Research on Belief in God

Page 61 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Bustedknuckle said:
1 Cor 11:15 "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering."

That text is simply saying that it is natural and right for a woman to have long hair. Most cultures would agree with that by the way.


Bustedknuckle said:
Must be quite the burden. You must not be a woman either.
Sorry I didn't understand what this article was saying.
 
rhubroma said:
There were no biblical fundamentalists at the beginning of Christianity, simply because there was no "one" bible, but many different bibles. Secondly there were many versions of theology and doctrine, until the Church of Rome was able to bring the necessary pressure to bear and eliminate all the competition (heterodoxy) to its hegemonic orthodoxy.

Luther's controversy caused the Protestant Reform putting an end to Rome's religious monopoly in the West, however, the early modern protestants in Europe still maintained much of the orthodoxy of Rome. Only with the Puritans in England of the XVII century is their anything recognizably biblisist in the fundamentalist sense of today.

I'm always amused consequently by the late XIX century American evangelical sects believing that they have suddenly put the faith on the right track. More than the arrogance that comes with such ingeniousness, what's tedious is the total lack of historical perspective and cultural grounding that permits fools to consecrate themselves as the neo-elect.
The apostles had a pretty good idea of what the scriptures were. They understood that they had been commissioned by Jesus to declare everything they had learned to the different nations - hence we have the gospels and the epistles.

What of people like William Tyndale - Was he not very opposed to Rome? Did he not trust solely in the scriptures, giving no regard for popes and church councils that distorted the Word?

"Pure" Christianity is not something that only modern Christians have just now discovered. Throughout the centuries there have always been believers (they might have been the minority) the stood in stark contrast to the "cultural Christianity" of their time.
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,222
0
0
You are avoiding his point. Even if someone only trusted scriptures, scriptures don't equate with the bible we niw know. That bible was composed by the very institution, the catholic roman church, you speak against. There wasn't even consensus if there is hirachy in the tinity or if there isn't. And that's kinda fundamental for your idea of god.

Out of curiosity: whats your stand on the relation of the father, the son and the holy ghost?

Edit: I just looked up William Tyndale, interesting figure and a follower of Erasmus, which makes it impossible to put him in the line of the american bible fundamentalists. The idea of the translation and understanding of the old languages is completly opposed to any blind faith in words without interpretation. Whoever trnaslates is fully aware that he must interpret and adhere to the historical context to understand.
 
Jspear said:
The apostles had a pretty good idea of what the scriptures were. They understood that they had been commissioned by Jesus to declare everything they had learned to the different nations - hence we have the gospels and the epistles.

What of people like William Tyndale - Was he not very opposed to Rome? Did he not trust solely in the scriptures, giving no regard for popes and church councils that distorted the Word?

"Pure" Christianity is not something that only modern Christians have just now discovered. Throughout the centuries there have always been believers (they might have been the minority) the stood in stark contrast to the "cultural Christianity" of their time.
The Apostles were dead before the Gospels were written, provided one even considers them to have a historical grounding (the number 12, after all, is highly suspicious),thus they had no idea. Your historical base is flawed from the beginning. This doesn't even take into consideration the non-historical intention of scripture, which was not written as a "historical account" of events that took place within a logical, spatial chronological sequence (the four canonical texts indeed contradict themselves on a number of points in this regard); rather they were written to disseminate a mystery cult to satisfy a need to believe in personal salvation, such as it was 2000 years ago in a civilization quite different from our own. Sure it was written in the Classical World, for which it thus has some of that era in it (nothing arrises from a void): but it is not a historical record of the events and stories it recounts. Everything is rather facsimile, everything is human invention molded to a clear, non-historical purpose. I would also point out that, as another poster has done, it was that same "cultural Christianity" that gave you the text upon which you place blind faith. Hence what you wish to separate, apart from being anachronistic, is historically without any basis. Christianity, so-called, does not exist independent of the culture in which it was framed in antiquity and beyond. As the previous poster also indicated, the early modern protestant leaders, while rejecting a Catholic clerical exclusivity for scriptural interpretation, certainly did not reject biblical interpretation and exegesis altogether - upon which any intellectualized religious tradition is based. Remove that from religion and it becomes an even more potent form of brainwashing, as all the evidence demonstrates in creating unthinking, acritical and obedient followers: who have capitulated their faculty of independent thought to the Book, because having one book providing all "the answers" for them verbatem makes their lives certainly easier than those forced to consider the deeper issues of existence and non-existence with no such alibi.

At any rate there was no "original" faith, but several, competing Christianites, until the self-proclaimed orthodox one (with state approval, or else its conversion) was able to bring the necessary pressure to bear in repressing the other Christianities it now denounced as heretical. Eventually after several failed reformatory movements you got the early modern protestant churches and, much later, fundamentalist biblical varients in the US; though these certainly lay no greater claims to "authenticity" than the orthodoxy they rejected, having similarly given access to strategies of fictive genealogy. Christianity thus has no, nor has it ever had, "pure" and rarefied state, except in the imaginations of those who were so devoid of all culture by the XIX century in America, as to actually believe they had been singled out for revelation nearly two millennia after the "facts." But what are regarded here as "facts," merely contain the kernel of mythos upon which what historically came to pass was based that is what I just mentioned. The moment Christianity today, however it is termed, and the other monotheisms with it contextualize this, then the superstition becomes exposed for what it is, a superstition. Unless one insists on believing in a bearded, long-haired cosmic redeemer waiting to receive the elect in the great beyond inside the Pearly Gates.

What is, however, incredible about the religion - and I will give its just do for that - is the longue durée insistence of those who insolently call themselves the faithful being governed by their worst fears and basest emotions. Plutarch already perceived this in antiquity, but his courageous message for people to stop being guided by such superstitions, as the only means to be emancipated from their fears and emotions (the unique place where true enlightenment and liberty reside), has remained largely unheeded. Evidently this task requires too much courage for the bulk of society, which simply can't stomach its own mortality and so continues to use the religious crutch as its only salvation (however illusory). It certainly requires too much philosophical introspection and far too much rational critical thought.
 
Bustedknuckle said:
Ok then. Pius XII then? Yikes..don't have to be a catholic to see that his 'reign' was controversial.
Okay, raise that controversy, then. I guess I know what it is so go ahead, make my day.

Bustedknuckle said:
"sedevacantist".."Sedevacantists believe that there is at present a vacancy of the Holy See that began with John XXIII (1958–63) or at latest with Paul VI (1963–78), who, they say, espoused the heresy of Modernism and otherwise denied solemnly defined Catholic dogmas and so became heretics."

Wow, burn them at the stake time I guess.
Sarcasm and clichés are a method for the weak. A bit of curiosity won't be too much for you, I think.


Jspear said:
No it is not Christian.
Matthew 16:18-19
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

You believe that the gates of hell prevailed against it. It's blasphemy. So you are not Christian. Catholics are.

The Apostles were dead before the Gospels were written
Lol
 
Jspear said:
1 Cor 11:15 "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering."

That text is simply saying that it is natural and right for a woman to have long hair. Most cultures would agree with that by the way.




Sorry I didn't understand what this article was saying.
Bible is a book of faith, not facts. Some pretty bizarre stuff in the new testament as well. As long as you don't pound on my door with torches or pitchforks or go down the path of the group that views the Koran literally, do what you want.

"For this reason radical scholars argue for late first century, and if possible second century, dates for the autographs [original manuscripts]. By these dates they argue that the New Testament documents, especially the Gospels, contain mythology. The writers created the events contained, rather than reported them."

ahh ohh.

i'm out.
 
The Bible is obviously an anthology of facts and I hope for their sake that Muslims view the Koran literally. Otherwise they are not Muslims. Confirmation that atheist leftist are paranoid with Islam. Not Catholic conservatives! :cool:
 
Echoes said:
Matthew 16:18-19
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

You believe that the gates of hell prevailed against it. It's blasphemy. So you are not Christian. Catholics are.



Lol
Laugh out loud all you want, it still doesn't make the authors of the cononical gospels the pseudo-historical figures they were claimed to be. Especially since we know the texts date to 70 at the earliest, while the later ones to 90 or substantially beyond.

At any rate the issue of Petrine primacy "Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam," may well have established a scriptural basis for him as princeps apostolorum, however to have exclusively relied upon Peter's activities from Acts to articulate papal prerogatives and the function of Rome as Christian capital has always been highly problematical. For in fact the New Testament basis, tenuous enough in itself, for Peter's career in Rome as functioning bishop is spurious at best. It was most likely the result of Rome's Christian aristocracy seeking legitimacy to position itself over all the other bishoprics of the empire in late antiquity, for which the title papa that was till then given to all bishops, became the exclusive honorific of the Roman pontiff. Indeed the absence of clear-cut Scriptural evidence for Peter's role as Bishop of Rome was already exploited by Marsilio of Padua XIV century in the, to deny that Peter had ever been to the Eternal City. This anti-Petrine position continued in the Bohemian followers of Jan Hus, which became the subject of a European-wide controversy that of course eventually gave rise to the Lutheran revolt and the dissemination of Oldrich Velensk's polemical tract, Petrum Romam non venisse ("Peter never came to Rome").

Of course the Medieval papacy pulled out a trump card in the so-called Donation of Constantine as a legitimacy of its superior temporal power as well, which, however, Lorenzo Valla in 1440 debunked as the proper forgery (of circa 800) it was.
 
Jul 16, 2011
1,551
0
0
Echoes said:
Matthew 16:18-19
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

You believe that the gates of hell prevailed against it. It's blasphemy. So you are not Christian. Catholics are.
This has the smack of a circular argument. The church becomes established under Constantine, its leaders trace it's roots back to Peter, define what is scripture and hey presto, they are the depository of truth.

Note: a circular argument is not necessarily wrong, but it is weak, unless you can break the circle. From what Rhubroma argues, this is a so called viscious, rather than virtual circle.
 
Jul 16, 2011
1,551
0
0
On a lighter note. I studied in Bristol and Tyndall was an important figure in local history as an early translator of the bible into the vernacular. A local Baptist church was named after him and there is a monument to him at the top of a hill above Wotton-under-edge in a very pretty area at the western end of the Cotswolds where I spent some time cycling.
 
Oct 23, 2011
3,846
0
0
rhubroma said:
Laugh out loud all you want, it still doesn't make the authors of the cononical gospels the pseudo-historical figures they were claimed to be. Especially since we know the texts date to 70 at the earliest, while the later ones to 90 or substantially beyond.
Wow, wait a minute.

Although there's more to be said about the dating; a dating of 70 is perfectly compatible with apostles still being alive. Luke and Mark weren't even apostles by the way.

John is dated at the end of the first century or even the beginning of the second century. A dating at the end of the first century is still theoretically compatible with Johanine authorship, if John became very old. For what it's worth; regardless of authorship issues, tradition has always held that John became very old. Supposedly he was he youngest of the disciples and he became very old. I mean; we're not just saying 'oh the gospel of John is quite late? Well maybe John just became very old.' The earliest traditions concerning the life of John have always claimed he became lived up until a high age.

As far as I'm concerned, the datings of these books presented by modern scholarship, are perfectly consistent with the traditions concerning their authorship.
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,383
0
0
rhubroma said:
The Apostles were dead before the Gospels were written, provided one even considers them to have a historical grounding (the number 12, after all, is highly suspicious),thus they had no idea. Your historical base is flawed from the beginning. This doesn't even take into consideration the non-historical intention of scripture, which was not written as a "historical account" of events that took place within a logical, spatial chronological sequence (the four canonical texts indeed contradict themselves on a number of points in this regard); rather they were written to disseminate a mystery cult to satisfy a need to believe in personal salvation, such as it was 2000 years ago in a civilization quite different from our own. Sure it was written in the Classical World, for which it thus has some of that era in it (nothing arrises from a void): but it is not a historical record of the events and stories it recounts. Everything is rather facsimile, everything is human invention molded to a clear, non-historical purpose. I would also point out that, as another poster has done, it was that same "cultural Christianity" that gave you the text upon which you place blind faith. Hence what you wish to separate, apart from being anachronistic, is historically without any basis. Christianity, so-called, does not exist independent of the culture in which it was framed in antiquity and beyond. As the previous poster also indicated, the early modern protestant leaders, while rejecting a Catholic clerical exclusivity for scriptural interpretation, certainly did not reject biblical interpretation and exegesis altogether - upon which any intellectualized religious tradition is based. Remove that from religion and it becomes an even more potent form of brainwashing, as all the evidence demonstrates in creating unthinking, acritical and obedient followers: who have capitulated their faculty of independent thought to the Book, because having one book providing all "the answers" for them verbatem makes their lives certainly easier than those forced to consider the deeper issues of existence and non-existence with no such alibi.

At any rate there was no "original" faith, but several, competing Christianites, until the self-proclaimed orthodox one (with state approval, or else its conversion) was able to bring the necessary pressure to bear in repressing the other Christianities it now denounced as heretical. Eventually after several failed reformatory movements you got the early modern protestant churches and, much later, fundamentalist biblical varients in the US; though these certainly lay no greater claims to "authenticity" than the orthodoxy they rejected, having similarly given access to strategies of fictive genealogy. Christianity thus has no, nor has it ever had, "pure" and rarefied state, except in the imaginations of those who were so devoid of all culture by the XIX century in America, as to actually believe they had been singled out for revelation nearly two millennia after the "facts." But what are regarded here as "facts," merely contain the kernel of mythos upon which what historically came to pass was based that is what I just mentioned. The moment Christianity today, however it is termed, and the other monotheisms with it contextualize this, then the superstition becomes exposed for what it is, a superstition. Unless one insists on believing in a bearded, long-haired cosmic redeemer waiting to receive the elect in the great beyond inside the Pearly Gates.

What is, however, incredible about the religion - and I will give its just do for that - is the longue durée insistence of those who insolently call themselves the faithful being governed by their worst fears and basest emotions. Plutarch already perceived this in antiquity, but his courageous message for people to stop being guided by such superstitions, as the only means to be emancipated from their fears and emotions (the unique place where true enlightenment and liberty reside), has remained largely unheeded. Evidently this task requires too much courage for the bulk of society, which simply can't stomach its own mortality and so continues to use the religious crutch as its only salvation (however illusory). It certainly requires too much philosophical introspection and far too much rational critical thought.
Good post rhub.

That's (first bolded) a bit of an understatement - Cathars, Waldensians, etc. Brutal.

Greed and fear still make the world spin in secular society too.
http://www.amazon.ca/The-Lost-Science-Money-Mythology/dp/1930748035

People like their idols literal and concrete. It's all fiction of course.

This is worth repeating:
as the only means to be emancipated from their fears and emotions (the unique place where true enlightenment and liberty reside), has remained largely unheeded. Evidently this task requires too much courage for the bulk of society, which simply can't stomach its own mortality and so continues to use the religious crutch as its only salvation (however illusory). It certainly requires too much philosophical introspection and far too much rational critical thought.

People are afraid of theirselves. Deconstructing yourself isn't easy. Where we seem to differ is over our understanding of a couple of words. Most people think of Alchemy as literally turning lead into gold in the physical world. There were of course charlatans, but that's not what the philosophical Alchemists were up to at all. The same could be said about the word 'magic'. The real magic is learning self discipline/understanding/knowledge. ...but I quibble.

ps. A case could be made that, among the stargazers, in the age of pisces (the 12th and final sign of the zodiac) the final revelation of self inquiry was appropriate for dissemination. Of course it's all contextual, it had to actually speak to people (Jews in the case of the bible) in a language that wasn't completely foreign.
 
Rechtschreibfehler said:
You are avoiding his point. Even if someone only trusted scriptures, scriptures don't equate with the bible we niw know. That bible was composed by the very institution, the catholic roman church, you speak against. There wasn't even consensus if there is hirachy in the tinity or if there isn't. And that's kinda fundamental for your idea of god.
The Roman Catholic Church was not the final authority on the cannon of Scripture. They were not even the first "official institution" to declare a New Testament cannon. It was the Eastern Orthodox Church that came up with the list of 27 books first. The consensus by the Eastern Church was decided in 367, and the 27 books were included in Athanasius' Easter letter from Alexandria. This decision was made 26 years before Hippo. The Roman Catholic Church accepted a canon that did not include the book of Hebrews, but eventually followed the East in including all 27 books. In other words, the Roman Catholic Church relied upon the Easter Church for her canon.

That being said: I do not believe that the Eastern Orthodox Church was the final authority on the cannon of Scripture either. I believe God in His sovereignty preserved His Word and guided it's formation. Thus the church councils were doing nothing more than confirming what was already there.

The New Testament cannon was established much like the Old Testament cannon. Jesus and his disciples quoted the Old Testament authoritatively - saying, "it is written" or "the Holy Spirit says" or "the Scripture says." These statements carry with them the underlying assumption that Jesus and the apostles knew what books comprised the canon of Scripture, and that their audience would be in agreement with them. They had not relied on some infallible ecclesial authority to determine what Scripture was for them. There was a general recognition of what Scripture was. The Jews and the early Christians were in agreement as to what the Old Testament Scripture were, yet there was no official council that set these things in stone. The Old Testament was written in a time when the Jewish people were often in rebellion. In spite of the chaos of their times the Scriptures where preserved - Jesus recognized this and had complete confidence in those Scriptures. The New Testament cannon was established in the very same way.


Rechtschreibfehler said:
Out of curiosity: whats your stand on the relation of the father, the son and the holy ghost?
The Trinity is a pretty big topic. In short here is what I believe. This is just copied from my church's website:

2. We believe that there is one God, eternally co-existent in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

3. We believe in the deity of Jesus Christ; in His virgin birth; in His sinless life; in His miracles; in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood; in His bodily resurrection; in His ascension to the right hand of the Father; and in His personal return in power and glory.

4. We believe that for the salvation of lost and sinful man, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is essential, and that repentance from sin and acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is the only way to come into a relationship with God.
 
Echoes said:
Matthew 16:18-19
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

You believe that the gates of hell prevailed against it. It's blasphemy. So you are not Christian. Catholics are.
What had Peter just confessed? He had confessed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God. This was the rock that the Church of Christ was to be built on. This was the solid foundation: "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead then you will be saved." Peter was instrumental in the starting of the early church, but he was hardly anything like the Roman Catholic church has exalted him to.

- Peter was married - Popes do not marry. If the first Pope could marry, why later pronounce that no priest (or Pope) can marry?

- The Bible clearly declares that Christ is the foundation of the Christian church, insisting that "no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Cor 3:11)

- The only sense in which Peter had a foundational role in the church, all the other apostles shared in the same way. Peter was not unique in this respect - For Paul declared that in this sense the church is "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone" (Eph 2:20). Indeed, the early church continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine, not just Peter's (Acts 2:42). Even "keys of the Kingdom" give to Peter (Matt 16:19) were also given to all the apostles (Matt 18:18).

- There is no indication that Peter was the head of the early church. When the first council was held at Jerusalem, Peter played only an introductory role (Acts 15:6-11). James seems to have a more significant position, summing up the conference and making the final pronouncement (Acts 15:13-21). Also Peter is never referred to as the "pillar" in the church. Rather, Paul speaks of "pillars" such as, "James, Cephas, and John" (Gal 2:9). Peter is not even listed first among the pillars.

- Even Peter himself admitted that Christ is the chief rock or cornerstone (1 Peter 2:7). Peter was just part of the foundation. In Peter's own epistles he never tried to set himself apart as special or different. All he says is, "Therefore, I will always be ready to remind you of these things, even though you already know them, and have been established in the truth which is present with you. I consider it right, as long as I am in this earthly dwelling, to stir you up by way of reminder, knowing that the laying aside of my earthly dwelling is imminent, as also our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. And I will also be diligent that at any time after my departure you will be able to call these things to mind." (2 Peter 1:12-15)

His life was coming to an end and even then he thought it not important to find his successor or anything like that. He wanted them to simply remember all they had been taught.

And also I do not believe that the gates of hell will prevail against the Church of whom Christ is the head. The rock we must be firmly rooted on is Christ.
 
rhubroma said:
The Apostles were dead before the Gospels were written, provided one even considers them to have a historical grounding (the number 12, after all, is highly suspicious),thus they had no idea. Your historical base is flawed from the beginning. This doesn't even take into consideration the non-historical intention of scripture, which was not written as a "historical account" of events that took place within a logical, spatial chronological sequence (the four canonical texts indeed contradict themselves on a number of points in this regard); rather they were written to disseminate a mystery cult to satisfy a need to believe in personal salvation, such as it was 2000 years ago in a civilization quite different from our own. Sure it was written in the Classical World, for which it thus has some of that era in it (nothing arrises from a void): but it is not a historical record of the events and stories it recounts. Everything is rather facsimile, everything is human invention molded to a clear, non-historical purpose. I would also point out that, as another poster has done, it was that same "cultural Christianity" that gave you the text upon which you place blind faith. Hence what you wish to separate, apart from being anachronistic, is historically without any basis. Christianity, so-called, does not exist independent of the culture in which it was framed in antiquity and beyond. As the previous poster also indicated, the early modern protestant leaders, while rejecting a Catholic clerical exclusivity for scriptural interpretation, certainly did not reject biblical interpretation and exegesis altogether - upon which any intellectualized religious tradition is based. Remove that from religion and it becomes an even more potent form of brainwashing, as all the evidence demonstrates in creating unthinking, acritical and obedient followers: who have capitulated their faculty of independent thought to the Book, because having one book providing all "the answers" for them verbatem makes their lives certainly easier than those forced to consider the deeper issues of existence and non-existence with no such alibi.

At any rate there was no "original" faith, but several, competing Christianites, until the self-proclaimed orthodox one (with state approval, or else its conversion) was able to bring the necessary pressure to bear in repressing the other Christianities it now denounced as heretical. Eventually after several failed reformatory movements you got the early modern protestant churches and, much later, fundamentalist biblical varients in the US; though these certainly lay no greater claims to "authenticity" than the orthodoxy they rejected, having similarly given access to strategies of fictive genealogy. Christianity thus has no, nor has it ever had, "pure" and rarefied state, except in the imaginations of those who were so devoid of all culture by the XIX century in America, as to actually believe they had been singled out for revelation nearly two millennia after the "facts." But what are regarded here as "facts," merely contain the kernel of mythos upon which what historically came to pass was based that is what I just mentioned. The moment Christianity today, however it is termed, and the other monotheisms with it contextualize this, then the superstition becomes exposed for what it is, a superstition. Unless one insists on believing in a bearded, long-haired cosmic redeemer waiting to receive the elect in the great beyond inside the Pearly Gates.

What is, however, incredible about the religion - and I will give its just do for that - is the longue durée insistence of those who insolently call themselves the faithful being governed by their worst fears and basest emotions. Plutarch already perceived this in antiquity, but his courageous message for people to stop being guided by such superstitions, as the only means to be emancipated from their fears and emotions (the unique place where true enlightenment and liberty reside), has remained largely unheeded. Evidently this task requires too much courage for the bulk of society, which simply can't stomach its own mortality and so continues to use the religious crutch as its only salvation (however illusory). It certainly requires too much philosophical introspection and far too much rational critical thought.
The hisorian Papias stated that the book of Matthew was written by the apostle Matthew. Irenaeus also held the Matthew was written by Matthew. Much of the early church held this view. The earliest quotation of Matthew is found in Ignatius who died around A.D. 115. This means Matthew was in circulation well before Ignatius came on the scene. It is generaly believed that Matthew was written before A.D. 70.


Mark was not an eyewitness to the events of Jesus' life. He was a disciple of Peter, and undoubtedly it was Peter who informed Mark of the life of Christ and guided him in writing the Gospel known by his name. Papias says that "Mark, the Evangelist, who had never heard Christ, was the interpreter of Peter, and that he carefully gave an account of everything he remembered from the preaching of Peter." Mark is said to be the earliest gospel, written between A.D. 55 to A.D. 70.


Luke was not an eyewitness of the life of Christ. He was a companion of Paul who also was not an eyewitness of Christ's life. Both had ample opportunity to meet the disciples who knew Christ and learn the facts not only from them but also from others in the area. He obviously had interviewed the eyewitnesses and written the Gospel account as well as Acts.

"The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. To these He also presented Himself alive, after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days, and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God," (Acts 1:1-3).

These verses establish that he had written an account. In the book of Luke he says "he had perfet understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus" Luke was simply recounting the events from the disciples.

As far as dating the gospel goes, Luke was written before the book of Acts; and Acts does not mention Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65). Therefore, we can conclude that Luke was written before A.D. 62.


John was written by an eye witness...that is very clear. The early church also understoond the apostle John to be the author of John. It is also understoond that John was the latest of the gospels written which poses no problem as John was the last of the disciples to die.
 
Jspear said:
The hisorian Papias stated that the book of Matthew was written by the apostle Matthew. Irenaeus also held the Matthew was written by Matthew. Much of the early church held this view. The earliest quotation of Matthew is found in Ignatius who died around A.D. 115. This means Matthew was in circulation well before Ignatius came on the scene. It is generaly believed that Matthew was written before A.D. 70.


Mark was not an eyewitness to the events of Jesus' life. He was a disciple of Peter, and undoubtedly it was Peter who informed Mark of the life of Christ and guided him in writing the Gospel known by his name. Papias says that "Mark, the Evangelist, who had never heard Christ, was the interpreter of Peter, and that he carefully gave an account of everything he remembered from the preaching of Peter." Mark is said to be the earliest gospel, written between A.D. 55 to A.D. 70.


Luke was not an eyewitness of the life of Christ. He was a companion of Paul who also was not an eyewitness of Christ's life. Both had ample opportunity to meet the disciples who knew Christ and learn the facts not only from them but also from others in the area. He obviously had interviewed the eyewitnesses and written the Gospel account as well as Acts.

"The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. To these He also presented Himself alive, after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days, and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God," (Acts 1:1-3).

These verses establish that he had written an account. In the book of Luke he says "he had perfet understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus" Luke was simply recounting the events from the disciples.

As far as dating the gospel goes, Luke was written before the book of Acts; and Acts does not mention Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65). Therefore, we can conclude that Luke was written before A.D. 62.


John was written by an eye witness...that is very clear. The early church also understoond the apostle John to be the author of John. It is also understoond that John was the latest of the gospels written which poses no problem as John was the last of the disciples to die.
I was responding to what you stated, not the consensus as to who the Evangelists were. At any rate, the "facts" as people understood then in the Classical World, hardly lend credibility to your analysis, or those who reason like you. PS: The so called Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Churches were formally one until 1054. Hence the bible you read is theirs.
 
Jul 16, 2011
1,551
0
0
Echoes said:
There's no spirituality outside of religion and I find it quite arrogant to define spirituality by yourself, the way it suits us, so to speak. humility is also accepting dogmas even if you don't like it.
I would not describe myself as religious, but see myself as being spiritual. Obviously, I don't think that belief in a transcendental being is a necessity for being spiritual. To me being spiritual means looking inside yourself (not in a morbid way, but being honest), asking how you should live and finding meaning in what you do. However, this is not something that I do in isolation. I read books from authors with different world views, have had contact with people from different cultures and weigh the sense of what they say. I don't believe in something because it suits me. I'm not a nominalist in the sense of thinking that whatever you believe is true, but there do exist things beyond truth and falsehood. What might have meaning for me, might not have meaning for others and there is no contradiction there.

For me humility lies in perceiving that we see reality through our own filter and that in observing the golden rule of treating others as we would like to be treated (of course I don't always succeed). Preaching that humility is a virtue of accepting dogmas (both religious and secular) can lead down a very dangerous path.

Echoes said:
main universalist religions persisted through centuries because they work.
Religion definitely addresses issues that are close to peoples heart and I feel it will last as long as humanity does. I fear a society in which atheism is institutionalised in the state as much as I fear such a state religion (if not more). As for the fruits of religion, they are like the fruits of humanity in general, mixed. When followed in the light of the golden rule, it produces good fruit, but when used in conjunction with power, has lead to abuses.

Echoes said:
finally, the only way to resist money power and consumerism IS religion
Unlike Frenchfry, this was the statement which provoked the most acceptance (or possibly least resistance) in me. Although our interpretation would certainly differ in many ways. The Catholic church has in its history acted very materialistically (sale of absolution, the Borgias).

Echoes said:
Anti-religious people should really at least that they are anti-social.
I guess the word "ADMIT" (or something similar) is missing after "at least".

It's true that atheists do not meet regularly to celebrate their atheism together. But atheist is not equivalent to anti-religious, nor does that mean that they are not active socially in other ways. I guess that I am an atheist who would miss such a sense of community. I say would, because I sing in a choir which practises in a Lutheran church and every now and then we sing in their services. The choir contains both Lutherans and Catholics (plus me). I might be the only atheist there as most of the others are openly religious. I'm not vocal about my views, although my best friend in the choir certainly knows that I'm an atheist/non-believer. I treat services as a time for reflection.

As for sociability, some studies I have been involved in recently indicate that students who are involved in religious groups (and here they would be almost all Catholic) have less social contacts than others. Of course, such contacts might not always be edifying:D
 
rhubroma said:
I was responding to what you stated, not the consensus as to who the Evangelists were. At any rate, the "facts" as people understood then in the Classical World, hardly lend credibility to your analysis, or those who reason like you. PS: The so called Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Churches were formally one until 1054. Hence the bible you read is theirs.
And I was responding to your statement which I believe to false: that the Apostles were dead when the gospels were written.
 
Jspear said:
And I was responding to your statement which I believe to false: that the Apostles were dead when the gospels were written.
Where is your evidence? For example, you say Peter died in 65. On what basis do you make that claim? It is a tradition that he was killed in Rome under orders from Nero, to punish the Christians in Rome for the fire of 64. Yet there is not one shred of evidence from antiquity in the first, or even second centuries to support this tradtion. Suetonius and Tacitus mention these persecutions, but provide no specific names of the persecuted. As such the tradition can not be considered valid, appart from faith, but that has no historical relevance.

Indeed something as fundamental as Peter having been in Rome at this time and his sensational manner of death, as it is claimed (Crucifixion upside down), should have been mentioned in the Acts, but it is glaringly absent.
 
rhubroma said:
Where is your evidence? For example, you say Peter died in 65. On what basis do you make that claim? It is a tradition that he was killed in Rome under orders from Nero, to punish the Christians in Rome for the fire of 64. Yet there is not one shred of evidence from antiquity in the first, or even second centuries to support this tradtion. Suetonius and Tacitus mention these persecutions, but provide no specific names of the persecuted. As such the tradition can not be considered valid, appart from faith, but that has no historical relevance.

Indeed something as fundamental as Peter having been in Rome at this time and his sensational manner of death, as it is claimed (Crucifixion upside down), should have been mentioned in the Acts, but it is glaringly absent.
The Scriptures themselves are considered historical documents by many scholars and theologians. Peter's death is hinted at in John 21:18.

We also learn things from the early church fathers, historians, and theologians of that time. Peter's death was attested to by both Tertullian and Origen among others.

Like anything in history we have to rely on the documents and writings of people who are no longer alive. If you want to call that faith that is fine with me.
 
Oct 23, 2011
3,846
0
0
rhubroma said:
Indeed something as fundamental as Peter having been in Rome at this time and his sensational manner of death, as it is claimed (Crucifixion upside down), should have been mentioned in the Acts, but it is glaringly absent.
There are more things glaringly absent in Acts, for instance the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70; one wonders whether Acts might have been written quite early? One might think; before the siege of Jerusalem, before the death of Peter and before knowing whether its main character would be freed or martyred in Rome, which is another one of those things glaringly absent in Acts.
 
Jspear said:
The Scriptures themselves are considered historical documents by many scholars and theologians. Peter's death is hinted at in John 21:18.

We also learn things from the early church fathers, historians, and theologians of that time. Peter's death was attested to by both Tertullian and Origen among others.

Like anything in history we have to rely on the documents and writings of people who are no longer alive. If you want to call that faith that is fine with me.
No it isn't about them being alive or not, but contectualizing the reliability of the evidence.

Tertullian and Origen were apologists. They were writing a century after the "facts," in antiquity (I don't know if this escapes you), and in collusion with a developing Christian aristocracy.

You must therefore contrast them with Philostratus, Porphyry, Ammianus Marcellinus and Hierocles.

The archaeological evidence is slim at best. The point is that the historical veracity is rather dubious, for which a basis of a date of 65 remains hypothetical
 
Maaaaaaaarten said:
Although there's more to be said about the dating]

Can't we assume that 70 (destruction of the Temple) is a terminus ANTE quem for Matthew? The author gives a lot of details of the interior of the Temple that he could not have seen in the ruins.


RetroActive said:
That's (first bolded) a bit of an understatement - Cathars, Waldensians, etc. Brutal.
Man, the Catars claimed that usury was no sin. If you agree with that, fine but then allow me to disagree. The common people supported the repression in their majority. The Cathars' score was settled. They got what they deserve. God Bless saint Lous. End of story.

RetroActive said:
Greed and fear still make the world spin in secular society too.
Why "too"? So okay, I guess you also are a Marxist: "Religion = Opiate of the people." Only rich Bourgeois atheists fear death because they have a lot to lose. And it's impossible to be both a Catholic and a bourgeois. Atheists have transfering their own fears on us. They sure know us better than we do. Pathetic!

Jspear said:
- Peter was married - Popes do not marry. If the first Pope could marry, why later pronounce that no priest (or Pope) can marry?
Pretty poor argument, if you ask me. You can do better, I think. ]This was the rock that the Church of Christ was to be built on.
It's generally agreed, even among Protestant theologians that the rock that Jesus referred to was Peter (Petros in Greek). The name change from Simon to Peter is just a confirmation of this.

Jspear said:
- The Bible clearly declares that Christ is the foundation of the Christian church, insisting that "no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Cor 3:11) [...]

- Even Peter himself admitted that Christ is the chief rock or cornerstone (1 Peter 2:7). Peter was just part of the foundation.
Never been disputed by Catholics. :)

Jspear said:
- There is no indication that Peter was the head of the early church. When the first council was held at Jerusalem, Peter played only an introductory role (Acts 15:6-11). James seems to have a more significant position, summing up the conference and making the final pronouncement (Acts 15:13-21). Also Peter is never referred to as the "pillar" in the church. Rather, Paul speaks of "pillars" such as, "James, Cephas, and John" (Gal 2:9). Peter is not even listed first among the pillars.
??? Peter is Cephas! (John 1:42).

Peter clearly had primacy at the council of Jerusalem. Acts 15:7 says "And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said to them, Men and brothers, you know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe."

There are many other traces of Peter's primacy. So for example in John 21:15-17, Jesus told Peter 3 times: "feed by lambs" "take care of my sheep" "feed my sheep".

Luke 22:31-32 even teaches the Popes infallibility: "And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for you, that your faith fail not: and when you are converted, strengthen your brothers."

(the "you" that I have underlined is a plural in Greek, every apostle is concerned but the "you" in "I have prayed for you" is singular, which means the reference is Peter only).

RetroActive said:
Over 2000 yrs. later and you guys are still arguing over the leaven and the bread. It's not as though you were told directly that he was teaching in parables or anything. How many different ways could the guy have told you not to take it literally?

Hurray! Peter got it! Out of the mouth of babes and all that...
Damn! Peter lost it immediately...
Yeah, that's because we don't need culture creation. We have culture, already. Others are ignoramus.

Tank Engine said:
Religion definitely addresses issues that are close to peoples heart and I feel it will last as long as humanity does. I fear a society in which atheism is institutionalised in the state as much as I fear such a state religion (if not more). As for the fruits of religion, they are like the fruits of humanity in general, mixed. When followed in the light of the golden rule, it produces good fruit, but when used in conjunction with power, has lead to abuses.
In our old monarchies, it hasn't really led to abuses, just tampered down abuses by the temporal powers. In a way, acting like present-day human right charities. Serving as a moral justificator at best. Besides, even in the old regime, the Church was oppressed and not oppressive.

But in any case, it does not change the fact that common people have still been religious "in the longue durée", throughout centuries, while the states are no longer. The fact that religion works can be illustrated by an example. Just look at Islam. They have Ramadan. Catholics have Lent. Why? First because fasting is healthy and second because in dearth period you better be able to fast. If doctrines don't work they disappeared, like so many heresies did. But the main universalist religions have survived because they work in daily life.

Tank Engine said:
The Catholic church has in its history acted very materialistically (sale of absolution, the Borgias).
Churchmen did. Not the Church. Religion is a set of principle. Not people. People have their weaknesses.

Anyway, what I meant is that if you are a believer (Christian, Muslim,...) with integrity, you'd be less tempted by consumption for the sake of it then non-believers in their majority. History is there to prove it. You have that in the works of many great American authors such as R.W. Emerson or Orestes Brownson among others.
 
rhubroma said:
No it isn't about them being alive or not, but contectualizing the reliability of the evidence.

Tertullian and Origen were apologists. They were writing a century after the "facts," in antiquity (I don't know if this escapes you), and in collusion with a developing Christian aristocracy.

You must therefore contrast them with Philostratus, Porphyry, Ammianus Marcellinus and Hierocles.

The archaeological evidence is slim at best. The point is that the historical veracity is rather dubious, for which a basis of a date of 65 remains hypothetical
Tertullian and Origen lived at just the same time as the philosophers you mentioned (alive earlier than a couple of the ones you mentioned) and they were Christians. Personally I think we can trust their writings over the work of Roman and Greek philosophers because this was more of their "field" of professionalism.

Here is an article on archaeology and the bible. There is more material evidence for the bible than any other book in antiquity.

https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/does-archaeology-support-the-bible/

http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbbible.aspx?pageid=8589952738
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS