Question for Christianity

[Jerrell]

Anyone who has a Biblical or Christian question to ask, ask it here I am willing to answer any and every question any would have.

 

[Ody]

Didn't you have a thread like this before?


...

Why not bring it back and use the same one?

 

[Katzpur]

Anyone who has a Biblical or Christian question to ask, ask it here I am willing to answer any and every question any would have.

I don't have a question for you, Jerrell. I just thought I'd mention that it seems odd to me that you would have started this thread on a debate forum. I hope you're prepared to see posts that challenge your opinions. As you obviously know by now, not all Christians on RF see things in exactly the same way.

 

[Jerrell]

Yes i did have a thread like this before, it got lost in the hundreds of pages here, and i have no idea where it is. And yes i am ready for other's opinions, i have no problem with Christians or people of other religions who feel diffrent from me.

 

[Random]

Jerrell, what are your opinions about New Testament authorship? I refer to the Gospels in particular. Could they be forgeries? Do you attribute their authorship strictly to the apostles or disciples of Christ, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John etc? Do you accept they drew on many varied sources extant @ the time, fifty odd years after Christ, such as Hellenic and Pagan myth and folklore as well as the Judaic tradition? I mean no offence by "myth", I take it to mean metaphor and allegory not untruth.

 

[Halcyon]

Actually i think this is your third thread with the same title, the one you started a little while ago is here;
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37261

I'll just re-post my questions from that thread here for easiness.

Which Gospel gives the correct account of the resurrection?
+
Who was the first to visit the empty tomb?

Why would God separate you from Him simply because you prefer, say, the Muslim or Jain depiction of God over the typical Christian concept?

 

[roli]

I don't have a question for you, Jerrell. I just thought I'd mention that it seems odd to me that you would have started this thread on a debate forum. I hope you're prepared to see posts that challenge your opinions. As you obviously know by now, not all Christians on RF see things in exactly the same way.

....and not all who vow to be Christian are true adherents of the Christ of the bible either,but by title only....!!

 

[Katzpur]

....and not all who vow to be Christian are true adherents of the Christ of the bible either,but by title only....!!

I couldn't agree more. I know a lot of pagans whose lives conform more to the standard that Christ set than do a great many Christians. Interestingly, the Bible is a whole lot more clear as to how a Christian should behave than it is on what a Christian must believe.

 

[Jerrell]

Jerrell, what are your opinions about New Testament authorship? I refer to the Gospels in particular. Could they be forgeries? Do you attribute their authorship strictly to the apostles or disciples of Christ, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John etc? Do you accept they drew on many varied sources extant @ the time, fifty odd years after Christ, such as Hellenic and Pagan myth and folklore as well as the Judaic tradition? I mean no offence by "myth", I take it to mean metaphor and allegory not untruth.

Good Question. The Gospels were written by Two Apostles, Matthew and John, and by two of Paul's companions, Luke and John Mark. Matthew was written to the Jews, Mark for Everyone, John to everyone and Luke to the Gentiles.

Is there any Chance they are forgiries? In my Opinion no, why would 12 men suffer greatly, be cursed by their family, persecuted, stoned, ridiculed, they became outcasts, and 11 of the Apostles died because of Christ, how can they be fake ot flase in their message? The details in the Gospels are to the exact, the Festivles, the times, the details of when things happened, and in what order, and how things were done. The Gospels are somewhat like a Biography, too many minute details to just be made up.


The Gospel of John is one of the Earlyist Gospels written, some 30-50 years after Christ's death. Also ythe others were written well within a century after Christ's death. Luke and John Mark may have very well got their information from outside sources, maybe even the Gospel Q, a lost set of Gospel information. I beleive that Luke and Mark got their information from Paul himself, witnesses, and Peter, and maybe a few other Apotles.

It seems strange that if Jesus was to condemn Paganism, and then his followers use paganist myths to write his Ministorial story. If we are to attirbute historical narratives to be folklore or myth, then it is well within our right. Just as the Persians do not beleive the holocuast happened, just as the Japanese do not beleive the truth about WWII, just as some people doubt that The Americans even landed on the moon, and so much more, we can always find a reason to doubt something, we can make up so many excuses. As for me, the details, the fulfillment of Prophecy is to accurate to be just myth or folklore.

-I hope i answered your question.

 

[Jerrell]

1)Which Gospel gives the correct account of the resurrection?

Each Gospel presents a diffrent perspective of the ressurection. John was actually there, Matthew saw Jesus after he was risen, and Luke and John Mark gathered informatin from witnesses, and Apostles. All of the Ressurection accounts are accurate, cause each gives a diffrent perspective.


2)Who was the first to visit the empty tomb?

Mary Magdalene and Mary the Mother James, and Salome were the first to visit the tomb (Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1, Luke 24:1, John 20:1). They, once seeing Jesus went and told the Disciples, Peter and John then ran to the tomb and saw two angels who said, "why look ye among the dead for the living?'. After this Jesus appeared to 10 of the disciples, and to Thomas the 11th later.


3)Why would God separate you from Him simply because you prefer, say, the Muslim or Jain depiction of God over the typical Christian concept?

Who is God? If God is God as decribed by Christ and the Jews, then why should God, the Father, give his glory unto a perverted and anthropermorphic version of him? The God of Islam does not have a Son, while the God as presented in the Old and new Testament does. Jesus said it all clearly, "I am the way the truth and the life, no man cometh to the father but by me." Essentially, God doesn't seperate himself from you becuase you want to worship the Moslem or Jainsh God, but we seperate ourselves from him. We make the choice of wether to serve him throuby Jesus, or by another way.
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]
John 10:9 "I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]
John 10:1-18 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber"[/FONT]

 

[Random]

I hope I answered your question.

Yes, you did. Thanks, Jerrell.

 

[Halcyon]

The Gospel of John is one of the Earlyist Gospels written, some 30-50 years after Christ's death.

I'm sorry, but where are you getting that from?

Each Gospel presents a diffrent perspective of the ressurection. John was actually there, Matthew saw Jesus after he was risen, and Luke and John Mark gathered informatin from witnesses, and Apostles. All of the Ressurection accounts are accurate, cause each gives a diffrent perspective.

Sure, i understand each was from a different perspective, but what i mean is - which is the correct version. Which gives the correct last saying of Jesus?
I mean, his last saying cannot be a quote from Psalm 22 followed by a loud cry and also "Father, in your hands i place my spirit" and also "I am thirsty" followed by "It is accomplished". Only one of those three scenarios can be the correct account, which is it?

Mary Magdalene and Mary the Mother James, and Salome were the first to visit the tomb (Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1, Luke 24:1, John 20:1). They, once seeing Jesus went and told the Disciples, Peter and John then ran to the tomb and saw two angels who said, "why look ye among the dead for the living?'. After this Jesus appeared to 10 of the disciples, and to Thomas the 11th later.

Really? Not according to my bible. Matthew has Mary Magdalene and another Mary - it doesn't say which one - visiting the tomb alone, no one else does.

Mark has Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome visiting the tomb alone.

Luke has Mary Magdalene, Joanna and Mary the mother of James first to the tomb, later followed by Peter alone.

John has Mary Magdalene alone visiting the tomb, but returning before she entered it after she spied the stone had be rolled away. She went and got Peter and the Beloved Disciple, the Beloved Disciple was the first to the tomb.

Your version seems to be an amalgamation of the accounts of Mark and John. Why discount Joanna and the account of Peter alone returning without the Beloved Disciple?

 

[Jerrell]

I'm sorry, but where are you getting that from?


Sure, i understand each was from a different perspective, but what i mean is - which is the correct version. Which gives the correct last saying of Jesus?
I mean, his last saying cannot be a quote from Psalm 22 followed by a loud cry and also "Father, in your hands i place my spirit" and also "I am thirsty" followed by "It is accomplished". Only one of those three scenarios can be the correct account, which is it?


Really? Not according to my bible. Matthew has Mary Magdalene and another Mary - it doesn't say which one - visiting the tomb alone, no one else does.

Mark has Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome visiting the tomb alone.

Luke has Mary Magdalene, Joanna and Mary the mother of James first to the tomb, later followed by Peter alone.

John has Mary Magdalene alone visiting the tomb, but returning before she entered it after she spied the stone had be rolled away. She went and got Peter and the Beloved Disciple, the Beloved Disciple was the first to the tomb.

Your version seems to be an amalgamation of the accounts of Mark and John. Why discount Joanna and the account of Peter alone returning without the Beloved Disciple?

1) John's Gospel Judging from it's contents and other factors was written in the year 90 A.D. Jesus died around 30 A.D. Since these both are approximate there is a window of error of a few years. The Maximun amount of years after Jesus' death that this book could have been written is up to 50 years. Therefore I said 30-50 years.

2) The fact that they are diffren perspectives should answer your question, certain poeple only heard certain things, maybe some did not remember all that Jesus had said, maybe they were not there. John was the only Apostle present at the Crucifixion of Jesus, the others were off hiding, while Jesus' Disciples other the the 11(Judas was dead) were there.

You asked me about the Ressurection, not the Crucifixion...what you wish to know is about the Crucifixion.

If you notice only John gives so much Eye Witness Information, While Luke and Mark had to gather from Witnesses. All accounts are true, but the information revealed is limtied, until all is put together.

a) Jesus creid Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani, meaning My God My God why hast thou forsaken me? (Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34) Jesus then seeing his Mother, and the Beloved Disciple, yelled, "Woman, Behold thy son!, then he said to the Disciple, Behold thy Mother!" Jesus then said I Thirst (John 19:28), Then one of the women took him a sponge with viniger on it and gave it to him to drink (Study of History, Matthew 27:48, Mark 15:36). Jesus having recieved something to drink, said "It is Finshed" After this he cried with a loud voice, saying "Father into thine hands I commend my Spirit" John 19:30.

No man is perfect and able to recall every single detail of a moment. Even if it was one day ago, sometimes we'll leave out what A person said, and somebody eles will remember it, That is what happened, John rememebred some, Matthew, John Mark and Luke gathered information (about this instance) from others, who only rememebrd so much. The glory of it is, that we can get what each person or persons remembered from each Book in the Bible.


3) Remember that Luke was not around when Jesus rose from the Grave.

Here is a Chronological Order of what Happened at Jesus' borrowed tomb.

A) Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, Salome, and Joaana, and another unnamed woman, went to the Grave and saw that it was empty. (notice that the authors only write what they see is important to convey the message they wish to send).

B) Mary runs, and meets Peter and John, they all go to the tomb. Peter and John look in, seeing the linen folded(John 20:6-8) Peter and John go back, while Mary Remains, crying, she then goes in a sees Two angels sitting where Jesus had lain(John 20:11-13). The Angels asked her, "Why do you weep?", She said becuase "they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him." The others with her went away and retunred to where they came, Mary Magdalene turned around and mistook Jesus for a Gerdener, until he revealed himself as Jesus. Mary then ran back to the disciples and told them that she had seen Jesus, meeting the others there (Luke 24:10).

 

[logician]

The many conflicts of the gospels show convincingly that the gospels(written by unknow authors) were made up - generally from pre-existent religious tales or pagan beliefs, or to fulfill some OT prophecy. Each gospel writer embellished on the stories according to their own bias or background.

 

[Mister_T]

The many conflicts of the gospels show convincingly that the gospels(written by unknow authors) were made up

Not necessarily. Have you ever asked a group of people who witenessed an certain event to share their story about what had happened? They all have different versions. Does that mean that the story was made up? No. They were just viewed and told from different perspectives.

 

[JerryL]

Is there any Chance they are forgiries? In my Opinion no, why would 12 men suffer greatly, be cursed by their family, persecuted, stoned, ridiculed, they became outcasts, and 11 of the Apostles died because of Christ, how can they be fake ot flase in their message?

But, of course, you cannot prove this claim.

John certainly lived quite a long time and in the circles of power, eventually moving to the capitol IIRC. Paul ruled the religion after Peter, having underlings like Luke and John Mark. There's no real evidence that the apostles were any more ridiculed than any public figure of today; in fact I'm not sure we can historically account that the bulk of them even existed.

Further, two of the gospels, by your own admission, were writen by people who never saw any of the events... so what's your assertation? That they really didn't see what they claim to have not seen?I agree with that.

The details in the Gospels are to the exact

You mean like what color Robe Jesus wore, or whether Judas evecierated or hung himself, or the two differing liniages of Adam-Joseph. There are plenty of specific details, and often they don't match (which is odd if we assume at least that last two authors had the writings of the first two).

The Gospel of John is one of the Earlyist Gospels written, some 30-50 years after Christ's death.

So the Earlies Gospel is written when Jesus's contemporaries would have been in their 80s during a time where average life expectancy was less than half that? And that's the earliest gospel? That's not very reassuring.

I beleive that Luke and Mark got their information from Paul himself, witnesses, and Peter, and maybe a few other Apotles.

Well Paul wasn't there for any of the events. And I'm not sure what 80+ year old witnesses who lived in a different subcontinent could offer (IIRC, Paul lived in Rome). You can't substantiate their sources either way; but create a timeline where most potential witnesses would be dead.

Just as the Persians do not beleive the holocuast happened, just as the Japanese do not beleive the truth about WWII, just as some people doubt that The Americans even landed on the moon, and so much more, we can always find a reason to doubt something, we can make up so many excuses. As for me, the details, the fulfillment of Prophecy is to accurate to be just myth or folklore.

Just as the creationists don't believe the truths of geology, physics, and biology, just as the Christians don't believe the Zeus killed Chronos, just as you deny that Aliens retrieved the Heaven's Gate group; so we can always find a reason to doubt something.

Of course, that reason is much easier to find when there are so many valid ones floating around. I'm curious why you believe the Bible and not the Illiad.

 

[JerryL]

Not necessarily. Have you ever asked a group of people who witenessed an certain event to share their story about what had happened? They all have different versions. Does that mean that the story was made up? No. They were just viewed and told from different perspectives.

No. Differing accuonts of an event do not mean the event was fictitious. But when accounts conflict on objective fact, at most one can be correct.

If Judas hung himself, then he did not evecerate himself and vice-versa. If the robe placed on Jesus was red, then it was not purple (if it was mutli-colored, then it's minimally misleading to say it was one or the other; much like if i said "the sun is black" because sunspots are).

Though in the case of two gospels, it's moot as we all agree they were written by people who weren't there. There's a positve claim on the table about where the authors got their information, but I've yet to see substantiation.

 

[uumckk16]

Not necessarily. Have you ever asked a group of people who witenessed an certain event to share their story about what had happened? They all have different versions. Does that mean that the story was made up? No. They were just viewed and told from different perspectives.

That's a good point. However, isn't the Bible supposed to be God's Word? In that case, either the accounts should match up - because I'd assume God would give the same story to the various authors - or it must be admitted that the Bible is riddled with human perspective, in which case it loses its status as the Word and becomes merely a book of human experience. I see nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't seem to fit into the context of Christian faith.

This is something I've always been confused about. Can someone please explain the Christian perspective on this?

 

[Mister_T]

No. Differing accuonts of an event do not mean the event was fictitious. But when accounts conflict on objective fact, at most one can be correct.

How do ya figure one at most?
Even there are all of these "conflicts," there are three things in all 4 accounts that do not conflict: Jesus was the son of God, he was crucified, and he was ressurected.

If Judas hung himself, then he did not evecerate himself

Judas did hang himself and his bowels did gush out. What do you think happens to bloated corpses of people that are left out in the sun too long?

If the robe placed on Jesus was red, then it was not purple

Different shade of red and purple can look like either or.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Good Question. The Gospels were written by Two Apostles, Matthew and John, and by two of Paul's companions, Luke and John Mark.

That is a baseless and, therefore worthless, assertion, and your subsequent pedagogy is no better. All you manage to demonstrate is an irresponsible ignorance of current scolarship or an arrogant willingness to discount it. You have every right to believe whatever you wish, but it suggests remarkable hubris that you would presume to instruct others.