Hi all,

This board has been a little quiet lately, so let`s stir it up shall we? I`ve been doing a lot of reading and introspection recently, and have come up with a couple of thoughts/concepts. Please forgive me if they seem offensive to some, but I did not just pull them out of a hat, I have come a long path to end up here. So, here goes.

1. The Old Testament God is a false God. A partisan, capricious and sometimes tyrannical tribal deity.

2. The true God is an ineffable Oneness beyond al qualities, indescribable in words. This God is the Mind of the Universe, which expresses itself through all beings.


3. The doctrines of the New Testament were preceded by the doctrines of the Pagan Mysteries. The conclusion one can draw here is that it would seem that Christianity developed, not from the new and sublime, but from existing, and already ancient doctrines.

4. The New Testament is the exoteric expression of the Mysteries, yet there are numerous obvious passages that hint of definite underlying esoteric Mysteries. This is expanded apon in the Apocrypha and Gnostic gospels.


5. The Roman church of the early CE distorted the original (esoteric) Christian teachings (of Jesus) to achieve and maintain their political agenda. They espoused a wholly literalist doctrine of Christianity and persecuted anyone of dissimilar persuasions.

6. A conclusion here is that Christianity today could be a gross distortion of the fundamental tenets of Christ’s teachings.


7. And finally Gnostic Christianity was as big a religious movement in the early Christian era as the Roman Church, but was mercilessly persecuted to the point of going underground and eventual oblivion by the early Roman Church, in the interest of their socio-political agendas.

These are just some conclusions I`ve reached concerning Christianity and the early Roman Church. Has any anyone got some thoughts on this?

“As our body, while consisting of many members, is yet held together by one soul, so the universe is to be thought of as an immense living being, which is held together by One Soul – the power and the Logos of God.”
Origen – 185-254 CE

Take care

Have you read the book of Q? This was published recently and is the result of an in depth independent historical study of the roots of Christianity. The research has been in progress for the past 150 years.

I read this several years ago and I might be mixing knowledge from other historical texts, but whatever, here are some things I remember from my historical studies several years ago -

Looks like the apostle Paul was the real creator of Christianity, Jesus had never had any desire to create a religion. Jesus seems to be more of an intelectual rebel with a close band of supporters who were objecting to the Roman occupation and were seeking for a better approach to life. He was probably descended from the line of David, hence the mocking claim by the romans that he was king of the jews.

The nativity story is pure fiction and was lifted from more ancient Greek myths. Most of the gospel stories appear to be pure creative mythology.

In the early years there were no miracle stories and this seemed incompatible with a divine entity, so the miracle stories were created in an attempt to give credibility to the claim of Jesus being divine. They are all again pure creative fiction. They all appeared at the same time giving credence to the probability that it was one author or a group who collaborated.

There seems to be little actual evidence of Jesus's actual words. Most of the claims for what Jesus said seems to have been created by the gospel authors.

There seems little doubt that Catholicism was politically motivated. The old style gods were no longer being respected and the Roman empire desperately needed a replacement religion - remember government in those times needed divine guidance to be respected. So any half believable religion would have been acceptable, the rest was achieved by physical coercian and brutal persecution of any rivals.

Just doing my best to stir things up.


[This message has been edited by Cris (edited April 24, 2000).]

Facts and evidence usually help substantiate claims. Just a suggestion...

The Manuscript reliability of the NT is incredible. The claims about the gospel writers making stuff up is only a persons opinion. An opinion that is not plausible and is not supported by the facts.

____________________
There seems to be little actual evidence of Jesus's actual words.
___________________

The manuscripts say just the opposite.

_______________________
Most of the claims for what Jesus said seems to have been created by the gospel authors.
____________________

The facts that support this claim would be??? I coan find them where??? And the reason the gospel authors died for their "creation," as you put it, would be???

______________
In the early years there were no miracle stories and this seemed incompatible with a divine entity, so the miracle stories were created in an attempt to give credibility to the claim of Jesus being divine. They are all again pure creative fiction. They all appeared at the same time giving credence to the probability that it was one author or a group who collaborated.
___________________________

Codex siniaticus and vaticanus??? What about quotes from the early church fathers? Surely they believed in the miracles. The OT phrophecies? The miracle of the resurrection? Don't tell me you deny that.

__________________
Looks like the apostle Paul was the real creator of Christianity, Jesus had never had any desire to create a religion. Jesus seems to be more of an intelectual rebel with a close band of supporters who were objecting to the Roman occupation and were seeking for a better approach to life. He was probably descended from the line of David, hence the mocking claim by the romans that he was king of the jews.

___________________

Wheres the evidence? Everything you posted seems to be an opinion with zero facts supporting it.

________________________
1. The Old Testament God is a false God. A partisan, capricious and sometimes tyrannical tribal deity.
_____________________

The evidence for this?

_________________________-
2. The true God is an ineffable Oneness beyond al qualities, indescribable in words. This God is the Mind of the Universe, which expresses itself through all beings.
_______________________________

You call him indescribable. Is that not a self refuting description?

______________________

3. The doctrines of the New Testament were preceded by the doctrines of the Pagan Mysteries. The conclusion one can draw here is that it would seem that Christianity developed, not from the new and sublime, but from existing, and already ancient doctrines.
______________________________


Christianity developed from a man dying on a cross and then rising three days later.

____________________
A conclusion here is that Christianity today could be a gross distortion of the fundamental tenets of Christ’s teachings.
_____________________________

Not according to the well attested manuscript evidence concerning the NT. No other ancient source comes close to the bible in reliability based on manuscript totals. I see claims like this made a lot. The problem is they seem to be mere opinions that are not supported by the facts.


Vinnie

Praise Jesus!!!

ilgwamh

Evidence??? A novel idea. Didn't think Christians had any use for evidence, faith is the usual claim, and I have complete faith in my quotes.

But you are correct, and now I know someone is out there I'll look up my texts when I'm back home and find the appropriate research material. In the meantime could you provide the evidence for the Jesus resurection and Virgin birth please, and maybe anything that supports the claim of God's existence?.

Vinnie--

I hate to beat a dead horse to dust, but can we go over the authenticity of four Gospels out of at least sixty-four?

By what criteria were any bowdlerized Gospels disqualified?

Also, in what context are we regarding the miracles of the Church fathers? Are we overlooking the inherent difficulties of their philosophical musings?

I wanted to fuel the Pauline fire:

DeChardin suggested that instead of concentrating on Jesus the man, Christians should cultivate the cosmic portrait of Christ in Paul's epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians: Christ in this view was the omega point of the universe, the climax of the evolutionary process when God becomes all in all.

--Armstrong, Karen. A History of God: The 4000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. New York: Knopf, 1994. (p. 384)

I also wanted to address the original points some.

In support of point 1, I offer this modern perspective (again, from Armstrong, p. 19) of the flight from Egypt, and the Hebrew passage of the Sea of Reeds:

This is a brutal, partial and murderous god: a god of war who would be known as Yahweh Sabaoth, the God of Armies. He is passionately partisan, has little compassion for anyone but his own favorites and is simply a favorite tribal deity. If Yahweh had remained such a savage god, the sooner he vanished, the better it would have been for everybody ....

As to your response to point 2: isn't this semantics? I mean, by that very logic, it seems the proper thing for individuals of Christian faith to do would be to shut up. After all, I dare any person of any faith to describe God in words. The only guarantee I can make there is that the description in question will fall well short of the true nature of God.

Of point 3, I will only mention that the Lady Innana, on the death of her sister's husband, descended from heaven into the underworld where sister Ereshkigal lived, and there, instead of being welcomed by her sister, the goddess was stripped of her staff and armor, and hung to die on a wooden crossbeam, where she remained for three days before ascending back to the heavens. This is an apocryphal tale that seems to predate even the Hebrews. Of course, this would follow a precedent set by the Hebrews: the story of the flood predates Hebrew culture by at least a thousand years.

I can only comment briefly on the remaining points of the original post:

Of #4, there is little to disagree with; I declare my relative ignorance pertaining to the specifics of the Gnostic theology. This should, hopefully, change at some point in the future.

I would barely disagree with point #5, only to cram in the idea that these distortions began before the term "catholic" (use an accent like the word catharsis) entered the lexicon. In other words, I'm nitpicking.

Of point #6 ... well, I tend to agree. I would use the words "massive distortion", or such, but only because "gross" seems to carry an undue amount of negative impact. Of course, it could be that the people I use such phrases around in my own life are just stupid and hyperreactive. But I do find it hard to say that so much counterproductive Christianity has existed in history that we might never find the original, underlying truth.

Regarding #7, I choose not to comment on Gnosticism directly, but will state that such circumstances are well within the imaginable capabilities of the Church institutions, and would fit well with observable patterns of political and artistic repression that have continued, largely unchanged, for two millennia.

But thank you, Vinnie (and the rest of y'all) for putting up with it. ;)

--Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Vinnie--

I forgot to get to a couple of quick issues that I'm afraid you might be the only person capable of settling:

The Manuscript reliability of the NT is incredible.

Please explain. Reliability in comparison to what? By what standard? Where do the measurements of reliability transcend faith?

Not according to the well attested manuscript evidence concerning the NT. No other ancient source comes close to the bible in reliability based on manuscript totals.

I'm curious what forms well-attested; again, I'm seeing an issue in the transcendence of faith assumptions. Also ... forgive me, but what's this about "manuscript totals"? And then, at that point, I would point once again to the paring of many to four Gospels.

I mean, you did ask for evidence. I'm quite curious what supports those couple of phrases; they're big and unwieldy claims, to the point of being accidentally dangerous.

thanx much,
Tiassa ;)

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Hi all,

Thanks for the response. I will substantiate my reasoning for the points I posted later on today.

Take care

Hi all,

Some substantiation is in order, remember this is my conclusion, and therefore really my opinion. But the more you search, the more you question, and the more you question, the more you search.

My original quote:

1. The Old Testament God is a false God. A partisan, capricious and sometimes tyrannical tribal deity.

Anyone who has read the Old Testament can draw this obvious conclusion, but I will state a couple of examples. Try applying this to your own children!
 Genesis 3:16 – So the Lord God said to the woman, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you”

How`s that for compassion, and unconditional love? That was her first mistake … no second chance. And why was the tree of temptation there in the first place? And if you read further Adam gets a raw deal as well.

 Genesis 2:1-19 – Abraham to sacrifice Isaac! … to satisfy Gods ego? The meek shall inherit the earth? Try getting your head around that one in relation to your own son! Or wife … wife, show me how much you love me … kill our firstborn! Come on, don`t you trust me?
Just keep on reading, it does not get any better. And this is just the first book of the Old Testament.

My quote:
2. The true God is an ineffable Oneness beyond al qualities, indescribable in words. This God is the Mind of the Universe, which expresses itself through all beings.

 Firstly, (Vinnie) please give me your description or understanding of the OT God. The Unseen, Invisible One. When last did you have Him over for dinner and a chat? What do you really know about Him? Have you got any recent snaps? Read the above, I stand by my conclusion. You really don`t know for sure. But He sure was mean.

My quote:
3. The doctrines of the New Testament were preceded by the doctrines of the Pagan Mysteries. The conclusion one can draw here is that it would seem that Christianity developed, not from the new and sublime, but from existing, and already ancient doctrines.

 There is an uncanny parallel between the Osiris/Dionysus dying and resurrection myths from the Pagan Mysteries (Egypt-Osiris in Greece-Dionysus in Asia Minor-Attis in Syria-Adonis in Italy-Bacchus in Persia-Mithras) and the Christian dying and resurrection tradition. There are numerous more parallels. Further reading – The Jesus Mysteries – Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy – Thorsons 1999, also read Pythagoras, Celsus, Herodotus and Origen. All available on a web search.

My quote:
4. The New Testament is the exoteric expression of the Mysteries, yet there are numerous obvious passages that hint of definite underlying esoteric Mysteries. This is expanded upon in the Apocrypha and Gnostic gospels.


 What do you make of: John – “ In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life and the life was the light of men.”

What does this mean? Read Heraclitus (c.500 BCE), Epictetus (50-130 CE), Vitrevius (c.27 BCE), Clement of Alexandria (150-215 CE), and Origen (185-254 CE)– available on a wordsearch.

My quote:
5. The Roman church of the early CE distorted the original (esoteric) Christian teachings (of Jesus) to achieve and maintain their political agenda. They espoused a wholly literalist doctrine of Christianity and persecuted anyone of dissimilar persuasions.

 We all know what happened with the burning of the Librerary of Alexandria, the Inquisition, and the Crusades. Controlling and receiving taxes from the Holy Roman Empire was the motivating factor.

 Read - The Jesus Mysteries – Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy – Thorsons 1999

My quote:
6. A conclusion here is that Christianity today could be a gross distortion of the fundamental tenets of Christ’s teachings.

 Read the above.

My quote:
7. And finally Gnostic Christianity was as big a religious movement in the early Christian era as the Roman Church, but was mercilessly persecuted to the point of going underground and eventual oblivion by the early Roman Church, in the interest of their socio-political agendas.

 Read Augustine (345-430 CE), Celsus (c.170 CE), Clement of Alexandria (150-215 CE), Constantine (272-337 CE), Heraclitus (c.500 BCE), Herodotus (484-430 BCE), Marcion (c.144 CE) and Origen (185-254 CE).

Some web sites of relevance: http://perseus.tufts.edu/Texts/chunk_TOC.html http://www.usask.ca/classics/Recources/biblios.html#tocsin http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/search_form.html http://www.knight.org/advent/fathers/ http://ccel.wheaton.edu.fathers http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/library/polem.html

So it`s a long walk, but ultimately extremely revealing. Let me know what your thoughts are.

Take care.


Hi all,

Some substantiation is in order, remember this is my conclusion, and therefore really my opinion. But the more you search, the more you question, and the more you question, the more you search.

My original quote:

1. The Old Testament God is a false God. A partisan, capricious and sometimes tyrannical tribal deity.

Anyone who has read the Old Testament can draw this obvious conclusion, but I will state a couple of examples. Try applying this to your own children!
 Genesis 3:16 – So the Lord God said to the woman, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you”

How`s that for compassion, and unconditional love? That was her first mistake … no second chance. And why was the tree of temptation there in the first place? And if you read further Adam gets a raw deal as well.

 Genesis 2:1-19 – Abraham to sacrifice Isaac! … to satisfy Gods ego? The meek shall inherit the earth? Try getting your head around that one in relation to your own son! Or wife … wife, show me how much you love me … kill our firstborn! Come on, don`t you trust me?
Just keep on reading, it does not get any better. And this is just the first book of the Old Testament.

My quote:
2. The true God is an ineffable Oneness beyond al qualities, indescribable in words. This God is the Mind of the Universe, which expresses itself through all beings.

 Firstly, (Vinnie) please give me your description or understanding of the OT God. The Unseen, Invisible One. When last did you have Him over for dinner and a chat? What do you really know about Him? Have you got any recent snaps? Read the above, I stand by my conclusion. You really don`t know for sure. But He sure was mean.

My quote:
3. The doctrines of the New Testament were preceded by the doctrines of the Pagan Mysteries. The conclusion one can draw here is that it would seem that Christianity developed, not from the new and sublime, but from existing, and already ancient doctrines.

 There is an uncanny parallel between the Osiris/Dionysus dying and resurrection myths from the Pagan Mysteries (Egypt-Osiris in Greece-Dionysus in Asia Minor-Attis in Syria-Adonis in Italy-Bacchus in Persia-Mithras) and the Christian dying and resurrection tradition. There are numerous more parallels. Further reading – The Jesus Mysteries – Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy – Thorsons 1999, also read Pythagoras, Celsus, Herodotus and Origen. All available on a web search.

My quote:
4. The New Testament is the exoteric expression of the Mysteries, yet there are numerous obvious passages that hint of definite underlying esoteric Mysteries. This is expanded upon in the Apocrypha and Gnostic gospels.


 What do you make of: John – “ In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life and the life was the light of men.”

What does this mean? Read Heraclitus (c.500 BCE), Epictetus (50-130 CE), Vitrevius (c.27 BCE), Clement of Alexandria (150-215 CE), and Origen (185-254 CE)– available on a wordsearch.

My quote:
5. The Roman church of the early CE distorted the original (esoteric) Christian teachings (of Jesus) to achieve and maintain their political agenda. They espoused a wholly literalist doctrine of Christianity and persecuted anyone of dissimilar persuasions.

 We all know what happened with the burning of the Librerary of Alexandria, the Inquisition, and the Crusades. Controlling and receiving taxes from the Holy Roman Empire was the motivating factor.

 Read - The Jesus Mysteries – Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy – Thorsons 1999

My quote:
6. A conclusion here is that Christianity today could be a gross distortion of the fundamental tenets of Christ’s teachings.

 Read the above.

My quote:
7. And finally Gnostic Christianity was as big a religious movement in the early Christian era as the Roman Church, but was mercilessly persecuted to the point of going underground and eventual oblivion by the early Roman Church, in the interest of their socio-political agendas.

 Read Augustine (345-430 CE), Celsus (c.170 CE), Clement of Alexandria (150-215 CE), Constantine (272-337 CE), Heraclitus (c.500 BCE), Herodotus (484-430 BCE), Marcion (c.144 CE) and Origen (185-254 CE).

Some web sites of relevance: http://perseus.tufts.edu/Texts/chunk_TOC.html http://www.usask.ca/classics/Recources/biblios.html#tocsin http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/search_form.html http://www.knight.org/advent/fathers/ http://ccel.wheaton.edu.fathers http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/library/polem.html

So it`s a long walk, but ultimately extremely revealing. Let me know what your thoughts are.

Take care.

Stretch,

I'll put my justifications in another topic - been planning use Q as a topic for some time.

But your stuff has potential. Have fun.

Sorry for the delay in my response. I been a little busy. I should be able to get up a response by late friday night.

Peace,
Vinnie

Hi Stretch,

How's you friend doing?

I'm a little disappointed in the conclusions you've reached about God but I guess its to be expected if we merely try to understand Him from an intellectual stance.

Being straight with you which I have always tried to be I'd have to say that the reason your so messed up with your view of Him is because you don't have a living relationship with the Lord of all Glory through the Holy Spirit. You know the Holy Spirit who will lead you into all truth, no just some befuddled concept of everything just to satisfy ones own intellect. You know how last time we spoke about the Character and Nature of God and about who He is well I would implore you to get to know or trie to understand His Character. The only way you will achieve this is by having a loving and living relationship with Him, by asking Him to be Lord of your life and not trying to do it alone, by obedience to His teachings and Word and not by rebellion against it.

Man this post is going to cope me some flak from the likes of Tiassa and others, but frankly I'm tired of the games. Time and time again I've seen new people turn up only to be heckled and hounded by seasoned veterans in this place and made to feel like their beliefs are worthless. Oxy would probably be about the only exception to this, he may not agree and he will state his case but he at least shows respect for others.

But getting back to you Stretch, you know the truth, you know that Jesus is the word made flesh, you know that He revealed the very character and nature of the Father, yet you don't understand who the Father is? Yet you don't know why He takes the action He does and the reasons for it? You don't understand because you have chosen not to, the answers to you questions are there as are the answers to everyone's questions about who God is. The problem being that you have become tired of seeking so you can not find. Stretch the only way to renew your strength is to fall on Him, the only way is to draw near to Him and He will draw near to you. I am praying for renewed strength for you, for renewed vision for you, for a new hunger in your heart not your head.

Its the same prayer I pray for myself everyday because I know what your going through. Because I'm just like you, human.

I'm not going to address your post point by point. Some questions are valid, but some statements are plain wrong. I think that the Lord would rather speak directly to your heart that to attempt to reason with you in argument so that is what I will pray for at lunch time today.

I'm out of words........

Allcare

This is going to be a long read.

"In the meantime could you provide the evidence for the Jesus resurection and Virgin birth please, and maybe anything that supports the claim of God's existence?."

Chris,
I can't provide evidence for the virgin birth without showing the Biblie is divinely inspired. I could point to the four gospels and other historical books that show this but I doubt you would believe that. I disbelieve in miracles without help. A person can not heal people just by touching them on their own. A transcendent creator can do these things and give people the ability to do this things. The same thing holds for angels and demons. Obviously they aren't at the same level as God but they are more powerful than us. Like David Hume said, dead men don't rise, but I would add, on their own, dead men do not just magically rise. With the help of a transcendent creator they can be made to rise. Do I believe Moses could have parted the red sea with a staff? No, not on hs own. Do I believe our transcendent creator gave him the ability to do this? Yes I do. God can do things we cannot. I don't know of anything or any scientific law that says a transcendent creator can't perform miracles. Miracles have happened to me and many others. To deny them is to deny millions of accounts of them. The reason they are mainly denied is because people inaccurately believe, they are impossible. I think a quote from Jesus would some things up nice: "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." (Matt 19:26)

Please note that that verse was quoted slightly out of the context Jesus said it in. I just thought it was appropriate and it does still apply what I was talking about. But it had more to do with the faith/works issue.

As far as supporting God's existence: everything I say I am pretty sure is going to be contested so I figured I should just start with one thing. Also please take into account that one bit of evidence all by its lonesome self doesn't prove much. Its when all the pieces of the puzzle come together that you get your proof. There isn't a magic pill proving God's existence. I can say the Bible is inerrant (assume canonization is accurate) but what if Moby Dick is found to be inerrant? Does that make Melville God? My point is that the evidence has to be put together like a puzzle. If you get most of the pieces to fit you got your proof. I said "most of the peices" not all of the pieces on purpose.

Some people often say "A Christian needs to resolve ALL contradictions in the Bible, hostorical, archaeological,internal etc." This I disagree with. If we were all-knowing or had infinite knowledge then yes I would agree with it. New evidence accumulates with the passing of time. Places where people have doubted the Bible have later been shown to be accurate. I think it is highly unfair and impractical for someone to have to answer ALL the contradictions and errors raised against them. If you can do away with most and show how right now we KNOW that a vast majority of the Bible is in line with history and archaeology, then that should suffice. If our evidences and proof can't be practical and used in everyday life then what good are they? Much like a philosophy that contradicts our everyday experiences, they need to be sent to the furnace IMHO.

Up above I said, "If you can do away with most and show how right now we KNOW that a vast majority of the Bible is in line with history and archaeology, then that should suffice." What I mean by that is your are establishing them as credible pieces of the puzzle. The puzzle still needs to be put together, but having the right pieces helps (one would think). Without them you will have to do a lot of manipulating and forcing. Its better to be missing a few pices then to do this. With just a few pieces missing you still would be able to see the overall pattern of the puzzle and what it is about. Yes there are small holes in the Bible right now in cetian fields. People like me would refer to them as difficulties, not contradictions but the point is that with our historical and archaeological knowledge and with most internal contradictions, and with science, the Bible passes the test. It holds up. Obviously each piece of the puzle needs to be gone over. I say "the Bible holds up with scinece" then you say "Why does it have the sun created on day 4 after the plants and stuff if it is accurate." I have a feeling we will be getting to that question. You asked me for proof. If ok with you I'd like to start with science.

Genesis 1 = the Big Bang. I say Genesis holds up with the findings of modern science. Obviously, it holds up with the findings of yec as well but that stuff is, for lack of a better word, garbage. So I was hoping we could stick with real science. There is something we need to take into account before we start. The Bible is not a science book and it was never intended to be. The authors (although divinely inspired) did not understand stuff like physics, geology, biology, cosmology, and plate tectonics. They observed God's creation and described it with inspired words. The account seems most accurate when taken by Moses as a vision. Remember he was ignorant in many scientific areas, he merely described what he saw.

Genesis 1:2 is a big verse. It is very important for properly understanding the rest of Genesis 1. The second verse of Genesis one seems to imply that the rest of the account was described from the perspective of someone above the surface of the ocean but below the cloud layer (ie from the earth, not out in space looking in).

This is important to realize when looking at Genesis1:3 which reads: "And God said, 'let there be light,' and there was light." Does this describe the creation of light in our universe? If so it is inaccurate. Obviously there was light around well before the earth formed. Especially seeings how our sun is probably a third generation star. Go back to Genesis 1:2. A person couldn't describe the earth as formless and empty if light had not yet existed for it would not be visible. This implies light already had existed. From Moses' perspective on the earth, light appeared to Him. Here is a quote from "The Genesis Question" by Dr. Hugh Ross, pg 30-31:

"The appearance of light takes center stage on the first creation day. The Hebrew verb used in God's opening statement for the day, "Let there be light" is "haya," meaning 'to exist; to be; to happen; or to come to pass.'" The verbs bara, asa, and yasar, meaning "creat," "make," and "form," respectively are not used, and this word choice makes sense. God created physical light, that is, electromagnetic radiation, "in the beginning," when He brought the cosmos into existence. The matter and energy of the cosmos included light. Indeed, light is the dominant form of energy for both the primordial and present-day universe.

Remembering the Earth's initial conditions and the frame of reference for this passage is Earth's surface, we can comprehend what happened on Day One: light penetrated Earth's dark shroud for this first time. God cleared away some of the debris."

Thats it for now with the scientific accuracy of Genesis 1. More on that later. Next post I'll probably go over verse 1:4 and also if the popular misconception that Genesis 1 has the earth being created in 6 24 hour periods and the earth being 6k to 10k years old. is true. For now the ballis left in your court.

The resurrection of Christ. The basis for my faith. Paul said [paraphrased] "If Christ has not been raised from the dead then our faith is useless." Obviously there are many people who would say dead men don't rise. So obviosuly, as in the virgin birth up above, I would have to show that the Bible is divinely inspired and that our transcendent creator does exist. Without covering that I can't hit the resurrection with full force, but for starters I'll throw some things out there. Where does the existence of Christianity come from? Can you provide a plausible alternative to what the authors of the Bible said? Can you explain, if the bible is just a myth concerning Jesus why the writers of this myth suffered death and persecution for a lie? Jesus was obviously a historical person. Off the top of my head oneseemingly plausible alternative to Jesus literally rising from the dead is a hallucination. But that too seems to fail. Its amazing how the same hallucination of a risen Christ could be observed by many different people in different areas and on different days. To refute the resurrection, all that need be presented back in the first century is the dead body of Christ. Where did it go? Was it stolen by a band of cowardly Christians who fled when their master was taken captive and later suffered a torturous death for something they new to be untrue? It was after the resurrection that we see the apostles with their hearts transformed and no longer afraid to face death in the Bible. Did the Jews or Romans steal the body so the resurrection of Christ could be proclaimed? IMO, it seems the resurrection of Christ is more plausible given the facts then the alterntive explanations. Look at the old testament phrophecies that were fufilled by Jesus. To say he was just attributed these phrophecies doesn't hold up. Why would the apostles die for a lie and what about all the people that saw Jesus?

I'm reading Josh Mcdowell's New Evidence That Demands a Verdict" and am comming into the part of the historical Jesus, the phrophecies fufilled in Him, the trilemma and the resurrection. I'll post more material later for discussion as I go through it if I think it is good..

Greetings Tiassa,
__________________
I hate to beat a dead horse to dust, but can we go over the authenticity of four Gospels out of at least sixty-four?
By what criteria were any bowdlerized Gospels disqualified?
_______________

Like a predator going after an injured animal, you've hit one of my weekest spots. The canonization is a little sketchy for me. I am not the best person to explain it to you. I have yet to see a really good source on it. NETDAV by Josh Mcdowell is a great reference book but I thought the canonization part of it was a little weak. Obviously that is important for Christians. Why do we believe this book is God's word as opposed to others? Thats a great question that needs to be answered. I'll just post some of the stuff I know and have read. It will be a little disorganized, sorry for that inconvenience. See what you can glean from it.

The early church needed to know what books should be read and revered.

The heretic Marcion in around 140 A.D. developed his own incomplete canon and began to propogate it. If I remember correctly Marcion denied most of the OT and a lot of our NT. The church needed to counter this.

Books in a lot of Eastern churches at the time were easily recognised as counterfeit.. The early church needed to counter these.

Christianity spread very rapidly. There was a neeed for scripture to be translated into other languages. Without knowing which books are scripture this could not happen.

"The edict of Diocletian (A.D. 303) called for the destruction of the sacred books of the Christians. Who would die for a book that was perhaps religious, but not sacred? Christians needed to know which books were sacred." (NETDAV Josh Mcdowell pg 23.)

Ignatius (A.D. 50-115) wrote "I do not wish to command you as Peter and Paul; they were apostles." (Tall. 3.3)

[Polycarp (A.D. 115), Clement of Alexandria (about A.D. 200), and other early church fathers refer to the Old Testament and New Testament books with the phrase "as it is said in these scriptures."] (NETDAV, Josh Mcdowell pg 24.

F.F. Bruce said, "when at last a Church council--The Synod of Hippo in A.D. 393--listed the 27 books of the New Testament, it did not confer upon them any authority which they did not already possess, but simply recorded their previously established canonicity." (Bruce, BP, 113)

Regarding Irenaeus (A.D. 180) F.F. Bruce writes: "the importance of evidence lies in his link with the apostolic age and in his ecumenical associations. Brought up in Asia Minor at the feet of Polycarp, the disciple of John, he became the Bishop of Lyons in Gaul, A.D. 180. His writings attest the canonical recognition of the fourfold Gospel and Acts, of Romans, of 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus, of 1 Peter and 1 John, and of the Revelation. In his treatise, 'Against Heresies,' III, ii, 8, it is evident that by A.D. 180 the idea of the fourfold Gospel had become so axiomatic throughout Christendom that it could be referred to as an established fact as obvious and inevitable and natural as the four cardinal points of the compass (as we call them) or the four winds." (Bruce, BP, 109)

The initial reasoning for collecting and preserving the inspired books was that they were phrophetic. that is, since they were writen by an apostle of phrophet of god, they must be valuable, and if valuable, they should be preserved. The reasoning is apparent in apostolic times, by the collection and circulation of Paul's epistles (cf. 2 Peter 3:15-16; Col. 4:16)." (Geisler, GIB, 277)

Col 4:16 reads "After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea."

2 Peter 3:15-16 says, "Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."


I think that looking at the early church and early church fathers and first hand witnesses and historians we see there was a general consensus regarding which books were divinely inspired.

As for the rest of the stuff. I am not going to respond to everyones conclusions. Only the questions asked and I will present the evidence I alluded to.

"Also, in what context are we regarding the miracles of the Church fathers?"

My statement was in response to this "In the early years there were no miracle stories"
I said, "What about quotes from the early church fathers? Surely they believed in the miracles." as promoting the idea that there were miracle stories in the early years of Christianity. They weren't made up at a later date.

____________________________
DeChardin suggested that instead of concentrating on Jesus the man, Christians should cultivate the cosmic portrait of Christ in Paul's epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians: Christ in this view was the omega point of the universe, the climax of the evolutionary process when God becomes all in all.
-Armstrong, Karen. A History of God: The 4000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. New York: Knopf, 1994. (p. 384)
__________________________


Well, Paul didn't make many, if any, references to the Historical Jesus but the point of Christianity is not just believing in A historical Jesus. Intellectual faith is not enough for salvation. "Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder." (James 2:19) Christianity is about a man dying on a cross and atoning for the sins of the wordl. I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. "To live is Christ, to die is gain." I think I understand the implications of the quote though. i recently heard a great and tough to answer question asked: "I'd like your opinion on which is more important, having faith in a devine being, or believing in the biblical texts?" Tough question in my book but I will say a few things on the issue. Quote from Ann at the ilovejesus.com message boards "When I studied cultural anthropology in college I was amazed to learn that there were tribes in different parts of the world who had a belief system that included a triune God, Father all powerful, Son who had attoned for sin, Empowering Spirit. There people had had no known contact with the outside world, no missionaries, etc. And yet they somehow knew these truths. I have no idea how. I was running from God myself at that point but the marvel of that always stayed with me." I think that fits in nicely with the idea of duel revelation and verses like Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

Also verses 2:12-16 is very illuminating regarding those who do not have the law, ie those who have never heard: All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares."]

Can a person have a relationship with God in his heart without any specific knowledge or following specific doctrine? IMO, yes he can. This is not to say that having faith in Allah is the same as faith in Christ because it is not. Look in the OT. God does not like the worshoping of false Gods. It is your relationship with god that is important.


______________
This is a brutal, partial and murderous god: a god of war who would be known as Yahweh Sabaoth, the God of Armies. He is passionately partisan, has little compassion for anyone but his own favorites and is simply a favorite tribal deity. If Yahweh had remained such a savage god, the sooner he vanished, the better it would have been for everybody ....
______________

This quote is an opinion of God. It doesn't take into account the miracles, the archaeological finds, the historicity, the phrophecies, the scientific accuracy of Genesis 1
etc etc into account. Take the facts into account and it seems we get this being the true God. The author does not agree with God's actions. Thats what I see from that quote. Arguing against our transcendent creator is illogical and egotistical. I pointed out up above a few problems with arguing against the source of your knowledge. I personally don't understnd a lot in the OT. Stuff like not getting a haircut and not wearing two types of fabric is pretty absurd to me. But given the social conditions at the time and the reason for the law it helps clear some things up. God made the law ridiculous and impossible to keep so that man would realise his sinfulleness. It set the foundation for Christ. As far as the wars and stuff, the society back then was a little more "barbaric." Judging God is not a good thing to do. Look at the story of Job in the Bible. 'Job lost his family to "a mighty wind," his wealth to war and fire, and his health to painful boils. Through it all, God never told Job why it was happening. As Job endured the accusations of his friends, heaven remained silent. When God finally did speak Neither did the Lord apologize for allowing Satan to test Job's devotion to God. Instead, God talked about mountain goats giving birth, young lions on the hunt, and ravens in the nest. He cited the behavior of the ostrich, the strength of the ox, and the stride of the horse. He cited the wonders of the heavens, the marvels of the sea, and the cycle of the seasons. Job was left to conclude that if God had the power and wisdom to create this physical universe, there was reason to trust that same God in times of suffering.' The stuff in the OT is not for us so I try not to get my feathers all ruffled about it.

_______________
After all, I dare any person of any faith to describe God in words.
________________

Completely describe, or describe certian features? I think there is a big difference between the two choices listed.

_________________________
Of point 3, I will only mention that the Lady Innana, on the death of her sister's husband, descended from heaven into the underworld where sister Ereshkigal lived, and there, instead of being welcomed by her sister, the goddess was stripped of her staff and armor, and hung to die on a wooden crossbeam, where she remained for three days before ascending back to the heavens. This is an apocryphal tale that seems to predate even the Hebrews. Of course, this would follow a precedent set by the Hebrews: the story of the flood predates Hebrew culture by at least a thousand years.
_________________________

Those are some good points that Christians need to address. Earlier I mentioned something about duel revelation and that Lady Ann I quoted about her anthropology studies. I also mentioned Romans which says God's invisible qualities are clearly revealed in nature. These things help soften up this issue. Why wouldn't there be other flood accounts beside the hebrew one? You would think that if it really did happen that the descendents of Noah knew about it. Obviously th true story would have got perverted over time and would have incorporated false God' s and stuff. One explanation that I have seen is that God on Sinai gave Moses the correct story and he recorded it in Genesis. The extent of the flood waters is a whole debate in itself. A debate which recently I participated in may times. The Flood did not cover the entire earth. There is scientific evidence for the flood in the mesopotian region that fits in with the Biblical time of this flood. Remember, yec often say the earth is 6k to 10k years old but they show their ignorance in the area of Biblical geneologies. The geneologies in some plaes range anwhere from 10 to 80 complete. People like me believe Adam was around 40k years ago. Not 6k to 10k like many today.

I lost my train of thought and got off on a tangent. back to the Flood and other "myths" ike it. Kitchen points out "The common assumption that the Hebrew account is simply a purged and simplifiedversion of the Babylonian legend...is fallacious on methodological grounds. In Ancient Near East, the rule is that simple accounts or traditions may give rise (by accretion and embellishment) to elaborate legends, but not vice versa." Evidence supports the idea that Genesis was not a myth made into history but the extrabiblical accounts were history turned into myths. This evidence is found by looking at the historical and archaeological accuracy of the Genesis acoount. The names of tows and people etc etc.

Josh Mcdowell in NETDAV pointed out that, "If we can propose deriviation of the human race from one family, plus general revelation, some lingering traces of the true historical accounts would be expected."

___________________
But I do find it hard to say that so much counterproductive Christianity has existed in history that we might never find the original, underlying truth.
___________________

Look at the existing culture in the 1st century and read the Biblical manuscripts and see what you find. As I will show a little later the Biblical manuscripts have changed very little from year to year. Disregarding later actions of the church you can find out what the true meaning of Christianity is.

_____________
Please explain. Reliability in comparison to what? By what standard? Where do the measurements of reliability transcend faith?

I'm curious what forms well-attested; again, I'm seeing an issue in the transcendence of faith assumptions. Also ... forgive me, but what's this about "manuscript totals"? And then, at that point, I would point once again to the paring of many to four Gospels.
__________________

The NT has over 25,000 manuscripts supporting it. "Athough it was written on perishable materials, and had to be copied and recopied for hundreds of years before the invention of the printing press, the Scriptures have never diminished in style or correctness, nor have they ever faced extinction. Compared with other other ancient writngs, the Bible has more manuscript evidence to support it than any ten pieces of classic literature combined." NETDAV, pg 9 Josh McDowell.

"It must be said that the amount of time between the original composites and the next surviving manuscript is far less for the New Testament than for any other work in Greek Literature....Although there are certianly differences in many of the New Testsament manuscripts, not one fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading." (Dockery, FBI, 182)

"To be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament." (John Warwick Montgomery)

The Bible is supported by tons of archaeological finds. Nelson Glueck, the renowned Jewish archaeologist, wrote: "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference." (Glueck, RDHN, 31)

The Bible is also unique in its teachings. From cover to cover it is Christocentric. "Finally, and most important, among all the people described in the Bible, the leading character throughout is the one, true, living God made known through Jesus Christ.
Consider first the old teatament: The Law provides the "foundation for Christ," the historical books show the "preparation" for Christ, the poetical works aspire to Christ, and the hrophecies display an "expectaion" of Christ. (NETDAV McDowell, pg 6) In the New Testament, the "Gospels...record the historical manifestation of Christ, the Acts relate the propagation of Christ, the Epistles give the interpretation of Him, and in Revelation is found the consummation of all things in Christ." (Geisler/Nix, GIB '86, 29)

The quotes up above do not exhaust the issue but they do provide a starting ground. To sum up. We do not have the autographs. We have copies of them. For the NT the copies are far closer to the original date of authorship than for any other ancient work. There are very little differences in the manuscripts throughout the years. The Bible at an early date was tranlated into other languages and copied and reopied. here there are very little variations as well.

Tacitus Annals A.D. 100 eariest copy is in the year 1100. 20 copies.

Livy History of Rome 59 bc to ad 17 Earliest copy is from the 4th century and is partial. 1 patrial and 19 copies.

Caesar Gallic wars 100-44 bc. Earliest copy is from 900 a.d. 1000 years after it was written and there is only 10 copies.

The NT was written from the tear 50 to 100.
ad 114 a fragment was found only 5o years after the original.
ad 200 books were found only little more than 100 years after the original
as 250 most of the NT was found only around 175 years after the original
ad 325 a complete NT was found (either CV or CS, I don't remember which one) only about 225 years after all the books were completed.

We have over 5,000 Greek manuscripts. Over 25,000 manuscripts counting other languages and stuff. The historical and archaeological accuracy of the Bible are equally impressive. It seems we possess an accurate copy of the apostles original compositions.


______________________
5. The Roman church of the early CE distorted the original (esoteric) Christian teachings (of Jesus) to achieve and maintain their political agenda. They espoused a wholly literalist doctrine of Christianity and persecuted anyone of dissimilar persuasions.
______________________

How early was this church that you speak of. As I have pointed out up above we have a complete copy of the entire NT from the early 300s. Obviously churches have corrupted teachings in the Bible but we still have the early manuscripts to rely upon. True Christianity is closer than some seem to think. But with all the divsions in Christianity today and in the past its easy to see why some get distorted views of it. But, as Paul says in Thessalonians, "Test everything. Hold on to that which is good."

Grace and peace in Christ,
Vinnie

Praise Jesus!!!

vinnie,

Oh wow. This looks like being fun - I must find some extra time to do it justice. Good work.

PS. Note no H in my name.

No takers???

Peace,
Vinnie

Hi Tony--

Well, I was going to ask you about Psalm 48, and a few other Biblical citations for the "ships of Tarshish". I had hoped to discuss a simple idea: the Bible says a few things about God ruining the ships of Tarshish. There is some physical evidence suggesting that those ships made it to North America.

The reason for this is that I wanted to ask about the how of reading the Bible.

I would even set the other question I have aside, about whether the 25,000 is source documents, secondary examinations, or a bit of each. I'm not entirely sure it matters, because any amount of authenticity indicating that the words you read from a respectable English translation are proper representations of the originals, it still says nothing about God itself.

But the thing about the How of the Bible: it seems that some parts are meant to be taken as literal instructions, while others are mere poetic advisements. This, I'm quite aware, is a simplification. But the book I'm pulling from (Fell, Barry. America, B.C.. New York: Pocket (Simon & Schuster), 1996) suggests that the human authors of the Psalms might not have known that such ships could survive over the horizon, which seems more than plausible.

But then I read your declaration: The stuff in the OT is not for us so I try not to get my feathers all ruffled about it.

... and well, that blows my ship out of the water.

You've qualified, and thus protected your arguments well, I must admit.

thanx,
Tiassa ;)

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Hi Tiassa,

Are you talking to Vinnie or me?

I am not Vinnie, and I'm sure he wouldn't want to be me.

See ya around.

Tony

Tiassa, I hope you quoted me out of context when I said "The stuff in the OT is not for us so I try not to get my feathers all ruffled about it." What I must have been referring to is stuff like Levitical Law and all the death and War in the Old Testament. Times were a lot different then. I don't understand the Logic behind some of the tachy stuff in Lev but from what I hear most of it back then is not as "absurd" as it sounds to us today. Thats the only thing I could have meant. My post is too long for me to go back and recheck it.

____________________
Well, I was going to ask you about Psalm 48, and a few other Biblical citations for the "ships of Tarshish". I had hoped to discuss a simple idea: the Bible says a few things about God ruining the ships of Tarshish. There is some physical evidence suggesting that those ships made it to North America.

But the thing about the How of the Bible: it seems that some parts are meant to be taken as literal instructions, while others are mere poetic advisements. This, I'm quite aware, is a simplification. But the book I'm pulling from (Fell, Barry. America, B.C.. New York: Pocket (Simon & Schuster), 1996) suggests that the human authors of the Psalms might not have known that such ships could survive over the horizon, which seems more than plausible.
__________________________

I'll try and post something towards the middle of the week, I am a little busy now.

Grace and peace in Christ,
Vinnie

Praise Jesus!!!

Tony--

Owe you an apology ... I'll quote the local band The Supersuckers, and the title of their crossover country album: Must've Been High ....

Whoops,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Originally posted by tiassa:
Tony--

Owe you an apology ... I'll quote the local band The Supersuckers, and the title of their crossover country album: Must've Been High ....

Whoops,
Tiassa :cool:



Either that or: "you were always on my mind"


Oh brother I need a break.

Tony