Christianity And Life

[Simonsays]

If you want to be technical about it, Jewish sects originate in Christ. E.g., "I am the alpha and omega."

It is just a modern semantic thing to says Christianity arose out of Judaism which results from a sort of materialist historical perspective but which is theological incorrect. (Even going by materialist argument, modern Jews are nothing like ancient Hebrews. At any rate, the semantics are all wrong.)

Judaism is a lot older than Christianity. FACT. The Old Testament (Judaism) comes before the New Testament ((Christian), thats why its called New!

Kyle, its not about semantics. Jewish sects do not originate in Christ, its the other way round. It isnt a modern semantic thing. Are you saying the Bible is chronologically wrong?

 

[kyle]

You could certainly make the argument that Christianity originated in Greek thought- who also conceived of the trinity. It was so envisioned by Plato. The analogy was the man on horseback- the rational mind was the rider (or soul), the horse represented man's will, and then beyond that there was the prime mover, the thing that came before all creation. Greeks believed by understanding the prime mover (the father in Christian thought), one could overcome the will and live in accordance with the father. In fact, in the bible which was written in Greek, Christ is called Logos, the Greek word for the prime mover or the higher order. It borrowed the exact terms.

However, it'd be a reaching conclusion to say Christianity originated as a Platonic sect. If you're into archeological and historical threads like this- I think this would be a fruitful place to start looking to be honest.

It is a semantic thing. For example, the same people calling themselves Jews today (whose body of doctrine originated centuries after Christ) trying to start a nation in the middle east called "Israel" is extremely confusing because these same terms appear in the bible.

Christians are the new Israel because it is a spiritual state, not a geographical location. Moreover, the followers of Moses are certainly not the same as the people calling themselves Jews today. The followers of Moses and the followers are Christ are the same because Christ fulfilled Moses' prophecy. Christ would even say, "there is neither Jew nor Gentile."

It took me a while to start to understand all the lies surrounding this topic, this is why I'm being particular about the terms here. Anglos in particular struggle with this because of certain political forces which have clouded certain meanings.

 

[Simonsays]

You could certainly make the argument that Christianity originated in Greek thought-

Correct! But your missing out how. The Essenes.

The Essenes were profoundly influenced by the new Greek philosophy and culture. Their religion was a fusing of their traditional Judaism and Greek philosophy. Christianity grew out of Essenism. The New Testament is written in Greek, not Hebrew and later translated into Latin.

All the main players are given Greek versions of Jewish names. Joshua = Jesus, Miriam = Mary, Saul = Paul, etc.

The Essenes themselves split into various factions arguing over doctrine and beliefs.

The Christianity of today is descended from one faction( the eventual winning faction so to speak ) That Jesus was divine and is in fact God, born of a virgin, was crucified and resurrected to heaven etc.

It took over 300 years for its core beliefs to finally coalesce into what we know today.

A good summing up:

When Constantine became the first Christian leader of the Roman Empire in the 4th century, his vast territory was populated by a hodgepodge of beliefs and religions.

Within his own young religion, there was also dissent, with one major question threatening to cleave the popular cult — as it was at the time — into warring factions: Was Jesus divine, and how?

A.D. 325, when Constantine was forced to take action to quell the controversy.

That summer, 318 bishops from across the empire were invited to the Turkish town of Nicea, where Constantine had a vacation house, in an attempt to find common ground on what historians now refer to as the Arian Controversy. It was the first ever worldwide gathering of the Church.

The Christianity we know today is a result of what those men agreed upon over that sticky month, including the timing of the religion's most important holiday, Easter, which celebrates Jesus rising from the dead.

Christianity was young and still working out the kinks when Constantine took power over the Roman Empire in A.D. 306. Christian doctrine at the time was muddled and inconsistent, especially when it came to the central question of Jesus' relationship to God. (Why?)

Jesus was as eternally divine as the Father, said one camp led by the Archbishop Alexander of Alexandria. Another group, named the Arians after their leader Arius the preacher, saw Jesus as a remarkable leader, but inferior to the Father and lacking in absolute divinity.

It's hard to imagine riots in the streets, pamphlet wars and vicious rhetoric spawned by such a question, but that was the nature of things in A.D. 325, when Constantine was forced to take action to quell the controversy.

Supporters on both sides scrawled graffiti on town walls in defiance while bishops from across the empire entered into a war of words as the controversy simmered to a head in 324.

Fearing unrest in his otherwise peaceful territory, Constantine summoned the bishops to his lake house in Nicea on June 19, 325.

A compromise proffered by Constantine was vague, but blandly pleasing: Jesus and God were of the same "substance," he suggested, without delving too much into the nature of that relationship. A majority of the bishops agreed on the compromise and voted to pass the language into doctrine.

Their statement of compromise, which would come to be known as "The Nicene Creed," formed the basis for all Christian ideology . The bishops also used the Council of Nicea to set in stone some church rules that needed clarification, and those canons were the reference point after which all future laws were modeled.

As a final order of business, the bishops decided upon a date for the holiest of Christian celebrations, Easter, which was being observed at different times around the empire. Previously linked with the timing of Passover, (the last supper was a Passover meal) the council settled on a moveable day that would never coincide again with the Jewish holiday — the first Sunday after the first full moon on or after the vernal equinox. (Christianity moving away from its Jewish/Essene origins)

So Jesus divinity was a compromise of men decided by a vote of men. These things are ever self evident truths or they arent. Theyre not up for discussion and a vote.

All modern day Christianity , Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant is based on these events.

How many Christians today are even aware of this?? Modern Christianity is based on a corruption, a compromise , a vote by bishops of the Roman Empire.

the gospel is the foundation of the Christian faith, not the old testament.

,

Jesus was believed to be descended from King David of Israel as clearly stated in Gospels Matthew and Luke trying to prove his royal bloodline, to King David via his father Joseph. His father is Joseph, his mother Mary. It therefore directly contradicts the virgin birth.

Are Matthew and Luke wrong ? They must be , if you believe Joseph is not the literal father of Jesus.

According to the 4th Century Eusebius, the first two Bishops of Jerusalem, James the brother of the Lord, and Simeon the son of Clopas, were named as relatives of Jesus by the 2nd Century writer Hegesippus.

Eusebius records that Hegesippus also wrote that another brother of Jesus - Jude (who wrote the NT epistle) - had two grandsons who were brought before the Emperor Domitian because he thought they might be politically dangerous (he had heard claims that they were descended from the Kings of Israel and rumours that they were looking for a New Kingdom to arrive). But these great-nephews of Jesus explained that they were only poor farmers who awaited a new kingdom in the spiritual sense, and so they were allowed to depart.

 

[Simonsays]

Jesus observed the sabbath on a Saturday, so why dont Christians??

The second most important date in the Christian calendar is Christmas Day, the day "The Christ" was born. But why the 25th December, it must be in the Gospels?? Why is the sabbath moved from Saturday to Sunday ?? The day of the resurrection possibly?

The first recorded date of Christmas being celebrated on December 25th was in 336, during the time of the Roman Emperor Constantine (him again). A few years later, Pope Julius I officially declared that the birth of Jesus would be celebrated on the 25th December.

Dies Natalis Solis Invicti means 'birthday of the unconquered sun' and was held on December 25th (when the Romans thought the Winter Solstice took place) and was the 'birthday' of the Pagan Sun god Mithra. In the pagan religion of Mithraism, the holy day was Sunday.

Sun Worship on Sunday

At that time the cult of Mithraism or sun-worship was the official religion of the Roman Empire. It stood as the greatest competitor to the new Christian religion. It had its own organization, temples, priesthood, robes—everything. It also had an official worship day on which special homage was given to the sun. That day was called “The Venerable Day of the Sun.” It was the first day of the week, and from it we get our name Sunday. When Constantine pressed his pagan hordes into the church they were observing the day of the sun for their adoration of the sun god. It was their special holy day. In order to make it more convenient for them to make the change to the new religion, Constantine accepted their day of worship, Sunday, instead of the Christian Sabbath which had been observed by Jesus and His disciples. Remember that the way had been prepared for this already by the increasing anti-Jewish feelings against those who were accused of putting Jesus to death. (Although Jesus was crucified by the Romans under Roman law. Stoning to death was the Jewish custom) Those feelings would naturally condition many Christians to swing away from something which was held religiously by the Jews. It is therefore easier to understand how the change was imposed on Christianity through a strong civil law issued by Constantine as the Emperor of Rome. The very wording of that law, by the way, can be found in any reliable encyclopedia. Those early Christians, feeling that the Jews should not be followed any more than necessary, were ready to swing away from the Sabbath which was kept by the Jews.

So going to church on a Sunday, or obeying the sabbath, has nothing to do with "The Gospels" or Jesus. Its a pagan tradition as is Christmas Day.

Jesus was probably born in the spring sometime, when shepherds watched their flocks by night , during lambing time. The lambs were also used in the Jewish Passover meal at this time of year. Jesus was "the lamb of God".

 

[charlie]

@tca300, the NAB bible is not a good source of the Word. The King James Bible is what should be used and even then the words need to be taken back to the Hebrew, Greek, etc to make sure the translations are as they should be.

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her." (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NAB)

Here is how it reads with proper translation:

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

These were two consenting adults.

"... And the LORD said unto Moses, 'Take all the heads of the people and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel." (Numbers 25:3-4)

"Amalek was the son of Esau, and when the Israelites were wandering in the desert for those forty years, after being released from their captivity in Egypt, the Amalekites plotted and laid wait to destroy the Israelites. They were relatives of the Israelites, and they sought to take advantage of their own kin. God doesn't approve of relatives turning on their own kin."

Source

God slowly kills a baby because of his fathers mistake.
( 2 Samuel chapter 12 )

For further study:

2Samuel12

“If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple." ( Luke 14:26 )

This is a translator error, "hate" should be "love less". So it will read like so:

"If any man come to me, and love less not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

God is Love, not hate. satan would like you to think God wakes up every morning waiting to strike someone down, that is not the case. satan has control of the world and its religions at this time, and doing a lot of damage with it.

Another big mistake made by the translators in many verses is the word "fear". It should have been translated "revere" or "reverence".

“If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple." ( Luke 14:26 )

Another bad translation.

"This verse has been badly translated from the Hebrew text. Lets take a close look at two words here, the words "create", and "evil". The verb "create" or "bara" in the Hebrew requires the rendering "to bring about". This word has to be determined in the context of it's use.

The word "evil" is never rendered "sin", but "calamity". God brings calamity into our lives as the inevitable consequences of the sin that is committed. God is saying that if you chose to bring sin in your life, you can count on the calamity that will follow. God has not created the sin, or evil, but God has created the individuals that have turned to evil. Then when you get out of line, God provides the distress within your life to show you that you are out of line, and by that calamity you know it is time to repent and get back into line.

If you are a child of God, you will pick up on those times when you are out of the will of God, and see the distress for what it is and thank Him for it. You will get back to where you should be, and then God will straighten you path and break down those bars and gates that are in your way. However it is all up to you."
Source

God approved of the people throwing rocks at Achan, his CHILDREN , and even his animals, until they died ( stoning ) because HE stole some stuff.
( Joshua 7 )

He brought things of Baal worship back into the camp of Israel. Baal worship = satan worship. This had been done in sight of the entire family, they were all at fault. Nuff said.

"Also the daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by harlotry, she profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire." ( Leviticus 21:9 )

She would be stoned to death first, then burned. Being a Levite is serious business, that tribe is held to very high standards. Seek other Gods while being a Levite, you will be face to face with the Father very soon to answer for your sins.

God has two bears tear apart 42 children for making fun of Elisha for being bald. ( 2 Kings 2 )

These were older teens up to around 30 years old, and also Baal worshippers who were mocking God. Mock God and watch out for bears.

God hardens Pharoahs heart so he would be stubborn and not listen to moses. One of the punishments for Pharoah not listening is to kill hundrends of innocent firstborn boys... So the god of the bible kills a bunch of children, men, and animals because he himself made Pharoah stubborn and unwilling to listen. ( Exodus 9:12, and ch12 )

Pharaoh went against God and refused to let Israel out of captivity. Don't mess with God or you might get a plague or 10.

Ya, thats quite a book.

If you read with understanding, rightly dividing the Word of God, studying to show yourself approved. It is indeed quite a Book.

 

[charlie]

And Elijah was supposed to come back when the end is at hand. And John the baptist was Elijah?

He most likely will be one of the two witnesses of the end times. John the baptist came in the spirit of Elijah, he was not Elijah.

"Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

He was speaking of His death and resurrection that was about to happen.

Jesus observed the sabbath on a Saturday, so why dont Christians??

Jesus became our Sabath. Every moment is the Sabath with Christ.

The second most important date in the Christian calendar is Christmas Day, the day "The Christ" was born.

Jesus was born around September 29th. He was conceived on Christmas day. This is easily documented through Zachariah and the Course of Abia.

Jesus was believed to be descended from King David of Israel as clearly stated in Gospels Matthew and Luke trying to prove his royal bloodline, to King David via his father Joseph. His father is Joseph, his mother Mary. It therefore directly contradicts the virgin birth.

His Father is God.

 

[tca300]

@charlie Im willing to take the time to show you your wrong on a lot of ( not all ) what you said, but I would like you to answer some questions before I invest my time. Do you think the god of the bible murdering or haveing his people murder children, including new borns, kill entire tribes/cities of people, except the little virgin girls who were kept by the men, kill people in the most painful or horrific ways imaginable ( fire, wild animals tearing them apart, drowning, poisonous snakes, throwing rocks at someone until it finally ends their life etc.. ) being jealous of and killing or having other people killed for worshiping pretend gods is ok, loving, or moral in any context? Do those doings sound like the work of a creature that is described AS the definition of love in the bible? Really put yourself there and imagine what it would be like to be a part of, or see those things taking place. I have seen a young woman get stoned by about 30 men, it was by far the most disturbing thing I have, and probably will ever witness. If God told you to go and put a sword through a newborn baby, what would you do? How would you respond?

 

[Such_Saturation]

He most likely will be one of the two witnesses of the end times. John the baptist came in the spirit of Elijah, he was not Elijah.


He was speaking of His death and resurrection that was about to happen.

Jesus became our Sabath. Every moment is the Sabath with Christ.


Jesus was born around September 29th. He was conceived on Christmas day. This is easily documented through Zachariah and the Course of Abia.


His Father is God.

I can suddenly make sense of the Trump, the flat earth, and profanity filter

 

[damngoodcoffee]

He was speaking of His death and resurrection that was about to happen.

It's like this in other gospels: will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God

 

[charlie]

It's like this in other gospels: will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God

Some people are not appointed to die in the flesh including all those alive at the end of this age, they will just transfigure.

 

[Simonsays]

The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947 in caves near the plateau called Qumran, at the north-west corner of the Dead Sea. After it was established beyond doubt that they had come from the general period of the rise of Christianity, scholars were stunned to find that the community which wrote them were so close to the early Christians that there would have to be a historical connection.

Only a small number were in the complete form of scrolls, the majority in fragments of varying size. At a rough estimate, the remains of some 800 documents were found. The greater proportion of these were copies of books of the Old Testament, showing that the writers were Jews. But they were not orthodox Jews. The other documents, new works that have attracted the greatest interest, show that the writers belonged to a strongly integrated community which lived in a way that separated them from mainstream Jews. (Essene)

Each of their differences from the mainstream paralleled a distinctive practice of the earliest Christians. The Qumran (Essene) community - as they are best called - met every day for a sacred meal of bread and new wine. They put all their property into a common stock. According to the New Testament book of Acts , this combination was also true of the first generation of Christians. "All who believed were together and had all things in common...Every day...breaking bread in houses, they received food in gladness and simplicity of heart." (Acts 2:44-46)

The Qumran community practised baptisms, using the deep rectangular cisterns that are the most striking feature of the buildings excavated near the caves. In their separation from the world, they renounced marriage, expressing in their works the belief that sexual intercourse was sinful and defiling. The early Christians also used baptism as a rite of initiation, and they held, in a more moderate form, a belief that celibacy was preferable to the married state.

The two groups even had names in common. The name the New Covenant - the term that gave New Testament - was used for the Qumran community, and also by Christians. Both used the name the Way, as well as a word that came to mean "church". Both were under the authority of bishops, who had the same particular duties.

Most strikingly of all, both groups had a messianic expectation, laying great emphasis on an ideal age soon to come. But at Qumran there would be two Messiahs, one a priest, one a layman. They were called the Messiah of Aaron and the Messiah of Israel. With them would be another called the Prophet. (Became the Christian Trinity, Father, Son, Holy Ghost or Priest , Prophet and King)

In the coming time, for Qumran, there would be a great final battle, between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness. It would result in the destruction of all evil men, so that only the initiates of the community would remain in a purified world. The Christians also used the name Sons of Light, and in their book of Revelation anticipated a coming Armageddon which would have the same effect.

While these were parallels that must necessarily link the two groups in some way, there were also major differences, so that the Qumran group cannot be called Christian. They were extremely legalistic, insisting on an even stricter application of the laws of Moses than mainstream Jews. The sabbath had to be observed with the utmost rigour. One of the emphases of the gospels is on Jesus' breaking the sabbath rules, and being attacked by Jews for his disregard of their purification rites. The rivalry between the supporters of John the Baptist, identified with the scrolls’ “Teacher of Righteousness,” and Jesus, identified with the “Man of the Lie."

As soon as it was recognised that there were close parallels, there was a theological crisis. For popular Christianity, Jesus was a founder of something that was new in every way, directly revealed by God through him. This was the reason for the authority of Christian belief. If other people at the same time had been doing the same things, yet were not Christian, how could it be said that Christians had the sole, unique Truth, against which all else had to be measured?

Indeed.

 

[sugarisgreat]

@Such Saturation:

If you believe that, I would encourage, you to read this:

Why I Believe the Bible - Proof that the Creator God Wrote the Bible

 

[Such_Saturation]

No one in the Bible ever worried about those who rejected the existence of God, and neither will we.

Wow thanks guys.

 

[Ledo]

@charlie Im willing to take the time to show you your wrong on a lot of ( not all ) what you said, but I would like you to answer some questions before I invest my time. Do you think the god of the bible murdering or haveing his people murder children, including new borns, kill entire tribes/cities of people, except the little virgin girls who were kept by the men, kill people in the most painful or horrific ways imaginable ( fire, wild animals tearing them apart, drowning, poisonous snakes, throwing rocks at someone until it finally ends their life etc.. ) being jealous of and killing or having other people killed for worshiping pretend gods is ok, loving, or moral in any context? Do those doings sound like the work of a creature that is described AS the definition of love in the bible? Really put yourself there and imagine what it would be like to be a part of, or see those things taking place. I have seen a young woman get stoned by about 30 men, it was by far the most disturbing thing I have, and probably will ever witness. If God told you to go and put a sword through a newborn baby, what would you do? How would you respond?

We are talking about Christianity not Islam, surely you're not confused?
Christians already had their reformation.

 

[Ledo]

The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947 in caves near the plateau called Qumran, at the north-west corner of the Dead Sea. After it was established beyond doubt that they had come from the general period of the rise of Christianity, scholars were stunned to find that the community which wrote them were so close to the early Christians that there would have to be a historical connection.

Only a small number were in the complete form of scrolls, the majority in fragments of varying size. At a rough estimate, the remains of some 800 documents were found. The greater proportion of these were copies of books of the Old Testament, showing that the writers were Jews. But they were not orthodox Jews. The other documents, new works that have attracted the greatest interest, show that the writers belonged to a strongly integrated community which lived in a way that separated them from mainstream Jews. (Essene)

Each of their differences from the mainstream paralleled a distinctive practice of the earliest Christians. The Qumran (Essene) community - as they are best called - met every day for a sacred meal of bread and new wine. They put all their property into a common stock. According to the New Testament book of Acts , this combination was also true of the first generation of Christians. "All who believed were together and had all things in common...Every day...breaking bread in houses, they received food in gladness and simplicity of heart." (Acts 2:44-46)

The Qumran community practised baptisms, using the deep rectangular cisterns that are the most striking feature of the buildings excavated near the caves. In their separation from the world, they renounced marriage, expressing in their works the belief that sexual intercourse was sinful and defiling. The early Christians also used baptism as a rite of initiation, and they held, in a more moderate form, a belief that celibacy was preferable to the married state.

The two groups even had names in common. The name the New Covenant - the term that gave New Testament - was used for the Qumran community, and also by Christians. Both used the name the Way, as well as a word that came to mean "church". Both were under the authority of bishops, who had the same particular duties.

Most strikingly of all, both groups had a messianic expectation, laying great emphasis on an ideal age soon to come. But at Qumran there would be two Messiahs, one a priest, one a layman. They were called the Messiah of Aaron and the Messiah of Israel. With them would be another called the Prophet. (Became the Christian Trinity, Father, Son, Holy Ghost or Priest , Prophet and King)

In the coming time, for Qumran, there would be a great final battle, between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness. It would result in the destruction of all evil men, so that only the initiates of the community would remain in a purified world. The Christians also used the name Sons of Light, and in their book of Revelation anticipated a coming Armageddon which would have the same effect.

While these were parallels that must necessarily link the two groups in some way, there were also major differences, so that the Qumran group cannot be called Christian. They were extremely legalistic, insisting on an even stricter application of the laws of Moses than mainstream Jews. The sabbath had to be observed with the utmost rigour. One of the emphases of the gospels is on Jesus' breaking the sabbath rules, and being attacked by Jews for his disregard of their purification rites. The rivalry between the supporters of John the Baptist, identified with the scrolls’ “Teacher of Righteousness,” and Jesus, identified with the “Man of the Lie."

As soon as it was recognised that there were close parallels, there was a theological crisis. For popular Christianity, Jesus was a founder of something that was new in every way, directly revealed by God through him. This was the reason for the authority of Christian belief. If other people at the same time had been doing the same things, yet were not Christian, how could it be said that Christians had the sole, unique Truth, against which all else had to be measured?

Indeed.

Thanks simonsays great posts. Not to challenge you but I wonder how controversial your point of view is especially as it pertains to the Dead Sea Scrolls...are you aware of much disagreement among historians, or Clergy regarding interpretation of events?

 

[Simonsays]

Thanks simonsays great posts. Not to challenge you but I wonder how controversial your point of view is especially as it pertains to the Dead Sea Scrolls...are you aware of much disagreement among historians, or Clergy regarding interpretation of events?

I dont know about independent historians, but the clergy would obviously have a problem with it, for obvious reasons, as it goes against the "Roman Christianity" mainstream which as been preached for about 1700 years.

Interestingly, with the birth of Islam in the 6th Century in Arabia, Jesus is accepted as a prophet of God and is not "divine". So Mohammed was able to draw on a different strain of Christianity, not the Roman one, codified at the Council of Nicea AD325.

Even St Paul acknowledges that some believe Christians dont believe Jesus was resurrected. (Corinthians 1 15:17). His answer is that if there was no resurrection, then our faith in Christ has been in vain. Basically, if it didnt happen, those who are dying/persecuted in his name hoping for redemption is all a waste of time, so we best believe in it.

 

[kyle]

RP speaks highly of of orthodox Christians and Aristotle. I don't think he'd find anything wrong with the Thomist tradition

Where does he talk about this?

 

[FD8]

Where does he talk about this?

Mind and Tissue

 

[kyle]

Simon I appreciate the historical perspective you shared, I'd be curious where you are drawing it all from though it seems to meld a lot of sources I have read.

If I'm not mistaken, your perspective is that these historical events all seem to indicate Christianity can very well just be a historical concoction that happened to be at the right place and right time so as to last through 2000 years of history. If we accept the Christian account of Christ, his origins are not in anything human made but something outside of time and thus man's account of history. I realize this seems like a non-argument but I think you are faced with two options: accept man's account of history on faith or accept the Christian understanding on faith.

I think those are two very different things by their nature. Christians are *saying* something about history itself. It introduces concepts that don't seem to be found in merely materialist accounts: this idea of a holy spirit, not affected by the winds of change. A materialist will assume the church was a ploy for economic power -- because modern people define ourselves through economic power, don't they?

Therefore we read into history things which may or may not have existed. We assume man is incapable of anything but blind self-interest because that's how we moderns have come to understand man, therefore our perception of history narrows due to our own prejudice. It is therefore easy for us to hear an account of the church without ever touching on or living the faith. We can look at it from the outside.

But then if you keep reading history (this is my experience at least) you discover conflicting accounts wherever you go, even of events from the past decade. So you begin to question just the sort of impression we're being taught- as the saying goes, the victor writes history. This is why I can't say that trying to "materialize" the church and Christ into something merely as a historical event like the 'economic output of the American industrial revolution'- in other words, as a sort of mechanism.

Again, i hope I'm not misrepresenting your point but this is why I don't believe it is as demystifying as it might seem. Christ said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” Now from here you could say- this is either something a mad man would claim or it was something prophetic about the sort of heresies you are bringing up, like the Arian heresy.

I'm sure someone has been in that situation as a kid or seen a kid do this in some squabble- they'll say "prove it, prove it, prove it." On one hand it seems really obnoxious but in a way those kids get something really odd about life where we're expected to believe things that are merely the cultural prescriptions of the day. Kids are so naive and innocent they're happy to be outrageously skeptical while at the same time are able to act very spontaneously without any need of reassurance.

It's easier to have faith in something as whimsical as the story Christ than to believe in something as ridiculous as the modern western weltanschauung.

Mind and Tissue

Do you have an excerpt or link? I don't have access to that, I'd like to see it.

 

[keith]

Any of you guys ever see "The God Who Wasn't There"? It's on Netflix. Just curious if any of the believers here had any thoughts. It seems to present a reasonable case that Jesus was entirely made up by later generations, and no such real person ever existed. I haven't really seen any good explanations for the number of similarities noted between the Jesus story and some of the popular contemporary myths at the time, or the fact that there is really no historical record of any kind, outside of the gospels, which were apparently written at least a generation after Jesus was supposed to have died.