Personally, I think Christianity, like all religions, is an attempt to come to terms with the ultimate reality. It is the conscious and subconscious mind at work. There are real events and real people involved, but there are also a lot of myth mixed in. The truth transcends all religions. What was the truth before the existence of man?
If you read the gospels, it's obvious he intended for his words to have a wider audience than just the Middle East. Think for a moment about what he said to his disciples: 18 And Jesus came and said to them , “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20) Jesus only spent about three and a half years preaching. He could have either spread himself very thin (traveling all over the place), and likely not accomplished much. Or he could concentrate on a few (his twelve apostles, especially), equip them as much as possible, and then have them take the message elsewhere. Seems to me that his chosen method worked out pretty well.
Most ancient societies didn't record much that put them in a bad light. If you were a Pharaoh, would you be meticulous about recording the fact that thousands upon thousands of slaves walked out of Egypt on your watch? It wouldn't exactly make for the kind of reading you'd want on your momuments.
pretty well? how many wars and deaths have resulted in his followers trying to force their beliefs on others? wouldn't seeing him in person be more effective?. if he was really god and immortal and could ressurect himself then why do traditional time constraints matter?
Not all questions regarding whether or not Christianity is the truth come down to, "The Bible says..." Much of it (including some of the discussions on this BBS) have centered around the trustworthiness of the Bible. In that sense, where else would you go to discuss it? If you wanted to know whether you had oil on your land, where would I sink the well -- on your land or across town? Questions about whether or not Christianity is truth inevitably come back to the Bible. I'm no apologist for the wars that were supposedly waged in Christ's name. In fact, I think the people who waged them did so apart from Christ's will in the matter. As Paul said, "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places" (Ephesians 6:12 ESV). Again, "The weapons we fight with are not weapons of the world" (2 Corinthians 10:4 NIV). At best, the people fought these wars were misguided. As for not appearing to every individual, I think there's a reason. There's a sense in which I believe Christ gives people who don't want to believe an out. When you say "effective," it depends on what he was trying to accomplish. If it was merely to prove that he was God, then I suppose that would have been effective. If he was trying to create faith in people, then I'm not so sure. Jesus once said to Thomas, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20:29 ESV) "God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe." (1 Corinthians 1:21 NIV) 8 Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory, 9 obtaining the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls. (1 Peter 1:8-9 ESV) 14 But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. (Romans 10:14-17 ESV) When push comes to shove, "we walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Corinthians 5:7 ESV). I don't believe that means we live a life of gullibility, or that we live a life of faith without reason. I don't think it's a "blind faith," but it does involve faith in things unseen. It comes down to whether or not we believe the testimony of the Bible. That's why I said above in my response to Jeff's comments that the question of whether or not Christianity is truth always comes back to the Bible. Despite the fact that I didn't witness the events recorded in the Bible, I believe there's reason to accept the testimony of the men who recorded them. I realize that there are people who have "blind faith;" but I also believe there are people who are guilty of "blind disbelief." No one group has cornered the market on blind acceptance of their beliefs (or disbeliefs, as the case may be).
This is not exactly true. IIRC, the Egyptians euphemized their history. Instead sending a war party to the upper Nile, getting their *sses kicked, and retreating home, they historized the ordeal as "sending a peace and trade mission". If the Egyptians saw the Red Sea part, I would be very surprised if they would not incorporate it into their history positively.
That's true, but drilling for oil is something that can be verified with actual data, unlike the Bible. What seems to me to be a missing ingredient from these discussions is the trustworthiness of other spiritual documents. It could easily be argued that there are more consistently accurate accounts of the spiritual teachings of other religions than the Bible particularly since the Bible is a loose conglomeration of writings by a wide range of people culled together hundreds of years ago. Other religions have much more accurate and consistent accounts of the lives of their great spiritual teachers. Does that make them more right or more true than Christianity? I think that these discussions rarely take into account the discoveries - of which there have been MANY - since the inception of the Bible. And nevermind the texts actually written since that time - and since the invention of the printing press. I'm certainly not discounting the faith part of it, but the concept of Biblical truth, espcecially the one and ONLY truth, is a pretty thin string to hang a belief on. I can understand and respect faith that leads you to a spiritual awakening, but arguing the actual accuracy of spiritual doctrine is a pretty tough path to follow.
LMFAO, Now Biblical Figures are being labeled "homophobes" "Tragic! I think that Noah's sons are big homophobic bigots for not being able to look at their father naked" Next time you hear the love chapter at a wedding you could simply stick some communion wafers in your ears.
Soooo interesting. Thanks for keeping it civil. That's why this BBS rocks. The Egyptian lack of proof - I thought that there was a recent discovery of some heiroglyphics (sp?) that could point to "parting of the sea"? And I think MadMax keeps saying this: Jesus was either: 1. a liar (blasphemer) 2. what he says he is (God) You forget the third part of the equation (C.S. Lewis, right?): 3. insane You're supposed to take this mental exercise and say something like this, right? "Well, what he says makes sense morally, so he's not a liar or insane... thus he must be what he says he is." Is that right? Is that the way C.S. Lewis and those who use this argument arrive at the conclusion that Jesus is God? If that's the case, I don't see why it's inconceivable that someone who is insane could still have a loving, moral message. Now, I'm not saying Jesus was insane; please don't think that at all. I'm asking to learn more about this line of argument. Also, Sane mentioned the Muslim take... the thing I remember hearing as a child is that "when Jesus said he was the Son of God, he meant that in the sense that we are all children of God." The quotes MadMax cites, though, do sound like Jesus was declaring himself to be much more... but the rejoinder, I believe, is that the disciples/church screwed up the message when writing down the Bible.
I don't see why you should have faith in a religion before you study it. Why should I have faith in Islam if I don't know almost everything I need to know to make my decision? Just because my parents thought I should? Because most people around me are Muslims? I never GAVE UP Islam ofcourse. But I didn't have 100% faith in it. Didn't agree with a lot of the things in it. But once I really got into it, I totally changed my mind and now I have total faith in it. IMO, you acquire faith in a religion. You don't acquire religion through faith.
Here's an intresting article about some artifacts found in the Red Sea that may or may not support that the Red Sea did in fact split as the story tells: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33168 Something's wrong with my computer, I can't create a link, but if it doesn't work and you're really interested its at the worldnetdail dot com website.
Insanity is a great option. "There is only one kind of person, Phaedrus said, who accepts or rejects the mythos in which he lives. And the definition of that person, when he has rejected the mythos, Phaedrus said, is "insane." To go outside the mythos is to become insane. -Robert M. Pirsig
i think the argument against him being insane is not resolved by the idea that he has a moral, loving message...though it would certainly be a factor to consider. actually i think it revolves more around his following...that brilliant men like Paul who were very well educated were among his followers...as were fishermen and carpenters. but ultimately you're right....i think you have to label him liar, lunatic or lord...i'm not sure that Christ's words in the Bible leave you with much other choice...unless you wish to assume those words are all just made up. i personally find too much truth in them for that.
Sane, I'm not sure if you got the quote you were looking for from the Bible, "Jesus claiming He was God", but here is what i found. John 13:13-14 KJV 13 Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. 14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. Here it is in the NIV 13 You call Me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am. 14 "If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. I think this is what you were looking for. I hope it helps. God Bless
I find you always try to rationalize with the exceptions. Regardless how many people have died for the beliefs or jihads, that does not change the basis of the faiths. Most religions teach peace. A few people twist the words around, blow up a market square, and it automatically makes the millions of muslims all terrorists. You're a victum of the 10:00 news. The headline news reports Iraqies dragging American bodies through the streets, making it seem like all the Iraqies hate us. If you speak to a few soldiers who have served, they would tell you that for the most part, the citizens welcome the soldiers. If you'd take a step back and quit trying to find the hypocrites and the naysayers, you'd find life much more enjoyable.
IIRC, the story of Abraham and the requested sacrifice of his son Isaac by a god is common to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Today, we treat people who act like Abraham as insane. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...4/ap_on_re_us/children_slain&cid=519&ncid=716 Also, on the soldiers' knowledge of what is going on around them in Iraq: very, very few of them speak Arabic and all of the soldiers are isolated from the populace by lots of concrete in most places. (If they weren't, we'd already would have had something like Reagan's Beirut.) The soldiers would have to be telepathic to know what the populace thinks.
i would argue the spread of Chrisitanity in the world through brute force is the rule rather than the exception.
But there are more options than just crazy, liar or God. Maybe most importantly is the real possibility that what he was/is goes beyond our comprehension of "God." Jesus was cryptic enough with many of the things he said and the concept of God is WAY out of reach for mere mortals anyway. Factor in the possibility of translation error, interpretation error, lack of data and so forth and you have a myriad of possibilities beyond the aforementioned. In fact, you really have to make quite a few leaps in belief just to get to the three concepts mentioned above. You have to believe the Bible isn't just accurate but the ONLY truth available. You have to believe that everything in there was accurately translated and interpreted. You have to then believe that we can understand what "Son of God" means. Once you've gotten through all of that, then you can say, "Ok, he was either crazy, a liar or really God in human form." Humans like things to be neat, clean and straightforward. So, we get heaven, hell, God, Son of God, etc. That's nice and easy to understand. But, in reality, it is so far beyond our comprehension, it is impossible to discern what is true, what is false and what is even reality. Obviously, that is where faith comes in and that I understand. I just think that we are trying so hard to put into human terms that which is SO far beyond our human understanding that we look for straightforward, simple answers and often miss out on the possibilities out there. It would be like our never having any knowledge of the ocean or even of water and someone taking a glass from it, handing it to us and saying, "This is the ocean. Figure it out." We could derive some truth from it and even make some fairly profound discoveries, but we could never truly understand what the ocean was until we experienced it as a whole. At least, that is how I view it.
