PDA

View Full Version : Foundations



mithrandir
10-04-2001, 06:59 AM
I was thinking the other day about the various religions, most notably Christianity and Islam. Anyway, I was thinking back over the original messages of the founders and how over the past centuries how their original visions/messages have become quite altered.

Discuss.

rick barclay
10-04-2001, 02:09 PM
Jesus left no written words. Everything attributable to him
is hearsay.

Gibbon devotes several chapters to the birth of Mohammed
and the rise of the arabs and Islam. I'm still several hundred
pages short of reaching these chapters. I wouldn't trust
a christian's word on Christ nor a muslim's on Muhammad, nor
a jew's on Moses or God.

rick barclay

Theologian
10-04-2001, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by rick barclay
Jesus left no written words. Everything attributable to him
is hearsay.

According to this definition, most of what we know in regards to history is hearsay.

The people who wrote the gospels that contain what Christ did and said, knew Him and heard Him say those words themselves. I wouldn't call that hearsay, I'd call that an eye witness.

The gospels were written shortly after the ascension. This became necessary as eye witnesses grew older. The early date of these writings has been objectively verified through the dating of existing papyrii containing portions of the gospels.

These portions match what we have in scripture today.

There is no better proven historical document than the Bible.

Natase
10-04-2001, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by Theologian

There is no better proven historical document than the Bible.

There have never been more failed attempts to prove something either.

Unregistered
10-04-2001, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by Theologian


According to this definition, most of what we know in regards to history is hearsay.

The people who wrote the gospels that contain what Christ did and said, knew Him and heard Him say those words themselves. I wouldn't call that hearsay, I'd call that an eye witness.

The gospels were written shortly after the ascension. This became necessary as eye witnesses grew older. The early date of these writings has been objectively verified through the dating of existing papyrii containing portions of the gospels.

These portions match what we have in scripture today.

There is no better proven historical document than the Bible.

That's what I said, and that's why they don't allow it in a court of law.
All history is is one man's word against another's. He who is judged
to have the most credibility is the one whose word is accepted
as the truth.

The great pitfall of history lies not with the events but rather
with its interpretation. We all know the America dropped an
atom bomb on Japan, which greatly hastened the end of that
war and consequently saved many American lives. Hooray for
that interpretation. Today, half a century later, some historians
criticize, Truman's decision to drop the bomb as inhumane--another interpretation. Which interpretation will overshadow
the other 1,000 years from now? Who knows?

We all know the Jesus lived in Palestine many
moons ago, along with Pontius Pilate, Herod, and others. Those
are historical facts written down not only by the Apostles, but
also chronicled by the historians of the day, Greek, Roman,
and otherwise. It's a credible fact Jesus lived and breathed,
just like the Apostles said he did. But it is anything but credible
for people to go around saying someone performed this
miracle or that when we all know you can't wave your hand
over water and turn it into wine. You can't wave your hand over
someone's unseeing eyes and make him see. Stuff like that
destroys one's credibility. Those weren't eye witness accounts
of a faith healer in action, those were plain old lies told by
people desparatley seeking ways to introduce new members
into the cult.

Jesus was a Jew. So were the apostles. Jewish tradition as
told in the Old Testament is rife with miraculous supernatural
feats by such players as David and Goliath, Sampson and
Delilah, Moses-just about every Jew mentioned performs some
miracle with the helping hand of God. Jesus merely continues
that tradition. It's not history in the Old Testament. It's simply
allegory. As devout Jews, Jesus and the Apostles stretched Jewish tradition to the breaking point and beyond and sold it
to a gullible public, which readily swallowed it whole.

As a public service, I think we should limit this thread to 500,000
responses.

rick barclay

mfc2themax
10-04-2001, 05:05 PM
>
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Theologian

There is no better proven historical document than the Bible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



There have never been more failed attempts to prove something either<

I would respond to this but im too lazy. (*YAWN*)

Theologian
10-04-2001, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by Unregistered

But it is anything but credible
for people to go around saying someone performed this
miracle or that when we all know you can't wave your hand
over water and turn it into wine. You can't wave your hand over
someone's unseeing eyes and make him see. Stuff like that
destroys one's credibility. Those weren't eye witness accounts
of a faith healer in action, those were plain old lies told by
people desparatley seeking ways to introduce new members
into the cult.

...is rife with miraculous supernatural
feats by such players as David and Goliath, Sampson and
Delilah, Moses-just about every Jew mentioned performs some
miracle with the helping hand of God. Jesus merely continues
that tradition. It's not history in the Old Testament. It's simply
allegory. As devout Jews, Jesus and the Apostles stretched Jewish tradition to the breaking point and beyond and sold it
to a gullible public, which readily swallowed it whole.

As a public service, I think we should limit this thread to 500,000
responses.

rick barclay

This always cracks me up.

Many people approach the Bible by saying that miracles are impossible and therefore anything to do w/miracles in the Bible is false.

Does anyone else see the problem w/this approach? There is no real investigation. The information is immediately dismissed based on nothing more than your opinion.

Just suppose that Jesus Christ was who He claimed to be? Then turning water to wine or healing the blind and lame would not be an act of any great significance.

The thread limit is a good idea because based on what I've seen here before this will quickly spiral downward into a real mess. I've purposely avoided much of the theological "discussion" because there's been so little discussion and so much rhetoric back and forth.

But anyways if you are going to dismiss the miraculous w/out any room for its existence then there really isn't much to discuss.

Though as a parting shot- If Christ and the apostles were merely charlatans trying to bring more people under their control- why didn't they quit when their movement became a complete 'failure'?

Every one of them was executed for what they believe- none was willing to recant that belief to save their own life. (Peter denied Christ- but then publicly preached Christianity and was ultimately crucified for it) Not what I would expect from a huckster.

DavidP
10-04-2001, 07:03 PM
You guys should no better to not start a religious discussion...you know that sooner or later I will show up :)

Anyways...we all have our little opinions...so now I feel like stating mine...and I promise I will make this post shorter than all of my other "exhortations"...okay, it might be...but maybe if you actaully read some of these thing you find out some interesting stuff...



But it is anything but credible
for people to go around saying someone performed this
miracle or that when we all know you can't wave your hand
over water and turn it into wine. You can't wave your hand over
someone's unseeing eyes and make him see.


hmmm...ye who have little faith...how do you know it is not possible? I would think that Jesus, being Heavenly Father's only begotten son, would easily have the power to do any miracle he wanted in God's name. Wouldn't he? That is the power of the Melchizedek Priesthood...which I wont go into.

Anyways, listen to my opinion:

And now, I speak also concerning those who do not believe in Christ.

Behold, will ye believe in the day of your visitation - behold, when the Lord shall come, yea, even that great day when the earth shall be rolled together as a scroll, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, yea, in that great day when ye shall be brought to stand before the Lamb of God - then will ye say that there is no God?

Then will ye longer deny the Christ, or can ye behold the Lamb of God? Do ye suppose that ye shall dwell with him under a consciousness of your guilt? Do ye suppose that ye could be happy to dwell with that holy Being, when your souls are racked with a consciousness of guilt that ye have ever abused his laws?

Behold, I say unto you that ye would be more miserable to dwell with a holy and just God, under a consciousness of your filthiness before him, than ye would to dwell with the damned souls in hell.

For behold, when ye shall be brought to see your nakedness before God, and also the glory of God, and the holiness of Jesus Christ, it will kindle a flame of unquenchable fire upon you.

O then ye unbelieving, turn ye unto the Lord; cry mightily unto the Father in the name of Jesus, that perhaps ye may be found spotless, pure, fair, and white, having been cleansed by the blood of the Lamb, at that great and last day.

And again I speak unto you who deny the revelations of God, and say that they are done away, that there are no revelations, nor prophets, nor gifts, nor healing, nor speaking with tongues, and the interpretation of tongues;

Behold I say unto you, he that denieth these things knoweth not the gospel of Christ; yea, he has not read the scriptures; if so, he does not understand them.

For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow or changing?

And now, if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing, then have ye imagine up unto yourselves a god who is not a God of miracles.

But behold, I will show unto you a God of miracles, even the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and it is that same God who created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are.

Behold, he created Adam, and by Adam came the fall of man. And because of the fall of man came Jesus Christ, even the Father and the Son; and because of Jesus Christ came the redemption of man.

And because of the redemptionof man, which came by Jesus Christ, they are brought back into the presence of the Lord; yea, this is wherein all men are redeemed, because the death of Christ bringeth to pass the resurrection, which bringeth to pass a redemption from an endless sleep, from which sleep all men shall be awakened by the power of God when the trump shall sound; and they shall come forth, both small and great, and all shall stand before his bar, being redeemed and loosed from this eternal band of death, which death is a temporal death.

And then cometh the judgment of the Holy One upong them; and then cometh the time that he that is filthy shall be filthy still; and he that is righteous shall be righteous still; he that is happy shall be happy still; and he that is unhappy shall be unhappy still.

And now,O all ye that have imagine up unto yourselves a god who can do no miracles, I would ask of you, have all these things passed, of which I have spoken? Has the end come yet? Behold I say unto you, Nay; and God has not ceased to be a God of miracles.

Behold, are not the things that God hath wrought marvelous in our eyes? Yea, and who can comrehend the marvelous works of God?

Who shall say that it was not a miracle by his word the heaven and the earth should be; and by the power of his word man was created of the dust of the earth; and by the power of his word have miracles been wrought?

And who shall say that Jesus Christ did not do many mighty miracles? And there were many mighty miracles wrought by the hands of the apostles.

And if there were miracles wrought then, why has God ceased to be a God of miracles and yet be an unchangeable Being? And behold, I say unto you he changeth not; if so he would cease to be God; and he ceaseth not to be God, and is a God of miracles.

And the reason why he ceaseth to do miracles among the children of men is because that they dwindle in unbelief, and depart from the right way, and know not the God in whom they should trust.

Behold, I say unto you that whoso believeth in Christ, doubting nothing, whatsoever he shall ask the Father in the name of Christ it shall be granted him; and this promise is unto all, even unto the ends of the earth.


That is my exhortation. If you did not care to read the entire thing, then I would like to point you to the main few paragraphs and have you read those:


And again I speak unto you who deny the revelations of God, and say that they are done away, that there are no revelations, nor prophets, nor gifts, nor healing, nor speaking with tongues, and the interpretation of tongues;

Behold I say unto you, he that denieth these things knoweth not the gospel of Christ; yea, he has not read the scriptures; if so, he does not understand them.

For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow or changing?

And the reason why he ceaseth to do miracles among the children of men is because that they dwindle in unbelief, and depart from the right way, and know not the God in whom they should trust.

Behold, I say unto you that whoso believeth in Christ, doubting nothing, whatsoever he shall ask the Father in the name of Christ it shall be granted him; and this promise is unto all, even unto the ends of the earth.

rick barclay
10-04-2001, 10:04 PM
Theo, the only testament to Jesus' miraculous acts is that of
the apostles. They made them up, plain and simple.

>Though as a parting shot- If Christ and the apostles were merely charlatans trying to bring more people under their control- why didn't they quit when their movement became a complete 'failure'? <

Not just Christ and his apostles, my friend, but everyone from
that ancient period who embraced the miraculous notion of
Christ. Those must have been very turbulent times, indeed,
for an entire civilization to jump on the Christianity bandwagon,
while abandoning the pagan traditions of their parents and
ancestors. It's an amazing story as told by Gibbon, and it didn't
happen overnight, but rather paralleled the Roman Fall over a
period of several hundred years, during which the overwhelming
number of Christians and converts seriously believed the
world would end soon and Jesus would return as Messiah. The
upheaval was such that the majority of the Roman male population
withdrew from society and either joined or formed their own
monasterys, leaving Rome bare naked to the assaults of the
Goths, Vandals, Franks, Huns, and countless other tribes
that flew down into the vacuum from the northern forests.
Jesus seems to have been in the right place at the right time,
but the true testament to the failure of Christianity, in my
humble opinion, is the rise of Muhammad a mere 600 years
after Christ's birth, for if Jesus Christ the Annointed was
truly humanity's saviour, then why the need for Islam? Or
anything else after 33 A.D.?

rick barclay

DavidP
10-04-2001, 10:59 PM
>Or
anything else after 33 A.D.?


why not? Just because Jesus has come, does that mean God is done? Has God finished? Has he stopped speaking to us? No. He is not finished. He still speaks to us. He still has stuff for us to do. You are just too hard hearted to hear and listen.

no-one
10-05-2001, 12:57 AM
wow DavidP, i couldn't have done better, honestly... thank you.

Theologian
10-05-2001, 08:02 AM
Originally posted by rick barclay
Theo, the only testament to Jesus' miraculous acts is that of
the apostles. They made them up, plain and simple.

...Those must have been very turbulent times, indeed,
for an entire civilization to jump on the Christianity bandwagon,
while abandoning the pagan traditions of their parents and
ancestors.
...over a
period of several hundred years, during which the overwhelming
number of Christians and converts seriously believed the
world would end soon and Jesus would return as Messiah. The
upheaval was such that the majority of the Roman male population
withdrew from society

...Jesus seems to have been in the right place at the right time,
but the true testament to the failure of Christianity, in my
humble opinion, is the rise of Muhammad a mere 600 years
after Christ's birth, for if Jesus Christ the Annointed was
truly humanity's saviour, then why the need for Islam? Or
anything else after 33 A.D.?

rick barclay

Miracles by their very nature are not 'normal' or reproducible phenomenon. That only the scriptures document them is of little surprise as so little in the way of documentation from that period survives today. Much of it is Roman and they actively worked to hide what Christ said and did- so it is no surprise that they would not mention miracles.

The rest of this I don't quite understand.

Yes Christianity gained momentum but not until long after Christ and the Apostles were no longer on the earth. Even John died before that happened, in exile on Patmos.

So I guess my point would be that from the standpoint that Christ did not do miracles and the apostles made them up- why did the early believers in Christianity give up everything they owned and ultimately their lives if they knew it wasn't true?

To say that Christ was in the right place at the right time doesn't really coincide with what happened. Christianity should have been a small Jewish sect that was wiped out early on in its history. But just the opposite happened.

And as for your last question-- and this is where I'll get torn up again, but that's o.k.

I don't think that Islam is 'needed'. All that one needs is the Bible and faith in the God of the Bible.

There is such a thing as absolute truth. Two contradictory items cannot be true at the same time. Christianity and Islam cannot both be true. Each makes claims that exclude the other. This is true of other religions as well.

But I would not throw up my hands and say "They all claim to be true! There's no way to tell which is true and which isn't so I just wont believe any of them" but rather I would say (and this is what I have done), investigate them and find the one that is true.

Very few will agree with me but I believe that this quest is possible and that if you seek the truth you will find it.

Govtcheez
10-05-2001, 08:05 AM
::steps in very quickly::
So I guess my point would be that from the standpoint that Christ did not do miracles and the apostles made them up- why did the early believers in Christianity give up everything they owned and ultimately their lives if they knew it wasn't true?Right... But the followers of Koresh and whatever the Heaven's Gate psycho's name was did the same things....

::steps out very quickly::

Theologian
10-05-2001, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by Govtcheez
Right... But the followers of Koresh and whatever the Heaven's Gate psycho's name was did the same things....

You are correct. My question is just one piece of the puzzle and mostly has to do w/those who would say that Christ and or the apostles were con men of some sort.

I think that you can say they were psycho nut cases (like those mentioned above) or they were who they said they were-- but not just greedy hucksters out to scam some people.

These threads are intersting/infuriating/useful/pointless because frankly I doubt I will change anyone's mind. But I think of it as a bit of a mental exercise to sharpen my own thinking.

Govtcheez
10-05-2001, 08:26 AM
::steps in quickly::
These threads are intersting/infuriating/useful/pointless because frankly I doubt I will change anyone's mind. But I think of it as a bit of a mental exercise to sharpen my own thinking.Well, as long as we've got that out front to begin with :)

::steps out quickly::

ehsiq
10-05-2001, 11:34 AM
>>There is no better proven historical document than the Bible.

ok, give me some books that can proove your point.

historical document is a document that if we compare it with
another document of the same time period we will find that
tha facts mentioned in one book are also mentioned in the other.
and so we can say that these facts are true and they really
happened that time, and that it is not from the imagination
of a person smoking ...what ever he was smoking.

also the bible has some chapters that was written with 50
(more or less) years later or sooner from other chapters of the
same book.

no, the bible is not a historical document.

Theologian
10-05-2001, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by ehsiq
[Bok, give me some books that can proove your point.

also the bible has some chapters that was written with 50
(more or less) years later or sooner from other chapters of the
same book.

no, the bible is not a historical document. [/B]

I will get you a list of books- and try to find ISBN numbers for you . Please give me a couple of days.

Your statement may be accurate in regards to some books in the old testament that covered events that took place over many years. They were written as events happened and so if 50 or more years went by as things took place, it would only make sense that there would be a time between writing those events down. This would be preferable to someone writing them all down hundreds of years after all the events took place.

In the case of the new testament- the documents were written in relatively short periods of time. Many were epistles or letters, written in one sitting.

The new testament was written in a beautiful language that you can fully appreciate in a way I never will be able to. I spent 2 years in college studying Koinea greek and I know enough to get in trouble. But I did enjoy studying it immensly.

Nick
10-05-2001, 12:37 PM
The bible was written in the past therefore it is
a historical document.

rick barclay
10-05-2001, 02:18 PM
>why not? Just because Jesus has come, does that mean God is done? Has God finished? Has he stopped speaking to us? No. He is not finished. He still speaks to us. He still has stuff for us to do. You are just too hard hearted to hear and listen<

That's not the point, David. If God created Jesus and gave him
dominion over the earth, then why the need for any new
religions after that? Dosen't make sense.

Me hard-hearted? :rolleyes: . Listen pal, I'm married 24 years
now, sired four grown children, put up with numerous cats,
dogs, parakeets, gerbils, etc., etc., etc. My heart is like the
Pillsbury Doughboy. As for hearing and listening, I do both
and then make an opinion. And despite all the reams and
reams of paper and ink you generate here with your posts,
you haven't uttered one thing that makes anything but
nonsense. And Behold I say to you, Oh, True Believer, your
long post in this thread should be enough to convince any
half-wit, including myself, of just what a nut case you are.

So anser my question: why did God create Islam?

rick barclay