until paganism was mixed into it.

Now, i doubt that i answered your question to any great satisfaction, but i have a question, and it is posed to anyone who reads this post:

What would it take for you to become a follower of Jesus?

thanks for actually answering my question, I appreciate it. Again, without snark, what is it going to take? In all seriousness, I'm going to have to "put my finger in the holes and my hand in his side". I 100% believe in "Jesus the Man", I 100% do not believe in "Jesus the God", and in fact, believe that as just a man, Jesus provides a much better example for us, as men, then as a god. I'd also completely disagree that Jesus didn't start a political movement, for my money, he's the first socialist, and certainly an insurrectionist, against both the occupying Roman empire and the collaborationist Pharisee's.

Religions can be assembled, Scientology is the best example that comes to mind, and that is 100% anchored in the crazy. Mormonism is another modern example. All religion is a construct, made by men, the same as philosophy. The key is to author and define the content, which is exactly what was done in both those examples. Why is it that you "believers" can accept that other religions are wrong/false/misguided, but not put the same analysis towards your own? How are the "founding fathers" of John, Luke, Matthew and Mark different than L Ron Hubbard or Robert Smith?

[Fresno Bob]

Actually, the early church before Constantine should not be confused with the Roman Cahtolic Church. i know that Catholics insist that the early church was Catholic, but the fact is the early church is quite different than what we know of as the Catholic church after Constantine. There was a lot of paganism that was adopted into the post-Constantine era, and most especially after Augustine. Protestant churches of today are not excluded from this allegation either. Constantine himself pushed a considerable amount of paganism into the church--his focus was to get a unified empire, and he believed Christianity as a religion, to provide the most benefit to the empire. It didn't stop him from messing with it. Constantine was not a Christian as evangelical Christians define the word (a follower and disciple of Jesus). However, there are some traditional stories that he did decide to become a follower of Jesus near the end of his life, some say on his deathbed.

Constantine did no favors for the Christian faith. He crippled it.

This is why a person looking to understand Jesus should go to the Bible first, or examine with people who look to the scriptures and certainly not to a denominational website.

As for the validity of the New Testament--the Nicene council did the right thing. They brought together bishops from all over to decide on a canonized New Testament. These were men who had experienced severe persecution and were not about the future seekers of Christ to get confused by a corrupted text. There was no way these kind of men would allow text into the Bible that they were not absolutely certain belonged in there. If there was any doubt at all, it didn't go in.

Here was some of the criteria for deciding if a book should go into the New Testament or not--ALL criteria had to be met, not just one or two:
1) Apostolic authority--if there was any doubt as to whether the book originated with someone who actually knew Jesus personally, it was canned. The alternate books called "The Gospel of..." that are not in the New Testament failed this first criteria (i.e. the Gospel of Thomas, Mary Magdalene, Judas, etc.)
2)The rule of faith--if any one things in the entire text taught something against what they knew Jesus taught, it was canned. In other words, it had to completely match what was already known about Jesus, the stories and teachings that the bishops knew with absolute certainty came from the apostles.
3)Early church approval--if it was used universally by most churches, over the vast expanse of area where Christians met regularly (Asia, Europe, North Africa), especially the earliest churches, it was accepted. Otherwise, it was canned.

The Jesuits taught me that Mark was Peter's son, so he wrote down what his dad had told him, and that Luke ran around and interviewed people that had witnessed Jesus's activities after the fact.

If the "early church" does not equal "the Catholic Church", then that gives the Catholic Church even more opportunity and incentive to only select elements that support the formation of an established, hierarchical based organization, something that I don't believe Jesus wanted.

One of the primary purposes of the Council of Nicene was to quash the Arians, you know, those pesky early christians that thought that Jesus was just a man, hmmm, I'm guessing none of that content was going to make it out of chambers either...

[Gregg]

thanks for actually answering my question, I appreciate it. Again, without snark, what is it going to take? In all seriousness, I'm going to have to "put my finger in the holes and my hand in his side".

Without snark:

And then would you fall down and worship him?

[Fresno Bob]

Without snark:

And then would you fall down and worship him?

Non Servium!