Why Jesus did not write gospels?

It is a good question. But I think you have to consider that it took centuries for Christianity to congeal into the religion we now know it to be. Jesus may have been the instigator. But he was far from the first and the last word on Christianity. Two, it appears Jesus was a bit of a mystic (e.g. Matthew 13: 11He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13This is why I speak to them in parables)

And mystics never profane the sacred by writing it down. The sacred is always given to the worthy and not the unworthy.
 
Last edited:
Tiassa said:
In truth, sir, faith without fact is faith. The nature of faith is belief without assurance.
Click to expand...
That's not true. There is a big difference between rational faith and irrational faith.
  • Mrs. Fraggle has been loyal, kind, forgiving and supportive for 35 years. It is reasonable for me to assume that she will continue to be so for another ten or twenty, until one of us dies. This is rational faith. It passes the tests of the scientific method: it is based on evidence, derived logically, and has even been peer-reviewed by our friends. This doesn't mean that it is true, merely that it is rational to bet on it.
  • On the other hand, there is absolutely zero evidence for any of the major claims of religion. The best they can come up with is a tortilla (one out of billions) with a scorch mark claimed to be the likeness of a person mentioned in the Bible, of whom no portraits exist against which to compare it. In addition to this lack of evidence, these claims also butt up against the Rule of Laplace: Extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence before we are obliged to treat them with respect. The fundamental claim of religion is that an invisible, illogical supernatural universe exists, from which fantastic creatures and other forces emerge at random intervals for the express purpose of perturbing the behavior of the natural universe. If this were true, it would falsify all of science, because its basic premise is that the behavior of the natural universe can be predicted by theories derived logically from observation of its present and past behavior. This is certainly an extraordinary assertion, since the scientific method has been tested exhaustively, and often with great hostility, for half a millennium, and has never come close to being disproven. Therefore, faith in the fairytales of religion is irrational faith.
Really big difference!
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
That's not true. There is a big difference between rational faith and irrational faith.
  • Mrs. Fraggle has been loyal, kind, forgiving and supportive for 35 years. It is reasonable for me to assume that she will continue to be so for another ten or twenty, until one of us dies. This is rational faith. It passes the tests of the scientific method: it is based on evidence, derived logically, and has even been peer-reviewed by our friends. This doesn't mean that it is true, merely that it is rational to bet on it.
  • On the other hand, there is absolutely zero evidence for any of the major claims of religion. The best they can come up with is a tortilla (one out of billions) with a scorch mark claimed to be the likeness of a person mentioned in the Bible, of whom no portraits exist against which to compare it. In addition to this lack of evidence, these claims also butt up against the Rule of Laplace: Extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence before we are obliged to treat them with respect. The fundamental claim of religion is that an invisible, illogical supernatural universe exists, from which fantastic creatures and other forces emerge at random intervals for the express purpose of perturbing the behavior of the natural universe. If this were true, it would falsify all of science, because its basic premise is that the behavior of the natural universe can be predicted by theories derived logically from observation of its present and past behavior. This is certainly an extraordinary assertion, since the scientific method has been tested exhaustively, and often with great hostility, for half a millennium, and has never come close to being disproven. Therefore, faith in the fairytales of religion is irrational faith.
Really big difference!
Click to expand...

I see the distinction you are making but I notice you use the word "faith" for both cases. In which case it seems to me Tiassa and you can both be right, without any inconsistency.
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
That's not true. There is a big difference between rational faith and irrational faith.
  • Mrs. Fraggle has been loyal, kind, forgiving and supportive for 35 years. It is reasonable for me to assume that she will continue to be so for another ten or twenty, until one of us dies. This is rational faith. It passes the tests of the scientific method: it is based on evidence, derived logically, and has even been peer-reviewed by our friends. This doesn't mean that it is true, merely that it is rational to bet on it.
  • On the other hand, there is absolutely zero evidence for any of the major claims of religion. The best they can come up with is a tortilla (one out of billions) with a scorch mark claimed to be the likeness of a person mentioned in the Bible, of whom no portraits exist against which to compare it. In addition to this lack of evidence, these claims also butt up against the Rule of Laplace: Extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence before we are obliged to treat them with respect. The fundamental claim of religion is that an invisible, illogical supernatural universe exists, from which fantastic creatures and other forces emerge at random intervals for the express purpose of perturbing the behavior of the natural universe. If this were true, it would falsify all of science, because its basic premise is that the behavior of the natural universe can be predicted by theories derived logically from observation of its present and past behavior. This is certainly an extraordinary assertion, since the scientific method has been tested exhaustively, and often with great hostility, for half a millennium, and has never come close to being disproven. Therefore, faith in the fairytales of religion is irrational faith.
Really big difference!
Click to expand...
Semantics. Faith has several meanings. In a religious context it means believing things with no evidence, or just because you want to.
 
Why not Jesus shows himself to us in CNN broadcasting room, have a live session with us?
 
Saint said:
if Jesus is not true, why are there 1/3 of the population of the world are Christians?
Click to expand...

Similarly one could ask "if the Quran is incorrect in its assertion that Jesus wasn't really the son of God, and wasn't really crucified, why are there nearly 2 billion Muslims in the world?"
 
spidergoat said:
Semantics. Faith has several meanings. In a religious context it means believing things with no evidence, or just because you want to.
Click to expand...
Well of course. The religionists would hardly want to use the term "irrational faith" to describe the way they feel about their fairytales, would they?
 
Why the church's pastor always tells you that God is true and you can talk to Him and He will answer you.
True or not?
 
Saint said:
Why not Jesus shows himself to us in CNN broadcasting room, have a live session with us?
Click to expand...

You ask stupid question . He come here 2000 years ago from an other planet and it take 1000 years to go in one direction , to come back it takes an other 1000 ++ years to come back on earth . So you have to wait a few years for his arrival, then wen he comes , I don't know if he gos CNN or BBC of London , which one would you like ?
 
Saint said:
Why the church's pastor always tells you that God is true and you can talk to Him and He will answer you.
True or not?
Click to expand...
Why do you ask so many questions?

Have you ever thought of trying to answer your own questions?
 
Flip a Coin

Saint said:

Why the church's pastor always tells you that God is true and you can talk to Him and He will answer you.
Click to expand...

That all depends on whether we presume the best or worst in our fellow human beings. Unfortunately, the Biblical concept of Original Sin suggest we should expect the worst. In that case, the answer is that he's just an asshole.

If we accept humanity is something more than bastard beasts of Original Sin, then it's more likely a neurotic complex—ego defense in the face of a conflict between conditioned belief and functional reality.

So in the end, do we consider the pastor a perpetrator or victim? Is he a con artist sold to the cause, or merely a dupe blinded by myth and psyche?

And therein lies your answer: He is either deceiving you, or simply believes the words coming out of his mouth.
 
Saint said:
Why not Jesus shows himself to us in CNN broadcasting room, have a live session with us?
Click to expand...

I hear he is a little shy.

I think one needs to draw a line between religion and God. Religion is the window dressing and often misused to control people. God is the concept. God is the meat. Is God real? Who knows? If God does exist, it is probably beyond human comprehension. And if God exists, it probably doesn’t give a rat’s ass what happens to anyone at any given time. But the notion of an all-powerful, all knowing, loving God is comforting to people. It comforts us and helps give meaning to our lives. It helps us manage the uncertainty in our lives. Do we need more? Do we need him to show up and be interviewed by Candy Crowley on CNN? Do you really think Crowley would or could ask a probing and meaningful question? Do you really think God cares if you work on the Sabbath or violated any number of the many trivial religious laws created by man in his name? Abrahamic religions cannot even agree on the day of the Sabbath. Religion is a mess and it is a mess because men have used it consistently throughout the ages to accumulate wealth and control people.

To be brief, God, as classically represented,and religion are the products of man, not God. That is probably why he or his representatives won't be showing up for an interview any time soon.
 
Tiassa said:
So in the end, do we consider the pastor a perpetrator or victim? Is he a con artist sold to the cause, or merely a dupe blinded by myth and psyche? And therein lies your answer: He is either deceiving you, or simply believes the words coming out of his mouth.
Click to expand...
There are clearly many who are con artists. They're the ones who stick out like sore thumbs to us unbelievers. Peter Popoff, with his stage-magic act, was obviously a con artist, even obvious to many Christians.

So I don't see any reason why there can't be just as many who are true believers. There are lots and lots of true believers among the general population, why wouldn't some of them chose the priesthood as a career? To a true believer that must be a rather attractive employment option.

joepistole said:
To be brief, God, as classically represented,and religion are the products of man, not God. That is probably why he or his representatives won't be showing up for an interview any time soon.
Click to expand...
Or as it's put more succinctly with a little more humor:
God created man. Then man turned around and repaid the compliment.​
 
Saint said:
Why the church's pastor always tells you that God is true and you can talk to Him and He will answer you.
True or not?
Click to expand...

The pastor may or may not believe that God is real and active in our lives. But is it relevant? It doesn’t matter what the pastor believes, assuming he is not using God to abuse people. What matters is that people believe God will answer their prayers. If they pray, through introspection, they may find the answer to their prayers. Introspection is not a bad thing. God may get the credit, but we answer our own questions.
 
In Christianity, believe in God means you must believe in Jesus too, Jesus = God.
If Jesus is not God, if and only if, will my belief be in vain?
 
Saint said:
In Christianity, believe in God means you must believe in Jesus too, Jesus = God.
If Jesus is not God, if and only if, will my belief be in vain?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what you believe in as long as it provides you contentment and helps you to be a peaceful member of society. You could believe in a stone if it works for you. In order to be an orthodox member of the Christian faith, you are supposed to believe in the trinity: God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. It’s more than just Jesus. There are some Christian religions that are not orthodox and do not subscribe to the Trinity (e.g. Mormons, Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarian Universalist Christians, etc.).
 
Last edited:
Saint said:
In Christianity, believe in God means you must believe in Jesus too, Jesus = God.
If Jesus is not God, if and only if, will my belief be in vain?
Click to expand...

You Buddhist have temples with a big fat Buda and you Chinese put candles , flowers and fruit in the temple . Your monks sell candles to the believers in Buda , so how much different is your belief from some Christian belief . Please tell me the Buddhist monks , what do the live off ?
Did Buda write all his teachings ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top