For conversation's sake, let's assume Jesus of Nazareth was real, and that the New Testament accurately renders his life and teachings.

Here is an excerpt from his greatest teaching, known as the "Sermon on the Mount." It is contained in the New Testament, in the first book, documented by his disciple Matthew. It can be found in what is now referred to as chapters 5 through 7 of Matthew's gospel. The numbers intermittent in the text are signposts added into it, the "verses."

He discusses issues relating to:
Anger
Marital Unfaithfulness
Divorce
Swearing Oaths
Vengeance
Love for Enemies
Charity
Stewardship
Judging Others
The Golden Rule
etc.

*****

Jesus' Sermon on the Mount

Teaching about Anger
21 “You have heard that our ancestors were told, ‘You must not murder. If you commit murder, you are subject to judgment.’ 22 But I say, if you are even angry with someone, you are subject to judgment! If you call someone an idiot, you are in danger of being brought before the court. And if you curse someone, you are in danger of the fires of hell.

23 “So if you are presenting a sacrifice at the altar in the Temple and you suddenly remember that someone has something against you, 24 leave your sacrifice there at the altar. Go and be reconciled to that person. Then come and offer your sacrifice to God.

25 “When you are on the way to court with your adversary, settle your differences quickly. Otherwise, your accuser may hand you over to the judge, who will hand you over to an officer, and you will be thrown into prison. 26 And if that happens, you surely won’t be free again until you have paid the last penny.

Teaching about Adultery
27 “You have heard the commandment that says, ‘You must not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 So if your eye—even your good eye—causes you to lust, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your hand—even your stronger hand—causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

Teaching about Divorce
31 “You have heard the law that says, ‘A man can divorce his wife by merely giving her a written notice of divorce.’ 32 But I say that a man who divorces his wife, unless she has been unfaithful, causes her to commit adultery. And anyone who marries a divorced woman also commits adultery.

Teaching about Oaths
33 “You have also heard that our ancestors were told, ‘You must not break your oaths; you must carry out the oaths you make to the Lord.’[o] 34 But I say, do not make any oaths! Do not say, ‘By heaven!’ because heaven is God’s throne. 35 And do not say, ‘By the earth!’ because the earth is his footstool. And do not say, ‘By Jerusalem!’ for Jerusalem is the city of the great King. 36 Do not even say, ‘By my head!’ for you can’t turn one hair white or black. 37 Just say a simple, ‘Yes, I will,’ or ‘No, I won’t.’ Anything beyond this is from the evil one.

Teaching about Revenge
38 “You have heard the law that says the punishment must match the injury: ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say, do not resist an evil person! If someone slaps you on the right cheek, offer the other cheek also. 40 If you are sued in court and your shirt is taken from you, give your coat, too. 41 If a soldier demands that you carry his gear for a mile, carry it two miles. 42 Give to those who ask, and don’t turn away from those who want to borrow.

Teaching about Love for Enemies
43 “You have heard the law that says, ‘Love your neighbor’ and hate your enemy. 44 But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! 45 In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike. 46 If you love only those who love you, what reward is there for that? Even corrupt tax collectors do that much. 47 If you are kind only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else? Even pagans do that. 48 But you are to be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect.

Teaching about Giving to the Needy
“Watch out! Don’t do your good deeds publicly, to be admired by others, for you will lose the reward from your Father in heaven. 2 When you give to someone in need, don’t do as the hypocrites do—blowing trumpets in the synagogues and streets to call attention to their acts of charity! I tell you the truth, they have received all the reward they will ever get. 3 But when you give to someone in need, don’t let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. 4 Give your gifts in private, and your Father, who sees everything, will reward you.

Teaching about Money and Possessions
19 “Don’t store up treasures here on earth, where moths eat them and rust destroys them, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 Store your treasures in heaven, where moths and rust cannot destroy, and thieves do not break in and steal. 21 Wherever your treasure is, there the desires of your heart will also be.

22 “Your eye is a lamp that provides light for your body. When your eye is good, your whole body is filled with light. 23 But when your eye is bad, your whole body is filled with darkness. And if the light you think you have is actually darkness, how deep that darkness is!

24 “No one can serve two masters. For you will hate one and love the other; you will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

25 “That is why I tell you not to worry about everyday life—whether you have enough food and drink, or enough clothes to wear. Isn’t life more than food, and your body more than clothing? 26 Look at the birds. They don’t plant or harvest or store food in barns, for your heavenly Father feeds them. And aren’t you far more valuable to him than they are? 27 Can all your worries add a single moment to your life?

28 “And why worry about your clothing? Look at the lilies of the field and how they grow. They don’t work or make their clothing, 29 yet Solomon in all his glory was not dressed as beautifully as they are. 30 And if God cares so wonderfully for wildflowers that are here today and thrown into the fire tomorrow, he will certainly care for you. Why do you have so little faith?

31 “So don’t worry about these things, saying, ‘What will we eat? What will we drink? What will we wear?’ 32 These things dominate the thoughts of unbelievers, but your heavenly Father already knows all your needs. 33 Seek the Kingdom of God above all else, and live righteously, and he will give you everything you need.

34 “So don’t worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring its own worries. Today’s trouble is enough for today.

Do Not Judge Others
“Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. 2 For you will be treated as you treat others. The standard you use in judging is the standard by which you will be judged.

3 “And why worry about a speck in your friend’s eye when you have a log in your own? 4 How can you think of saying to your friend, ‘Let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,’ when you can’t see past the log in your own eye? 5 Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend’s eye.

6 “Don’t waste what is holy on people who are unholy. Don’t throw your pearls to pigs! They will trample the pearls, then turn and attack you.

Effective Prayer
7 “Keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And to everyone who knocks, the door will be opened.

9 “You parents—if your children ask for a loaf of bread, do you give them a stone instead? 10 Or if they ask for a fish, do you give them a snake? Of course not! 11 So if you sinful people know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give good gifts to those who ask him.

The Golden Rule
12 “Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets.

The Narrow Gate
13 “You can enter God’s Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose that way. 14 But the gateway to life is very narrow and the road is difficult, and only a few ever find it.

The Tree and Its Fruit
15 “Beware of false prophets who come disguised as harmless sheep but are really vicious wolves. 16 You can identify them by their fruit, that is, by the way they act. Can you pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 A good tree produces good fruit, and a bad tree produces bad fruit. 18 A good tree can’t produce bad fruit, and a bad tree can’t produce good fruit. 19 So every tree that does not produce good fruit is chopped down and thrown into the fire. 20 Yes, just as you can identify a tree by its fruit, so you can identify people by their actions.

True Disciples
21 “Not everyone who calls out to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter. 22 On judgment day many will say to me, ‘Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.’ 23 But I will reply, ‘I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God’s laws.’

Building on a Solid Foundation
24 “Anyone who listens to my teaching and follows it is wise, like a person who builds a house on solid rock. 25 Though the rain comes in torrents and the floodwaters rise and the winds beat against that house, it won’t collapse because it is built on bedrock. 26 But anyone who hears my teaching and doesn’t obey it is foolish, like a person who builds a house on sand. 27 When the rains and floods come and the winds beat against that house, it will collapse with a mighty crash.”

28 When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, 29 for he taught with real authority—quite unlike their teachers of religious law.

*****

For conversation's sake, let's assume here that Jesus was real, and that this is his message.

What commentary can we offer on these teachings? What does this say about life, culture, society, etc?

What kind of life does Jesus here offer?

-3nigma

Ever see the "life of brian"? Blessed are the cheese makers!

I don't consider myself a Christian, but those are very good principles to live by.

So bad that even christians don't follow most of those principles...

Well, consider that there are only three possibilities regarding Jesus. Don't forget that according to the gospel he claimed numerous time to be the Son of God. So, with that in mind, he was either:

1) A liar
2) completely insane
3) telling the truth

if 1) is true, then his teachings are completely worthless, as they're the bile of a dishonest man
if 2) is true, then his teachings are completely worthless, as they're the mindless drivel of a madman
but if 3) is true, then God exists, the bible is truth, and naysayers won't be saved

I know which one I'd prefer to bet on

I find it interesting that even a militant atheists like Richard Dawkins can see Jesus as such a positive figure. Dawkins has stated that he thinks that if Jesus were born today Jesus would most likely be an atheist. Of course, I find Dawkins atheism to be more biblical than much that passes as Christianity today.

I find it fascinating that the Bible is so difficult to conquer. If it is just a bunch of fictional moral stories, why does it always challenge us so deeply? Why is so adept at discovering our failings? We understand so little.

Proverbs 25:2 (Peterson)
God delights in concealing things;
scientists delight in discovering things.

 

I don't like to assume. Every time I do and I realize it, I say to myself "Damn! I made an assumption".

Of course - its not meant to be taken literally, it refers to all purveyors of dairy products :D

4) Jesus never existed and was a fabrication.

I'm not saying that I believe that or that its true, but some scholars are of that opinion.

So bad that even christians don't follow most of those principles...

And that's the exact reason Jesus came.

there is independent verification of jesus' existance in archeological findings and roman historical documents

http://www.skeptically.org/bible/id3.html

http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/historicalev.htm

You obviously didn't read the sources you cited. Here is the summary from your first source.

Summary
In sum, the evidence for the historical evidence for Jesus is non-existent:
1) There are no proven, legitimate references to the existence of Jesus in any contemporary source outside of the New Testament.
2) The New Testament accounts do not provide a real 'biography' for Jesus. The early writings imply only that he was a divine figure and consistently fail to locate Jesus in any chronological setting; they also fail to cite those sayings attributed to him in the (later) Gospels, even when they are wholly applicable.
3) The existence of Jesus is not necessary to explain the origin or growth of Christianity.

So, anybody that approaches this subject from any kind of a paradigm of historical proof would conclude that the J-man Xstians worship is a non factual non historical fabrication only written about in the Nazarene text. Even those texts do not agree or correlate the history of that character within themselves. Hey, big deal. So, what if a religion has a fictional or conglomerated non historical character as its foundation. Many religions do. There are many other fictions in xstianity. Come on, the whole thing supposedly started when a woman convinced her husband that she was still a virgin after she was found to be pregnant. Why don't people jump on that fiasco? You can go on and on with stuff like that. Leave it alone already. It does no good to argue over it. It will not get you anywhere. If you want a really cool epic fiction I think that Tolkien's Silmarilion is much more interesting than the Nazarene text. At least everybody agrees on the source.

The Silmarilion kind of sucks, but I don't blame J.R.R. Tolkein. I don't think it was his intention to have it published in it current form. It is interesting, especially after reading The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, but on its own as literature it is pretty poor. I really enjoyed C.S.Lewis' Till We Have Faces though it is certainly not epic (in the sense of grand scale.)

The gospels do not intend to be historical biographies, just like Genesis is not offering a theory of biological development. We should ask about the accuracy of both, but that evidence doesn't have to be solely external. A single historical record can be accurate by itself, though we would certainly wish to have independent collaboration.

I could point out that many of the parts of the Bible, such as the gospels aren't excellent literature. They would be rather poor fiction if they are not true. 

Dont get me wrong here, I am the most militant atheist you will ever meet. I am 'that guy' that makes christians cry, but I have to disagree with you here. We know Jesus existed because the Romans wrote everything down, they were sticklers for detail. Whatever else you believe, most of the sermon on the mount is damned hard to disagree with.

I just read Charles Talbert's Reading the Sermon on the Mount: Character Formation and Ethical Decision Making in Matthew 5-7. This book does a decent job exploring the literary contextual parallels to the Sermon. Yes, Jesus' sermon wasn't exactly new teaching at the time. Being a graduate student I find the audience's reaction to Jesus teaching style seeming to encourage a disregard for citing sources. Though Jesus character evidences an excellent education. It is too bad that we seem to lack much information about education in first century Palestine.

Or we can take Sociology's golden rule:

Those with the Gold control the rules.

Lol nice quote killbot..... might be the first line of text in my sig....

That's where we can all get screwed over. I'm skeptical myself on the whole scheme (if you could call it that) but what if there is some other power we can't control. There are people out there who could bend a spoon with their minds and stuff like that, then why couldn't Jesus pull off a resurrection? I think this is why they call it "faith" and not "law" even though you still have to abide by [some] rules. At the end it's a thing of personal preference, and at the very end its about what you experience.

The two links were chosen to illustrate how two different conclusions could be had from the same series of information. I suppose I should have said so though, haha. The second link comes out in favor of a historical Jesus

Then they are not Christians.



Test. Test. I can't hear you. Please speak louder into the microphone! I still have some hiss back here.

That's not some new, original idea- it's been common idiom forever. It was even in the Disney film "Aladdin."
Exactly.

So if that is the case, back to my original question- what are the implications of this?

To me, these are the implications.

So which is it? We already acknowledge that (A.) he is real. We have also established that (B.) his teachings are pretty hard to disagree with. Therefore, we have to (C.) decide which of these three above possibilities is true of Jesus.

1) A liar, and therefore his teachings are moot
2) A lunatic who thought he was God, so his teachings are moot
3) The man that lived the perfect life, and died in your place, to pay the price so that you wouldn't have to die

What are the implications?

Atheists make too much of evangelical/fundamentalists claims about the Bible. At best these religious people believe the Bible because they find it to be true. Most do not claim to have done historic research showing the historic parts to be true, but those probably aren't as important as the applicable teachings such as this sermon. Also there isn't much about biblical ethics that atheists discard--they are after products and members of christian culture.

The seperation line between atheism and biblical faith (which is based on knowledge) is very thin.

For example: the story of David and Goliath.

This story is often used to show that David's reliance on God's power alowed him to kill Goliath. Children are told with this that God is bigger than our problems. He can do the impossible. I submit that David's faith demonstrated in the story looked nothing like this. David tells king Saul he has killed lions and bears, his odds against the big Philistine with a stone and sling really aren't unreasonable. Even if it wasn't completely predictable, nothing supernatural was required for David's victory . It is significant that David was successful.

Another example is the virgin birth sign in Isaiah.

Isaiah had a message for King Ahaz from the Lord and tells the King to ask for a sign. Ahaz doesn't particularly want the message so in fake humility says he won't test God by asking for any such thing.



So how does this sign come about? Well we don't have to read far it is described in the next chapter:


So you mean all Isaiah had to do to create the sign was have sex with his wife? Yes, so the sign has a very real natural cause, but, like any pregnancy, it is hardly a sure thing to have a child whenever you want one. So, like with David's victory over Goliath, there is both natural determinism and the accurate prediction of something unpredictable involved.

So- because Jesus' teachings are pretty hard to disagree with, which is it?

I think that's what defines "faith".

There is yet another possibility: He existed but what we know about his life and teachings has been totally tampered with.
There are many reasons why this is a credible alternative, I have written about it in this forum.

I think thats the most logical explanation.

That is a fair assumption, but does the evidence support it?

The gospels are highly edited in the sense of not being a linear recording of Jesus life. They are closer to being a documentary film. A documentary that want to influence its readers to a particular view. However, this isn't tampering, unless it presents a flase view. Certainly there were some collections of Jesus' sayings and life that were used by the gospel writers and by Paul. Some scribes did make later edits to smooth out percieved problems in the text, but our critical Greek text of the New Testament is extremely close to the original manuscripts. If the gospels are wrong, the original authors are to blame.

There is actually little reason to believe the gospel authors created or modified Jesus life. Jesus teaching was essentially first century Jewish (with typical foriegn influences from the time). His pattern of ministry wasn't atypical--there were plenty of influential teachers/revolutionaries in Palestine. You may have difficulty accepting certain aspects of the gospel accounts, but that mere personal belief is no means to establish that they have in fact been fabricated.

Basically yes.
I have already written extensively about it in this forum.
In summary, christians before emperor Constantine had different beliefs.
For instance the early Fathers of the church believed in reincarnation.
There were many more gospels than the canonical ones, which told us a different story.
It is even possible that early Christians didn't believe that Jesus was the only son of God (which god? this point is far from shallow. Believing than one man can be the son of the Supreme Being (Nirguna Brahman is absolutely preposterous).
It is perfectly possible that it was Constantine himself who decided that Jesus was the son of "a god", Sol Invictus (the Sun God), because religion in the Roman Empire had become a mess.
The only source I could find in a hurry is alas Italian. The equivalent English chapter isn't as accurate:

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costantino_I#...l_cristianesimo

However it is common knowledge: Constantine deeply changed Christianity.

First the Bible clearly states that the only things that should be believed are those that accurately correspond to reality. The Bible actually presents major people in the Bible (except Jesus) as having false beliefs at least some point in time, especially people like Peter and Paul. So, appealing to church fathers doesn't carry much weight. Sure, the history of interpretation is important to look at, but they were also prone to misinterpret what they read. The existence of other Gnostic "gospels" and even Christian writings says more about why Christians rejected them and found the New Testament worthy of belief. The Early Church fathers weren't handed Authorized Versions of the Greek New Testament.  


I am afraid I feel somewhat agnostic about what exactly the New Testament means by the title Son of God. If what you say were true (which seems rather unlikely as we have plenty of manuscripts of the cannonical writings prior to his time) Constantine was not exactly successful in his endeavor.

Jesus clearly prefered the title Son of Man when refering to himself. Jesus defends his use of the phrase Son of God refering to himself by pointing out to the Jews that own Scriptures (Psalm 82:6) use "gods" to refer to those who had recieved the revelation of Yahwey (John 10:34-36). So, the whole point of the title Son of God is primarily about revelation of the divine not ontology. 


Also I get the sense from this Psalm that revelation has a rather humanitarian purpose.

That is what I prefer too, because clearly it makes a lot more sense.
But if we agree that the Christ was "the Son of Man", you'll have to agree with me that the meaning of the Christian religion changes entirely.

Jesus' full humanity was and is the orthodox conclusion and an additional reason for many to reject those other "gospels" you mentioned. And the practical denial of Jesus humanity is widespread and growing today (e.g., praying to Jesus--a.k.a. patripassianism). Only because he was fully human can Jesus be the new human (Adam)--he has now received a new kind of life--life beyond death. This is evolution indeed. Christians hope is just this, as Jesus was one with us in humanity, we will be one with him in the new humanity he has recieved and continues to enjoy elsewhere. 

The Bible is rather physical and mundane even in something suppossedly remarkable as Jesus' resurrection. No inherent immortality of human soul, no higher layers of non-physical reality. No doubt many read things like that into the text--probably more influenced by Plato though.

What I love about religion is that they are all right and everyone else is wrong.

What are the odds of me picking the correct religion?

Zero.

One possibility: given a deterministic space-time, if its Creator exists, he/she/it can reveal himself.

Analogy: The developer easter eggs hidden in programs (despite corporate measures to block such revelations!)

If that is true, then I don't understand why the Roman Catholic priests, when talking about Jesus (example, in the holy mass), call him "God, son of God"

There is a problem with this that you have to reconcile.

The men that wrote down the gospel accounts of Jesus' life were threatened with death to recant their message. None of them did, and they all were killed as martyrs for their message that they proclaimed.

Would 12 men (disciples of Jesus) all say the same fake message, and all fake it so strongly that they would be killed for it? They were excruciating, grisly deaths- such as being crucified hanging upside down.

Some did, others didn't. Many had incorrect beliefs, which is why Paul of Tarsus wrote so many letters to so many churches, correcting them and explaining Jesus to them.

The other gospels that were written were all gnostic in origin, which is why the early church did not accept them into the New Testament canon. Everyone that actually knew Jesus and knew his life threw out all the random fake gospels that were circulating, which is why they are not in the New Testament.

With all respect, this is extremely misinformed. The New Testament is composed of many letters that were written to churches and circulated in the Christian community. All of these letters, which date from AD 55 through AD 70, all proclaim that Jesus is the "Son of God." Constantine wasn't on the scene until ~315 AD. To say that he is the one that started the concept of Jesus as the "Son of God" is at best, misinformed, and at worst, preposterous.

Constantine changed Christianity dramatically, but strictly in practice and organization- not in doctrine or beliefs.

The title "Son of Man" does not mean that he is human, or the son of a man/human. It is a Hebrew term used in the Old Testament prophetic literature (Daniel), to refer to the messiah that was to come. It was a religious and theological "buzz-word" at the time that would immediately conjure implications of Godhood and Messiah-ship.

It is because when Jesus called himself the "Son of Man," he was boldly saying that he was God, the Messiah that was anticipated for many centuries.

There are two great paradoxical truths at the heart of the Christian faith, both of which relate to God, and how God cannot be understood 100% by man. They are:

1) The triune, trinitarian nature of God. He is simultaneously three persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and yet one God.
2) Jesus, the Son, is simultaneously fully man and fully God.

The important note is that Jesus is not half God and half man. He is fully God, and fully man. This is the doctrine of the "Incarnation." So when QuietOC points out that the orthodox conclusion is that Jesus was fully human, he is referring to the fact that Jesus is "fully" human, not that Jesus is fully "human". The complete orthodox teaching is that Jesus is fully human, and fully God.

Alessandro, with all due respect, you don't appear to know the very basics and fundamentals of Christian teaching and beliefs. Normally this wouldn't be a big deal. But in your case, you purport to know the "facts" (such as the misinformation about Constantine), but in reality you only know the same fake, skewed information that is perpetuated by all those that don't really understand Christian doctrine.

If you are sincere about your convictions and bias against Christianity, you should take the initiative to learn and understand what it is that you don't like. You may find that what you don't like is actually a 'straw man,' that has been set up to appear to be what Christianity is, when Christianity is something different. You are mistakenly setting up the same straw man argument, that has no bearing on reality.

-3nigma

You sir, have my admiration. I wish I could arrange my thoughts into words and sentences and arguements so concisely and eloquently

The Bible, in many cases, is made up of stories. In other cases, it claims to be fact, when it can be 100% proved wrong (eg, the first few verses of Genesis).
What makes you so sure that this part is neither a fictional story, or simply false.

Let's not forget the bible has been badly translated many times.

For anyone that wants to quote my above post, please snip it a bit- it's quite long to scroll through =).

The whole book claims to be fact, even the narratives ("stories").

Here is an example, regarding your example of Genesis:

The Bible contains many literary genres. Narrative, poetry, biography, songs, idioms, treaties, etc. Each one needs to be interpreted according to its literary genre. To use a contemporary example, one would not read Shakespeare in the same way that one reads Woodrow Wilson, the New York Times, or an automotive operator's manual.

The first chapters of Genesis are written in Hebrew poetry, forming a framework of "parallelism." There are six "days" of creation. The first three "days" are building the framework of the world, and the final three "days" are filling the framework of the world. It looks like this:

Day 1 - Create Space
Day 2 - Create Ocean/Sky
Day 3 - Create Land

Day 4 - Fill Space with Stars/Sun/Moon
Day 5 - Fill Ocean/Sky with Fish/Birds
Day 6 - Fill Land with Life

3 days of framework, 3 days of filling. It is Hebrew poetic parallelism.

The Bible is not a scientific textbook. It does not intend to answer the questions that are being asked of it, regarding the details of beginning of the world. Particularly, as you have just pointed out, people don't even know how to read and interpret it properly to even ask the wrong questions to begin with, let alone the right ones.

Your example highlights the point I made to Alessandro. You assume that you know what Christianity says about these things, and about the first verses of Genesis. However, from your post, it is extremely evident that you only know a surface-level knowledge that was given to you by a source that was offering the same "straw man," skewed, misinformation.

If I want to know about astrophysics, I will read about it from an astrophysicist; not from an astrologist. If you want to know about the Bible and Christianity, you need to stop reading the critics who all rehash the same old misinformation, and you need to read some theologians and Biblical scholars.

Look briefly at scientific history. Christians have always maintained that the universe had a beginning and origin. Years ago, scientists rejected this idea, and argued that the universe was the ultimate constant; it had no beginning or end. As researched progressed, the evidence and data pointed to the opposite fact: that indeed, the matter in the universe was moving and expanding, and that it had an origin and starting point. This has now become the scientific consensus, known as the “Big Bang.” However, Christians always maintained this theory in the midst of science’s previously incorrect findings.

Let me offer the opposite situation: In 1616, Galileo was proposing a new idea that shook the world. He proposed that the earth was not the center of the universe, and that the sun did not revolve around the earth. Through his studies in astronomy, he concluded that the opposite was the truth. The Christian Church was outraged, because this went against the “teachings of scripture.” Psalm 104:5 says, “He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.” Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that “the sun rises and sets and returns to its place.” Galileo was brought before the Pope as a heretic, and forced to recant his teachings. However, this is clearly a simple misinterpretation of scripture. These words are written from a terrestrial vantage-point, and mistakenly interpreted literally when the text is poetic.

The Bible is proved correct time and time again. DNA biology has discovered that within a cell, the mitochondria has a specific DNA that only contains the data from a person's mother. A worldwide study showed that everyone's mitochondrial DNA pointed to what is now a scientific theory know as the "Mitochondrial Eve."

The Bible has been a signpost for archaeology for decades, and everything is exactly where the book says it is. Over 25,000 excavations have been corroborated by Biblical data. Spiritual or not, this is strong confirmation for the accuracy of the text as ancient literature.

There is so much misinformation circulating about the Bible and Christianity that it simply dumbs down its critics, not educating them.


If the gospels were false, they would have died out as a blip in history. Think of tabloid newspapers today. Fake, sensationalist headlines say preposterous things like, "Alien Discovered in White House," and "Batboy Returns!" Nobody keeps these newspaper clippings, nobody copies them and circulates them as important reading material.

The records of Jesus' life and teaching are an anomaly of ancient literature. The New Testament is the most prolific ancient manuscript in all of history in all the world. Most ancient documents have 25 or fewer copies that we have recovered. Of Caesar's works, we have 9 copies. Of Plato's writings, we have 7 copies. Of Josephus' writings, we have 8 copies. The second-most abundant ancient manuscript is Homer's "Iliad," of which there are 643 copies.

Now contrast that with the fact that there are 24,000 copies of the New Testament. Let me say that again. Twenty-four THOUSAND. These are all HAND-written from ancient antiquity. This is not "Batboy Returns!" People cherished these documents, and copied and stored them to the best of their ability.

The earliest copy available to modern scholars of Plato's writings is dated 1250 years AFTER the original was written.

Also, the writers were actual contemporaries of Jesus himself. The gospels about his life were written within the lifetime of his disciples that followed him. Contrast that with the first written record of Buddha's life, which was 700 years after his life.

The numbers are staggering, to say the least. Dumbfounding is more appropriate.

You may have been led to believe this, but this is misinformation, that has no actual bearing in reality.

The Bible for the first one thousand, five hundred years from when it was written, was only read and copied in the original Greek and Hebrew languages, along with Latin translations. It wasn't until 500 years ago that any true "translations" even took place, and the only minor variations in textual difference are 0.2%. The translation and copy work of the manuscripts is perfection. The New Testament is 25 times more accurately copied than Homer's "Iliad."

********************

The Bible is an awe-inspiring piece of literature, whether you believe in its spiritual truths or not. It is worth taking a peek, considering the tremendous impact it has had on world history. This one book has shaped the very world, society, and humanity itself.

With an open mind, you may even find that there is something out there a little bigger than ourselves.

-3nigma

I'm not going to type some really long explanation about what I believe about the text 3nigma typed up. However, put this into consideration: from the 3 possible conclusions about Jesus' life on earth, he most certainly has to be the Holy Spirit. I say this as a follower of Christ because in the Bible, there are references to God's work with many people. God helped those who were poor and those in pain or suffering. There's no doubt to that, because of the extensive stories in the Bible. So saying that he was a lunatic or a liar are both pretty much obsolete. God came through Jesus to do work on earth so that many abroad could see the power of God and realize what he did for them. If Jesus was some lunatic man or a liar, how is it that he came out of a tomb 3 days later with marks on his hands and feet from his crucifiction? Take all of what I said into consideration and you can see how we can rule out 2 of the 3 conclusions about Jesus Christ. There, thats my 2 cents...

The way of the future is through David Blaine. His magic is more powerful than jesus's old magic

An open mind would recognize that the truth is the authority, rather than the authority being the truth.

It is the closed mind that believes blindly in fairy tales and puts absolute faith into something they cannot prove, and don't care to. The closed mind simply does what they are told without evidence, without fact, without question.

Religion and faith require a closed mind. They are mutually incompatible with the search for answers, because religion and faith by default have no answers. When one discovers there is no wizard behind the curtain, they know too much.

PS- in the reality of our universe, we already know of man things bigger than us. Such as this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VY_Canis_Majoris

That has nothing to do with later misinterpretations of the gospels



None of them wrote a gospel, except maybe for John, but even that is far from being universally accepted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_accord...John#Authorship



Paul of Tarsus never knew Jesus! How could he explain him to others?



Those so called "random fake gospels" were rejected only much later.



What is absolutely preposterous is to believe than one man could be the son of the Supreme Being. That is why Muslims say that Jesus was a great prophet but then his followers went mad and decided that he was "the Son of God"



That is not what History tells us.



What real facts regarding religions are, is only an opinion. What you believe, becomes true.
The ancient Greeks, Romans...believed in many gods, and that was true for them.
There is no way that after 2000 years you can prove so many preposterous beliefs, or that your beliefs are better than others.
And in any case I prefer reason.
As I have said many time, I prefer to believe in a God which sounds reasonable, and I believe that Jesus was probably a great man/being, but not what Christians believe.



A learned man is not a wise man (Tao Te Ching).

This is the whole purpose of the Protestant Reformation against the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church had twisted the Bible as an authority tool over people. The "Protestants" (literally, "Protestors") went against this, and threw authority out the window in the quest for truth.

To the Catholic's credit, they afterwards had a counter-Reformation within their church to fix many internal problems.

So, to answer your point- Protestant Christianity is the open mind that recognizes the truth (Jesus) as the authority, rather than the authority (Catholic Church) being the truth.

This completely ignores the entire post that you just read and quoted. There is unlimited and insurmountable evidence for the accuracy of the Bible. The question is whether or not you subscribe to the spiritual truths contained therein.

On the contrary to your comment, it is extremely evident that the skeptic is the one with the closed mind. If indeed you did read my entire post, it demands an incredibly narrow mind to ignore everything I wrote.

My one-year-old daughter is the center of her universe. When she is older, she will learn that there is more to the world than her, and that there are other people to consider as well. When she is an adult, she may learn that the world is a whole lot bigger than her little bubble.

Today, most skeptics are convinced that the gray matter between their ears is the absolute pinnacle of "truth."

God gave us a brain. When he created humanity, he created the race "in his image, in the image of God." He gave us a brain that we would use it. The New Testament has been held against strong criticism for centuries, and always holds up to scrutiny. Christians have no reason to worry over scrutinizing or evaluating the Bible- it will always come out on top. And if there is ever any question, such as in the instance I quoted above with Galileo, the text simply needs to be reevaluated and interpreted in light of it.

Granted- many fundamentalists do not understand these concepts, and draw a line between "faith" and "reason." However, this is a false dichotomy, and all correct faith is reasonable. More on this, below.

Here, you give an example of the false dichotomy between "reason" (open mind) and "faith." This is incorrect. Even atheists, who utilize reason, have faith. Every true, reasonable atheist will acknowledge that where reason ends, they take a step of faith to then therefore say that God does not exist. Every headlining atheist (Flew, Dawkins, Harris, etc) will be very happy to say this, because they understand reason and science in their proper context.

Even now, you are proposing a closed-minded view that reason is the tool for seeking truth, and that faith has no part to play in anything. All educated atheists would disagree with you.

However, this is veering off-topic. We are discussing reason and faith, rather than the teachings of Jesus. Let's not make the thread messy by going off topic, but if you like, start a new thread on the "Incompatibility of Reason and Faith," and see where it goes.

Again, you are rattling off little "soundbytes" and buzzwords that have no substantiation.

The gospels were not "misinterpreted," and are even incapable of being misinterpreted. The gospels are narratives, they are not writings of law or teachings. The teachings of Paul later in the New Testament are subject to GREAT misinterpretation, but Jesus himself and the gospels offer no misinterpretation.

Have you even ever read a single gospel, whether canonical or gnostic? It appears that you know very little from the sources themselves, and are relying on all the misinformation that I described previously.

Your data is wrong again. The very first book of the New Testament is a gospel, written by Jesus' disciple Matthew, a first-hand follower and eyewitness to the life and teachings of Jesus. As a matter of fact, Matthew records most substantially the teachings of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, which is the subject of this thread.

The gospel "Mark" was transcribed by John Mark, the traveling companion of Peter, who was a disciple of Jesus. The gospel "Luke" was written by the doctor and historian Luke of Antioch. He introduces his account of Jesus by saying:

"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you..that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught."

Luke records detailed historical data such as names of local rulers, a census that was taken, local high priests, governors of Roman provinces, actual years of time, etc.

John's authorship was questioned in the early twentieth century. However, in ~1948 a dig that discovered more ancient New Testament manuscripts dated "John" much earlier than thought, and have cast overwhelming doubt on a late date of authorship of John's gospel. There are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of New Testament scholars, and to say that John's authorship is "far from being universally accepted" is a gross exaggeration. Some German schools purport this, but it is not mainstream whatsoever. You should research more widely than, "I read it on Wikipedia!"

Misinformation. Think a little more critically, and stop perpetuating ignorance. Be independent- search for the truth for yourself, don't be fed misinformation that is what you want to hear. Actually read the gospels and the gnostic gospels, and decide for yourself.

Again, wrong information. Paul of Tarsus was actually named Saul of Tarsus, and was a tremendous persecutor and killer of Christians. Jesus came to Saul after his resurrection, and radically converted him. Saul from thereafter was called "Paul."

To question whether Paul knew Jesus or not is actually a question of the authenticity of the gospels, whether Jesus was resurrected or not. There are entire books written on this, and a short snippet you can see in my second post, following the one that you quoted. (You may not have seen the second one, as you didn't quote it).

Again, misinformation. The gnostic gospels were either (A.) composed much later and went nowhere (as history as shown), or (B.) were written early and rejected immediately, as history has shown (they are not in the New Testament). There are extremely early accounts of writers and church fathers using the "4 gospels and the writings", referring to the canonical gospels and writings of Paul in the New Testament.

Regardless of how you date the gnostic gospels, early or late composition, the answer is the same. They are the fake "tabloid" versions that I referred to in my second post, that were not considered worthy for posterity, by people or history.

It's funny- I used the word "preposterous" in my post, and now it has been used twice since then. We are getting somewhere =).

You are correct that it is preposterous. Paul himself wrote that the truth about Jesus is "foolishness" to people, because they can't understand it. He wrote, "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he is not able to understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."

Everyone, even atheists, are happy to say Jesus was a real person that lived on the earth. The faith part comes in where reason ends, to have faith that what he said was true. He said that he was God, that he was the Son of God, and that it is only through having trust in him that anyone can have fellowship with God.

Misinformation.

Read my second post, and see my above comments to SubZero. Reason and faith are not incompatible, and even atheists are happy to exercise faith that God does not exist- but they will all be happy to say that it is a reasonable act of faith.

Atheism exercises the same faith that Christianity does, only to the opposite conclusion. Both rely on the same reasoned data.

Wisdom cries aloud in the street,
in the markets she raises her voice;
at the head of the noisy streets she cries out;
at the entrance of the city gates she speaks:
"How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple?
How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing and fools hate knowledge?"
-Proverb of Solomon

-3nigma

Sorry, but I won't follow you along this path, masturbating my mind with theories which can't be proven in any way.
I have better things to do in life. You have your set of beliefs, I have mine. I won't try to prove that mine are better than yours, because that would be foolishness.

When your daughter is of college age, and she is applying for that scholarship, and she is asked about say.. language.. how likely would she be to get that scholarship if, believing the Bible is absolute literal truth, she explained that the reason we have different languages is because God struck down the Tower of Babel and scattered people across the earth, while changing their language.

How proud will you be that your daughter used an open mind while being laughed out of the office?

What happens if she tells you one day she's learned that Allah wants her to pray several times a day, and wear clothes that completely cover her, and oh yeah, she also hates you and your infidel beliefs. She's going to Afghanistan to follow her belief to it's conclusion in a busy market. Will you respect her decision?


The Bible has held up to nothing.

http://www.bidstrup.com/bible2.htm

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/don...sistencies.html

The reason that religious people believe (belief haha) that the Bible is infallible is because they are excellent at dynamically modifying the translation/content/interpretation to fit what they want. One guy I know on another forum, when presented with a phrase from the Bible that seemed to go against his position, conveniently decided that the translation lacked a comma, one that completely changed the sentence to what he wanted it to mean. It's hard to really argue with someone when they keep changing their position to what they want. Also, if you believe the Bible holds up to scrutiny, why are there so many different factions of Christianity? Would not every Christian have the exact same thoughts? Actually, broadening it out, if the Bible is as 100% consistent, would not Jews, Christians AND Muslims all be united behind it? These three would not be distinguishable by name, they would all simply be Bible followers.

The Bible is just another of a long list of "I don't like the previous stories so I'll write my own" tales written by people who didn't know the world but knew how to pretend they did. In today's world they would make decent used car salesmen. That's about it.

Excellent post and very good links, S.SubZero

BTW, I loved your last 2 sentences: people who believe they can sell everything because they are clever with words.

I agree! Excellent way to put it.

As my rather fundamentalist hermenutics professor said, the best biblical interpreters are often those without a religious faith commitment. I am more than ready to discard any of the Bible if the real meaning of it is erroneous, but really the more I just academically study it to find its meaning, the more truthful it seems. And the Bible itself instructs people to be highly sceptical of anything claiming to be divine revelation. Certainly anyone can (and many do) pick phrases from the Bible to support any non-sense they want. It has phrases that are specifically refuted by their contexts.

Well, there is 2,000 years of history in "Christianity." It is also highly possible that there have always been a range of views that could fall under belief in a Savior/Messiah/Christ--even regarding the specific person of Jesus.The ideal for belief is to hold on to what is good and true and reject what is false. Most of what passes as Christian, is not. And from what I have read of it--the Bible isn't terribly interested in establishing a particular religion or even a certain metaphysics. It is very concerned with correcting human problems including religious beliefs.

Sorry, you are just confussed.

So, the point of this story from Genesis is to explain the source of languages? First, that rather ignores the significant point God makes about human potential in that story (a point that seems to echo with the (irrational?) thoughts of atheists like Richard Dawkins and Michio Kaku.)

I remember the chairman of my college humanities department was astonished when he off-handedly mentioned something about John Calvin in a class to find one of his freshman students had a considerable knowledge of the reformer's writings (and no, it certainly wasn't me. I am rather Calvin ignorant.)

By discarding any of it you don't like, aren't you picking phrases you *do* like? By your own words though, the Bible does contain a lot of non-sense. I do enjoy your hypocrisy though. Of course, the stuff YOU pick out is special and obviously right, correct? I mean when it comes down to the ultimate words of the divine creator of the universe, only some of the words are really important. All the.. undesirable content.. well that's just all translated/interpreted wrong. Duh!


I have no doubt that Richard Dawkins knows a lot more about the subject matter than you could ever hope to, so before you even consider anything he says as irrational, I invite you to read The God Delusion, as it's a wonderful book and speaks volumes about the problems of religion. It's a bit sciency, so if you're not quite up to that level of reading there's also Sam Harris' The End of Faith, which is another excellent book that I encourage any religious person to read.

Well, actually I most like the parts that seem to me to be most wrong. That's pretty much why I am persuing education in this direction. It is rather pointless for me to say anything like "I believe the Bible to be infallible (or whatever)" because I understand it so little. I understand a little more all the time. The Bible's authority, if any, is not gained through appeal to divine authorship. It is actually the other way around. God is by definition the "author" of all truth.

Those actually seem to be for atheist children, not for theists. I have seen Dawkins argue several times on this topic, and he does argue against a false supernatural deity. I agree with his conclusion, that that god doesn't exist and never has existed. Even these arguments of his are weak, probably because he is working outside his expertise (H. G. Wells Joan & Peter.) I'd rather read what Dawkins says about biology. For example, Dawkins is an idiot when it comes to understanding physics. I might not fault him much for this except he seems to love to quote physics like Richard Feynman completely out of context. Dawkins seems more than a little like those he so dislikes. There is hope for him though. He seems to like Jesus after all.