124 replies to this topic

[vodkamaru]

I can't see how anyone takes a literal interpretation of the Bible. Read the two creation stories. In one, man is made on the 6th day. The other one says man is made first. Isn't this contradiction obvious? It can't be meant to be taken literally if something like this is pointing you in the face.

[Arturo]

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about.

But, since Jesus' body hasn't been found, and it's been looked for for a VERY VERY long time... I don't think there's any reason to believe it will be found.

And theres a very simple reason for this that you blatanly don't want to believe.

It doesn't exist.

I hope you don't take this the wrong way, because I don't mean it in a degrading way... But I don't believe you're Christian, since you look for reasons that what the Bible (what Christians believe as the word of God) isn't right.

The Bible says that Jesus physically resurrected from the dead.

If you don't believe that, then you don't believe the Bible, which would mean you don't believe in Christ, which is what "CHRISTianity" is all about.
So let me be the first to welcome you to Judaism.

You haven't understood anything of what I said. Wisp has.

Anyway, I will explain it better:


I don't say that Jesus' body has been found or will be found. I have just said that it wouldn't affect Christianity if Jesus' hadn't physically resurrected. Or even if Jesus was just a mythological figure. Why? Because the faith in teh Son of God is an irrational faith, because the message of Jesus doesn't speak to the logos or intellectual mind, but to the pathos, the emotional and irrational mind. If you want to say that you can prove scientifically what God did or does, you are basically sinning of arrogance. Why would God need to speak to us in a physical way? Why does God in its infinity need to show great powers to us, finite beings? Why?

If he did, it is fine. But it is exactly the same if he didn't show anything physical. You have to accept Jesus as the Son of God, and that he was tortured and died for us, and resurrected on the first day of the week after. Does it matter whether during Tiberius reign there was a man named Jesus? NO. What matters is that Jesus is God.


I am not saying Jesus' is no a historical character, or that he didn't perform miracles and didn't resurrect . I am not saying that. I am saying that if he didn't that wouldn't affect to Christian beliefes, or my beliefs. Because they wouldn't be less true.

This is what atheist scientists and religious fundamentalists fail to understand. That something doesn't become more true just because it's physical.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

This is what atheist scientists and religious fundamentalists fail to understand. That something doesn't become more true just because it's physical.

Yes, but as far as science is concerned, it cannot be more true if you cannot prove it to be so. That is why, I, an atheist, trained as a scientist do not believe in the Resurrection. I apply science's principles outside of my field.

[Reflectionist]

YOu've got a rather narrow view of what can qualify as "Christianity." Many Christians believe the Bible is not to be taken literally in many cases. Some Gnostic Christians even believe that much or all of the New Testament is meant to be taken in parable form. That doesn't mean you or I need to agree with that, but it is just as valid of a belief system as those based upon literal interpretation of the Bible.

LOL. Gnostic being the key word.

Okay, so I don't have to believe in Christ to be a Christian?

Okiedokie... Heck, I'm one of the people that don't take the Bible 100% literally. But I do take it 100% seriously.

And those 'Christians' you mentioned are people that clearly haven't read the Bible either.

There's a difference between something being interpereted differently and it being a blatant lie.

Because the faith in teh Son of God is an irrational faith, because the message of Jesus doesn't speak to the logos or intellectual mind, but to the pathos, the emotional and irrational mind. If you want to say that you can prove scientifically what God did or does, you are basically sinning of arrogance.

Awesome.

Edited by Reflectionist, 28 March 2007 - 02:55 PM.

[Arturo]

Laughing is the best thing you can do when you don't understand what you are told or just don't have any arguments against it.

And your comments about what wisp said reveal it's much more likely teh former.

[Reflectionist]

Laughing is the best thing you can do when you don't understand what you are told or just don't have any arguments against it.

And your comments about what wisp said reveal it's much more likely teh former.

Laughing is actually the way to say "You're a freakin idiot" without actually breaking the forums rules.

CHRISTianity = CHRIST. It's not a coincidence.

And for the record, I do have plenty of arguments against what you say, but you're not a Christian, and you don't believe the Bible so my efforts would be wasted on you. Particularly with the verse that says 'Don't cast your pearls to swine.' That would be something that's not literal.

It means don't bother with idiots that refuse to believe the most obvious things.

Edited by Reflectionist, 28 March 2007 - 03:02 PM.

[Arturo]

If you read my posts, you would have noticed that I never said I didn't believe in Christ. You made that up.

My point was that we don't need to have a physical, historical Christ to believe in Christ. Because truth=/=empirically proved. But I never said he didn't exist.

If you had understood what I said, you would have taken it into some conseideration.

For example, the part of logos and pathos comes from one of the Fathers of the Church, the Latin Dionisius. Because, oh yes, the Fathers of the Church were all idiots ¬¬

I will make it clearer:

I DO believe Jesus was a historical character and that he resurrected.
I DO believe that it wouldn't be any different if it was just a myth, because it would be a truth revealed by God.
I DON'T believe he's a myth.

Next time you speak, why don't you actually read? You know, reading helps to save you from appearing as an ignorant

Edited by Arturo, 28 March 2007 - 04:14 PM.

[wisp]

Reflectionist, why are you always so belligerent? There's no need to use the word "idiot" in a mature, levelheaded debate. Frankly, it doesn't do much for your argument except make people even less likely to consider it as a valid position.

Edited by wisp, 28 March 2007 - 05:25 PM.

[Reflectionist]

Reflectionist, why are you always so belligerent? There's no need to use the word "idiot" in a mature, levelheaded debate. Frankly, it doesn't do much for your argument except make people even less likely to consider it as a valid position.

Sorry.

I just have a very low patience level.

Hmm, odd similarities, though.

Mostly in how I don't read what you say because I don't respect your opinion enough to justify a waste in time. And you don't respect your own 'opinion' on Christianity to read the friggen Bible.

Good day.

[Arturo]

I read the Bible. So you are wrong. Stop acting childish and saying you are right just because, that makes you look like an idiot.

The difference between you and me is that I understand your interpretation, and don't share it. You just don't understand my interpretation.

[Ransom]

Arturo does have some irregular views, but i think i finally understand them enough (after an expasterating discussion in the "free ticket to heaven" thread) to say that it is a perfectly valid way of looking at things in terms of christianity.
I disagree with most of things he says concerning the interpreation of the Bible etc. but that doesnt mean I will dismiss his views as a "waste of time" or "idiotic".
It is a pointless way to discuss: "Youre views are invalid... because... because they are!"

Particularly with the verse that says 'Don't cast your pearls to swine.' That would be something that's not literal.

It means don't bother with idiots that refuse to believe the most obvious things.

I think that verse is referring to sharing the message of salvation to people that will give you a chance, not to theological discussions in which a few people might disagree with you.

[Reflectionist]

Well there's a difference between having a passage that says "Don't go to bed angry' and interpereting that as 'I shouldn't be angry period,' and Interpereting a verse that says 'I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the father but by me' as "I'm a way to heaven, use me if you like, but you don't have to.'

Notice there's a difference there.

I'm not saying you don't believe about Jesus, but about the Bible interperetation thing, there are certain passages that you can interperet like that, and some you can't.

When Jesus is talking, that's not a parable. When Jesus tells a story, that's a parable. When it says "Jesus died on the frickin cross' it doesn't say "Jesus was ridiculed for his beliefs," although thats usually what we use the word 'crucify' for today, believe it or not, it was a literal action. They nailed you to a frickin cross.

Literally.

Maybe God didn't create the world in 6 days, maybe He did. I don't know, I wasn't there. No, it doesn't seem logical, but I'm not God, so I'm not in the place to judge wether thats true or not, am I?

I'm not saying I'm right "Just because," that's you. You're the one telling me your beliefs according to Christianity without giving any reference from the authority of Christianity (the bible), whereas I am.

I'm not trying to lift myself up here, but if you seriously are basing your religious beliefs on something that isn't a doctrine, and still calling it Christianity, then dude, you're not doing the right thing. I hate to say it, I mean, you're a cool guy and all, but If you're a Christian, you need to at least try to follow what the Bible says.

So I'm being childish for basing my Beliefs about Christianity on it's own doctrine.

If you don't believe a certain passage because you don't like it, what grounds do you have to say that the rest of the Bible is right? It's been wrong once in your eyes, what makes you think the rest of it is right?

Remember the verse from Revelation I put out here?

I know your deeds, that you are neither hot nor cold. I wish you were one or the other! But because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I am about to vomit you from my mouth!

Either believe in Christianity 100% or don't believe in it at all. But dude, don't half-ass it. It's just degrading.

And I remember someone saying (might not have been in this thread, but i'm in a hurry) that he's mad at God all the time and never worships him. Well, I found a verse in Matthew, Chapter Five, verse 6, that says, "everyone who desires God 100% will be Satisfied. God is the food to your spiritual being"

[Arturo]

I never said those passages were meant to be prables, but that if they WERE, I wouldn't mind, either.

And also, to be a Christian you don't ahve to believe what the Bible says (I believe in teh Bible), but believe in Jesus. Because on the first centuries tehre were tons of christrians and the Bible didn't even exist then, sio...

[Reflectionist]

I never said those passages were meant to be prables, but that if they WERE, I wouldn't mind, either.

And also, to be a Christian you don't ahve to believe what the Bible says (I believe in teh Bible), but believe in Jesus. Because on the first centuries tehre were tons of christrians and the Bible didn't even exist then, sio...

So the council of nicea or whatever was just like, "Okay, well, we have a book quota to meet, Jesus doesn't really agree with this, but let's throw this letter in there because the names look cool together."

I think that those books are in there for a reason, and that reason is that Jesus directly condones those teachings. Paul (or whoever wrote them) was just elaborating. And although some of the old testament isn't necessary anymore since Jesus came, we still read it to learn the history of what was going on in the Jewish world before Jesus turned it upside down.

So I wouldn't say they just haphazardly threw those in there.

And it's not so much believing in Jesus as simply Believing Jesus.

[Doopliss]

I completely agree with Arturo's point. Faith doesn't need any kind of proof. A Christian must blindly believe in God and in Jesus, whatever happens. I'll put it this way so people who aren't familiriazed with this topic will understand. Arunma is a scientist. He believes that what he has learnt in physics is true. According to what he has learnt, Jesus' resurrection is impossible, yet he continues to believe in Jesus's resurrection, despite the fact that he can't prove using physics that someone could resurrect. Therefore, he makes an exception with Jesus, right? In this case, Jesus can break the rules that Arunma has learnt in physics so he's able to resurrect. So, what if Jesus' body was found? It would be irrational to believe that he has resurrected, but it is already quite irrational to belive that he has indeed resurrected and that his body isn't here! So, what I'm trying to say is that once you believe in Jesus' resurrection, you can't use science anymore when talking about him. If Jesus was the son of God, nothing would be enough to prove that he has resurrected or not, because he's an almighty God. In other words, you blindly, completely, absolutely believe in God or you don't believe in him at all.

Mostly in how I don't read what you say because I don't respect your opinion enough to justify a waste in time.

As far as I know, nothing forces you to reply to his posts if you take them as a waste of time. However, you shouldn't reply to them and expect a serious answer if you haven't read them carefully.

[Arturo]

And, Reflectionist, the Books chosen in Nicaea council were chosen for polytical reasons, because they were the books the majority of bishops liked. And the emperor Constantine imposed his views about things like the divinity of Christ. Ever wondered why there are no Gnostic Gospels in the Bible? Or no Arrhian ones?

We could have a Bible with.... let's say:

Gospel of John
Gospel of Thomas
Gospel of the Egyptians
Protoevangelion of James
Gospel of Mary (Magdalene)
Gospel of Philipp
Didache
Acts of Peter
Acts of John
Apocalypse of Peter


All these texts are REAL texts, and I have chosen them for no special reason. Because tehre are mnay, many apocriphal Gospels that could have been in the Bible by now, if it not were for some certain Emperor

[Ransom]

And, Reflectionist, the Books chosen in Nicaea council were chosen for polytical reasons, because they were the books the majority of bishops liked. And the emperor Constantine imposed his views about things like the divinity of Christ. Ever wondered why there are no Gnostic Gospels in the Bible? Or no Arrhian ones?

We could have a Bible with.... let's say:

Gospel of John
Gospel of Thomas
Gospel of the Egyptians
Protoevangelion of James
Gospel of Mary (Magdalene)
Gospel of Philipp
Didache
Acts of Peter
Acts of John
Apocalypse of Peter


All these texts are REAL texts, and I have chosen them for no special reason. Because tehre are mnay, many apocriphal Gospels that could have been in the Bible by now, if it not were for some certain Emperor

My problem with this particular post is that you seem to be stating that God had no control over what went into his Word or not.
I think if God wanted a holy word that would teach his followers about him, he wouldnt leave it up to human influence to decide what goes in and what stays out. Though humans may have techinically chosen what went into God's word, it wouldve been under his influence and inspiration, or there would be no point in God sending his word to us anyway.

And using this logic, i could say any old text is just as God-inspired as the rest of it.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Or perhaps, God doesn't care what goes into the book or what happens on Earth at all.

[Ransom]

Or perhaps, God doesn't care what goes into the book or what happens on Earth at all.

An interesting point. However i was talking on the basis of Christianity, and in Christianity, he does.

[Arturo]

Of course, I was talking in an atheistic way. But I don't like seeing Constantine as an instrument of God, if you ask me.

And some of the Gospels I named are quais-canonical. For example, the Protoevangelion of James is tha basis for some of the Catholic dogmas, such as Mary's triple virginity of Mary's Immaculate Conception. In that Gospel it is said that Joachim and Ann are the parents of the Virgin. They are recognized by the Catholic Church as saints, and parents of teh virgin.
Also, we have John's Gospel, which is clearly a Gnostic Gospel. Yet it was included as canon.
And it seems Thomas Gospel has a very strong tie with the canonical ones, above all the sinoptics. It could very well be sometging similar to the infamous Source Q, and is possibly more reliable than the Gospels themselves, for it is posibly one of the first texts written.

Edited by Arturo, 30 March 2007 - 10:41 AM.

[Ransom]

But I don't like seeing Constantine as an instrument of God, if you ask me.

Why not?

And some of the Gospels I named are quais-canonical. For example, the Protoevangelion of James is tha basis for some of the Catholic dogmas, such as Mary's triple virginity of Mary's Immaculate Conception. In that Gospel it is said that Joachim and Ann are the parents of the Virgin. They are recognized by the Catholic Church as saints, and parents of teh virgin.
Also, we have John's Gospel, which is clearly a Gnostic Gospel. Yet it was included as canon.
And it seems Thomas Gospel has a very strong tie with the canonical ones, above all the sinoptics. It could very well be sometging similar to the infamous Source Q, and is possibly more reliable than the Gospels themselves, for it is posibly one of the first texts written.

I dont think i could put anough faith in my church like that to be Catholic.
I may be wrong, but you seem to trust the decisions of the Catholic church as much as the Bible?
This seems so wrong to me, though using logic it makes perfect sense. Why couldnt the leaders of the church be just as equally inspired as the writers of the Bible?
hmmmm.....

(Ransom VS Ransom)

[Arturo]

Why not?

Because Constantine was a PAGAN Roman Emperor who wanted to create a religion that would unite his empire. He just used Jesus as an instrument of power. He used the cross to win.

[Goose]

As the resident Catholic, I must step in here.

When Jesus Acsended, he gave the control of the church, to Peter. Peter had the authority to make all the decisions and what not. Now, as Catholics, (And this is in the Catechisms) we believe that the Pope carries Peters Authority, as Peter was technically the first Pope. We believe that the pope has the calling that peter has, and the divine authority that comes with it. This Authroity exists in the day to day runnings of the church, and the pope is there to lead the church into the new times. However,

This doesn't mean that we trust the traditions of the church over the bible, rather, that through the tradtions of the church, the beliefs were able to stay alive, through the dark ages, and times where humanity wasn't as educated as it is today. The reason we had/have priests is so that they could teach people about the bible, when people werent taught to read, as they were too busy running farms.

We believe, as Catholics, That Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, and there is no way into heaven but by him. The Pope has the authority over the day to day running of the church, and a lot of the time, a lot of spiritual guidance, but we believe in the bible.

We also believe in the sacrements, but thats a tale for another time.

[Arturo]

This doesn't mean that we trust traditions over the Bible, but, in fact, we do.

Take Mary's virginity. It is clearly stated that Jesus had four brothers and more than one sister. The natural assumption would be that they were children of Joseph and Mary. But teh Church says those are not brothers. It is just a baseless assumption, because the Gospels were written in Greek, and in Greek there is a clear distinction ebtween brothers and cousins. But the Church, justifying itself in the tradition (a k a Apocryphal Gospels) defines Mary's Triple Virginity as a dogma. Something totally anti-biblical. And there are many examples of this, but I won't take the time to talk about them.

[LionHarted]

It is clearly stated that Jesus had four brothers and more than one sister. The natural assumption would be that they were children of Joseph and Mary. But teh Church says those are not brothers. It is just a baseless assumption...

They might be baseless, if the names of said brethren were never mentioned, for then we would not have tracked down record people who, in all likelihood, are the "brothers" mentioned, but are not natural brothers to Christ.

"The decisive proof, however, is that the father and mother of at least two of these "brethren" are known to us. James and Joseph, or Joses, are, as we have seen, the sons of Alpheus, or Clopas, and of Mary, the sister of Mary the Mother of Jesus, and all agree that if these are not brothers of the Saviour, the others are not. This last argument disposes also of the theory that the "brethren" of the Lord were the sons of St. Joseph by a former marriage. They are then neither the brothers nor the step-brothers of the Lord. James, Joseph, and Jude are undoubtedly His cousins. If Simon is the same as the Symeon of Hegesippus, he also is a cousin, since this writer expressly states that he was the son of Clopas the uncle of the Lord, and the latter's cousin. But whether they were cousins on their father's or mother's side, whether cousins by blood or merely bymarriage, cannot be determined with certainty. Mary of Clopas is indeed called the "sister" of the Blessed Virgin (John 19:25), but it is uncertain whether "sister" here means a true sister or a sister-in-law. Hegesippus calls Clopas the brother of St. Joseph. This would favour the view that Mary of Clopas was only the sister-in-law of the Blessed Virgin, unless it be true, as stated in the manuscripts of the Peshitta version, that Joseph and Clopas married sisters. The relationship of the other "brethren" may have been more distant than that of the above named four."

http://www.newadvent...then/02767a.htm

Edited by LionHarted, 04 April 2007 - 06:54 PM.

[Coltxdoom]

By now you've all heard of it. The alleged tomb of Jesus, which will shake and topple the very foundations of Christianity by disproving the resurrection. Here's the link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.../site/newsweek/

Well there you have it folks, the atheist version of creation science (=not science)! Now discuss and debate.

I generally took it as a publicity stunt for James Cameron to get back into the limelight. And it worked for a little while at least. Besides, some people just LOVE to try and prove that Christianity is a hoax or some kind of conspiricy. It's ridiculous, really.

[TheAvengerLever]

And, Reflectionist, the Books chosen in Nicaea council were chosen for polytical reasons, because they were the books the majority of bishops liked. And the emperor Constantine imposed his views about things like the divinity of Christ. Ever wondered why there are no Gnostic Gospels in the Bible? Or no Arrhian ones?

We could have a Bible with.... let's say:

Gospel of John
Gospel of Thomas
Gospel of the Egyptians
Protoevangelion of James
Gospel of Mary (Magdalene)
Gospel of Philipp
Didache
Acts of Peter
Acts of John
Apocalypse of Peter
All these texts are REAL texts, and I have chosen them for no special reason. Because tehre are mnay, many apocriphal Gospels that could have been in the Bible by now, if it not were for some certain Emperor

O...my...goodness.

I'm going to have fun with this one.

First off, bub. Nicaea wasn't the place where the Books that were put in the Bible were decided upon. Get your facts straight.

Second off, the Gnostic Gospels include inconsistancies with the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John that are honestly fool hardy, not to mention the fact that some of them were written a few centuries after the events described in the synoptic gospels. Cha-boom.

Blink, I'm gone!

[Arturo]

First off, I surely got confused with those legends that speak about miracles in the Nicaea Council deciding the canon. Maybe it was an invention of the Catholic Church. Or of my imagination. I haven't found anything on my books about what I am 100% sure that I read. Which is quite weird.

I must look for more on Nicaea's Council.


Anyway, I have read most of those texts, and I know most of them are quite incompatible. I said on the post that I had chosen those texts for no special reason. I just chose a few gospels, a few Acts and a few Revelations. But I didn't even think about how compatible those were, since my objective was to show the variety of texts before the councils of the IV century. Because, even though there was no official prosecution against the other texts and the canon wasn't totally defined back then, most of those texts were lost.

And in case you are wondering, I have read the first seven of the ten books (or what is left from them). So I know quite well their content.

[TheAvengerLever]

There were actually two Nicaean Coucils...one in 780's AD and one a few centuries earlier, both dealing with doctrine and not scripture.

[Arturo]

Yes, but the first one is the one that is usually referred as THE council of Nicaea. Even if that's not to exact