I find irony in the responses of some Christians to this thread. Jesus was considered by the ruling hierarchy among Jews in his era to be a blasphemer and a heretic. He was vilified for suggesting that it was not a violation of the law to get a lamb out of the ditch on the Sabbath, to consort with prostitutes and the unclean, to take the word to gentiles, and for many other matters. He preached against public displays of faith, as evidenced by his admonitions against praying in public with vain repetitions, and against making one's alms before men. In essence, he preached against arrogance in presenting one's faith. If God causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust, if he heals believers and nonbelievers alike (as Jesus did), would he suddenly shift gears just so the Lakers could win a title? I'm absolutely flabbergasted that anyone can read the bible and conclude that. As we always said when I was growing up, I have to see book, chapter and verse on that. ------------------ "We're having a pretty good time considering one day we're all going to die." Steve Martin, 1976
All I meant by my remark was that I thought of God as the absentee creator prior to becoming a Christian. The idea that there could be a heavenly Father who did care about seemingly trivial thing was beyond my comprehension. I fail to see blasphemy in believing that God cares about the participants in a basketball game, or even the specific outcome. Do I think He's up there holding a "GO SPURS" pennant, that he "cares" in the sense that you or I do? No. Do I think that wins and losses and the lessons we learn from them are part of His plan? YES. Please, spare me the specific scenarios. You yourself already posted a quote from me that amply illustrates my feelings on the matter. I... do... not... know. The Spurs seem like the most devout team. Why aren't they winning? Why do six-year olds get cancer? Etc, etc, et-frigging-cetera. I am going to post this ONE... LAST... TIME: 1) I believe that Jesus was the Son of God, that He died and was resurrected to absolve mankind of its sin, and that the Bible is the word of God. 2) If you want answers, I will do my best to provide them. But the ultimate source is God. Why are people still asking me, "If X then why is Z true?" People, for the last time, GOD DOES NOT TELL ME EVERYTHING, as much as I wish He did. You are asking the wrong person here. Try God. Why did He "shift gears" so the Lakers could win? HOW WOULD I KNOW THAT? Why do you expect ME to be able to EXPLAIN it? Maybe he wants a six-year old in Kansas to learn to like the Lakers so he'll eventually fly to LA to catch a game where he will meet a woman who will make an offhand remark about the weather which will make the kid think about how powerful the forces of nature are which will make him become a meterologist which will lead him to deliver a storm warning which will be heard by a young woman in Oklahoma who will take shelter and not be killed by a tornado and will then go on to cure cancer. Or maybe God's just in a jolly mood. How should I know? I really think that's all I can say about this. I have made clear what I believe, and why I believe it, and I still have people trying to point out what they consider to be LOGICAL inconsistencies in my FAITH. [This message has been edited by BrianKagy (edited June 21, 2001).]
Brian, no one knows anything with certainty. We're all just trying to figure out the right path, we just don't all see it the same way. I've never met anyone with whom I agree on all matters spiritual, not even my closest family members. And I don't expect that to change. But I do think we all have to make allowances for others to read the same bible and see it differently. Maybe God does care who wins. If so, you'd think guys like Bryce Drew and Brent Price would be a LOT better. ------------------ "We're having a pretty good time considering one day we're all going to die." Steve Martin, 1976
Brian, I am most definitely not trying to find logical inconsistencies in your faith. I believe that to be impossible. My participation is based on faith, too. I believe a Truth. I believe we believe the same Truth. I believe we cannot adequately describe that Truth. I believe words can sometimes prevent and sometimes cause conflict between people expressing their Truth. I believe the Bible requires us to understand more than the words in order to hear the Word. I believe the Bible requires us to accept and respect how each one of us receives the Word. The Word is more than words. Faith is simple. It is just very hard to express, and God planned it that way. I forgot about the Epic of Gilgamesh. Brian, that is the first book on historical record. It is very short. If you have not read it (or even if not for awhile) go buy it, and tell me what you think. You will find it packed with symbolism. Symbolism which was handed down through oral history. The Bible shares identical stories/symbolism. The Bible is likewise symbolism representing oral history, and indeed many Christian scholars cherish it as perfect symbolism (God's symbolism), which transcends time and place to teach each of God's generations how to Worship and have Faith by their own contemporary standards. Symbolism is Jesus speaking to us. The word is not intended to be stared at. We must see beyond the words to find the Word...the Logos incarnate...the Word of Jesus...and taught by St John. It is not necessary to say symbolic interpretation by the Pinetree's and Jeff's of this world (who only seek TRUTH) is wrong. The Bible instructs us to use symbolic interpretation. Descartes would say that seeking Truth in and of itself is Worship. As for people testing your Faith with Logic, Descartes indeed says that there is no ultimate truths, except for God. Thus, Descartes would tell this entire BBS that there is no logic that can challenge the truth of BrianKagy's Faith. And, that man was pretty damn logically. Aristotle was considered heresy in the mediaval Europe. The church outlawed Aristotle's readings. However, one group of clerics argued that we cannot ignore his logic. Then Thomas Aquinas came in to bridge the gap between the two arguments. He gave Faith to Aristotle by considering St John's use of symbolism. Symbolism is saying "God created man to glorify Him, and He rejoices..." means there is great value in Worship and Faith, value which we cannot comprehend, and His Will is the existence of that value and the instructions to share it. Symbolism is saying, "You know, you are right, because ultimately you have Faith." [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited June 21, 2001).]
Pine, man, I hope I am doing that, but given my frustration level, I doubt that I've been very succesful at it. You're right, of course. I am not a blood-on-the-axe-handle Christian, meaning that I'm not convinced that I know the Bible better than anyone else and that those who disagree are hellbound. I'm not sure I came ACROSS that way in this thread... [This message has been edited by BrianKagy (edited June 21, 2001).]
TPL, If you have a PDF-reader, you might find this myth-comparison table interesting. The diety codes are at the bottom. http://www.laurency.com/Jesustabell.PDF ------------------ Squatting on old bones and excrement and rusty iron, in a white blaze of heat, a panorama of naked idiots stretches to the horizon. Complete silence-their speech centers are destroyed-except for the crackle of sparks and the popping of singed flesh as they apply electrodes up and down the spine. White smoke of burning flesh hangs in the motionless air. A group of children have tied an idiot to a post with barbed wire and built a fire between his legs and stand watching with bestial curiosity as the flames lick his thighs. His flesh jerks in the fire with insect agony.
Thanks for the chart Rimmy. Interesting stuff. I have a couple of questions for you. I've heard from some sources that the city of Nazareth didn't even exist during the purported life of Jesus. Have you heard anything similar to this? Also, have you heard of the mountain I asked about in a previous post? Somehow it ties into Biblical prophesy, and there was controversy in the 80's I believe when some hotel company tried building a hotel on it or something. Do you have any idea what mountain I'm talking about? ------------------
Isn't that always the way? I've been trying to tell people about the invisible leprechauns that live in my attic for years now, and they still just look at me like I'm crazy or something. Go figure.
TPL The very first mention of Nazareth in any non-Christian text comes from a fragmented inscription on a piece of dark gray marble dating from the third or fourth century CE. The two sources which are usually called upon to cast doubt on Nazareth are Josephus, and the Talmud (both listed 40 -60 towns in the region). The latter can be dismissed because the Talmud is roughly contemporaneous with the inscription found and thus only shows that Nazareth existed without necessarily having to be included in a list of towns. Josephus most likely did not mention Nazareth because it was merely one of a few satellites to the major city of Sepphoris, three or four miles away. The site itself is known to be quite ancient, with thoughts that it was resettled in the 2nd cent. BCE. Pottery was found from the 2nd cent. BCE to the 4th cent. CE. So, yes, something was there, it was just extrememly minor. Perhaps there is no reason in particular to accept Nazareth, other than it is a village in Galilee where the Kingdom of God movement (the other being the Jerusalem Tradition) reflected in the gospels was centered. It is also interesting to note that the early Christians were known as Nazoreans/Nazarenes/Netzerim, so the potential for later association with Nazareth in looking for a home for the Jesus figure is obvious. I honestly know nothing about the mountain, sorry. ------------------ Squatting on old bones and excrement and rusty iron, in a white blaze of heat, a panorama of naked idiots stretches to the horizon. Complete silence-their speech centers are destroyed-except for the crackle of sparks and the popping of singed flesh as they apply electrodes up and down the spine. White smoke of burning flesh hangs in the motionless air. A group of children have tied an idiot to a post with barbed wire and built a fire between his legs and stand watching with bestial curiosity as the flames lick his thighs. His flesh jerks in the fire with insect agony. [This message has been edited by rimbaud (edited June 21, 2001).] [This message has been edited by rimbaud (edited June 21, 2001).]
TPL, I guess I found it, Mount Zion...from achurch's website: Zechariah 14 which was read this morning also speaks about the coming of the Messiah, but this passage is looking towards the second coming — the point when Christ will come again and stand on the Mount of Olives. There will be an earthquake that begins at the top of the holy mountain where the temple was and goes right down to the Red Sea. A river shall begin to flow, and it will be so powerful and so strong, says the prophet, that the Dead Sea will become aliveagain. They have discovered a powerful spring just underneath that site in Jerusalem in the mountains. There is a fault line that goes right from the top of the holy Mount Zion and goes right down to the Red Sea. This might be what your friend was talking about. ------------------ Squatting on old bones and excrement and rusty iron, in a white blaze of heat, a panorama of naked idiots stretches to the horizon. Complete silence-their speech centers are destroyed-except for the crackle of sparks and the popping of singed flesh as they apply electrodes up and down the spine. White smoke of burning flesh hangs in the motionless air. A group of children have tied an idiot to a post with barbed wire and built a fire between his legs and stand watching with bestial curiosity as the flames lick his thighs. His flesh jerks in the fire with insect agony.
Heypartner: Do you really think that Aquinas gave "faith" to Aristotle, or that he simply made an uneasy truce between philosophy and religion? Aquinas declared faith to be True. Therefore, any logical structure, no matter how coherent, that contradicts faith is false prima facie. Aquinas' entire argument is flawed because it's a predicate upon an unproven assertion. Here's a link to the complete text of summa contra gentiles, which is the work you're referring to and I find problematic. http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/gc.htm ------------------ Lacking inspiration at the moment... [This message has been edited by haven (edited June 21, 2001).]
BK: I think you and I have the same disease - argumania. I love to "discuss" and "debate" but my discussions and debates somehow end up in arguments and accusations and I end up thinking, "What the hell just happened there?" Plus, I find it most humerous that my biggest outlet for debate on delicate issues is the bulletin board of a basketball website. I mean, how much more removed can you get from a publicly accountable forum? LOL!!! Paging Dr. Freud! ------------------ Things do not change; we change. - Henry David Thoreau
Rimmy, Aren't you skeptical of the accuracy of the stories in the Gospels just by the fact that at that time there were countless historians, yet you see no mention of the acts described in the bible by any noted historians of that time? Also, it should be noted that many of the non-biblical references have been proven to be forgeries. Take Josephus for instance. His father, Matthias, was a reputable and learned member of a priestly family, and lived in Jerusalem contemporaneously with Pilate. Certainly he would have told his historian son about the bizzare and glorious events depicted in the gospels, had they occured just years earlier. Josephus himself was appointed to Galilee during the Jewish Wars and was in Rome at the same time Paul was supposed to have been there. Yet, in the entire works of Josephus, which constitute many volumes of great detail encompassing centuries of history, there is no mention of Paul or the Christians, and there are only 2 brief paragraphs that purport or refer to Jesus. Although much has been made of these references, they have been dismissed by scholars and Christian apologists alike as forgeries, as have those referring to John the Baptist and James. It is said that the later historian Eusebius is the one who forged the passages into Josephus' works. As far as the Talmud goes, I take it you are referring to the story of "Jesus ben Pandira"? Even if ben Pandira were real, it's definitely not his story being told in the New Testament. Thanks for the info on Mount Zion ------------------ [This message has been edited by tacoma park legend (edited June 21, 2001).]
TPL, You misunderstand. The Talmud and Josephus both had a list of towns in Galilee and neither mentions Nazareth. That is why some doubt has been raised. In regards to accuracy, I have tried to avoid giving my specific beliefs. Besides, that would take a long time to lay down all that I have gathered and used to formulate my beliefs on the issue. In regards to Josephus, you are right, his two references to Jesus are generally accepted as later forgeries (in one instance, he calls Jesus the Messiah, hardly appropriat for a Jew whose work was written to be read by pagan Romans!). Also, in other works where he discusses the same events, he never mentions Jesus. It is also interesting to look at the 2nd cent. Christian apologists. What we have remaining are often responses to pagan critique of a savior who was crucified and then resurrected. Those Christian responses are shocking, to say the least. Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras of Athens, Tatian -- a pupil of Justin, and Minucius Felix are a few examples. And that is all I will say here. ------------------ Squatting on old bones and excrement and rusty iron, in a white blaze of heat, a panorama of naked idiots stretches to the horizon. Complete silence-their speech centers are destroyed-except for the crackle of sparks and the popping of singed flesh as they apply electrodes up and down the spine. White smoke of burning flesh hangs in the motionless air. A group of children have tied an idiot to a post with barbed wire and built a fire between his legs and stand watching with bestial curiosity as the flames lick his thighs. His flesh jerks in the fire with insect agony.
Rimbaud: I've actually never heard of this. What did these people say? ------------------ Lacking inspiration at the moment...
Haven, Actually, I'm referring to his whole body of work. Critique of works of art and letters are often removed from their time and place. It serves little purpose to say Aquinas was flawed. Viewing works like that results in an slippery slope of pure logic that leads to Deconstruction....everything is flawed. In his time and place, Aquinas achieved a great thing never done before...he dealt with Aristotle's works in a manner that salvaged the teachings of St. Augustine from what was considered blashemis assault on faith by new students of Aristotle. That was his life's goal, if I am allowed to summarize it like that. Remember this was the 13th Century. There were few philosophers in Europe outside of the church. He wasn't looking to achieve compromise; he indeed crushed the philosophy of those who claimed autonomy of emperical knowledge. (That is, you can't say that knowledge only comes through experience.) He finished the major debate of his time. He successfully showed that you can believe in the truth of empirical knowledge (Aristotle) and have orthodox faith. His works were considered to make the two compatible. His goal indeed was to synthesize the two: religion and emperical truth, thus reconciling faith with the intellect. I have a work here late in his life called "The Trinity and the Unicity of the Intellect", which he calls his first mature position. So, I like to summarize his body of works by saying "He gave Faith to Aristotle", or "He gave St. Augustine Senses". Don't pull Thomist philosophy out of its time and place, if you want to understand history.
Haven, Fine, here it is...I got lazy with some of it: Theophilus of Antioch In his treatise To Autolycus, written around the year 180, he asks himself for the meaning of the name "Christian". He answers (I.12): "Because we are anointed with the oil of God." (as is known, Christ means Anointed One). When asked about the son of god, he says that he is the Word through whom God created the world, who was begat by him along with Wisdom (II.10). He is the governing principle and Lord of all creation, inspiring the prophets and the world in general to a knowledge of God. He also later says (II.22) that this is not a Son in the sense of begetting, but as innate in the heart of God. Athenagoras of Athens In A Plea For the Christians addressed to the emperor, he says this of his new beliefs: "We acknowledge one God . . . by whom the Universe has been created through his Logos, and set in order and kept in being . . . for we acknowledge also a Son of God . . . . If it occurs to you to enquire what is meant by the Son, I will state that he is the first product of the Father (who) had the Logos in himself. He came forth to be the idea and energizing power of all material things." Unfortunately, in the course of 37 chapters, Athenagoras neglects to tell the emperor that Christians believe this Logos to have been incarnated in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. this, despite his claim for accuracy, "If I go minutely into the particulars of our doctrines, let it not surprise you." Tatian Sometime around 160, he wrote an Apology to the Greeks, urging pagan readers to turn to the truth. He never says the word “Jesus” or “Crhist.” Much space is devoted to outlining the Logos, the creative power of the universe, first-begotten of the Father, through whom the world was made—but none to the incarnation of this Logos. In chapter 21 he says, "We are not fools, men of Greece, when we declare that God has been born in the form of man (his only allusion to the incarnation) . . . Compare your own stories with our narratives." He goes on to describe some of the Greek myths about gods come to earth, undergoing suffering and even death for the benefaction of mankind. "Take a look at your own records and accept us merely on the grounds that we too tell stories." Minucius Felix Octavius. It takes the form of a debate between a pagan and a Christian.. Pagans accusation: "This abominable congregation should be rooted out . . . a religion of lust and fornication. They reverence the head of an ass . . . even the genitals of their priests . . . . And some say that the objects of their worship include a man who suffered death as a criminal, as well as the wretched wood of his cross; these are fitting altars for such depraved people, and they worship what they deserve . . . . Also, during initiations they slay and dismember an infant and drink its blood . . . at their ritual feasts they indulge in shameless copulation." Christian’s Response: "Men who have died cannot become gods, because a god cannot die; nor can men who are born (become gods) . . . . Why, I pray, are gods not born today, if such have ever been born?" "These and similar indecencies we do not wish to hear; it is disgraceful having to defend ourselves from such charges. People who live a chaste and virtuous life are falsely charged by you with acts which we would not consider possible, except that we see you doing them yourselves. Moreover, when you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross, you wander far from the truth in thinking that a criminal deserved, or that a mortal man could be able, to be believed in as God. Miserable indeed is that man whose whole hope is dependent on a mortal, for such hope ceases with his death . . . ." ------------------ Squatting on old bones and excrement and rusty iron, in a white blaze of heat, a panorama of naked idiots stretches to the horizon. Complete silence-their speech centers are destroyed-except for the crackle of sparks and the popping of singed flesh as they apply electrodes up and down the spine. White smoke of burning flesh hangs in the motionless air. A group of children have tied an idiot to a post with barbed wire and built a fire between his legs and stand watching with bestial curiosity as the flames lick his thighs. His flesh jerks in the fire with insect agony.
The best evidence that Jesus is who he said he is: You can read every word attributed to him in less than two hours, and he remains by far the most influential person who ever lived. He never wrote a word, built an edifice, led an army, or ran a country. But two thousand years later, even basketball fanatics will post ad nauseum at the mere mention of his name. I don't necessarily share the same beliefs of all my fellow Christians, but I do not doubt he was the son of God, he came here to bring the message he did, he died for it as had been prophisied, and he arose to defeat death. I know all the "god men" of history, and none of them even comes close to Jesus, in my estimation and faith. Thanks, Jesus. You know I love you, and I know you love me. ------------------ "We're having a pretty good time considering one day we're all going to die." Steve Martin, 1976
