Religions

[aschen]

You were just using his prophecies against me now you are telling me that no one trusted him?

why do you think that the Bible was writte 50-100 years after Jesus's death?

It's not about trust, it's about belief.

[aschen]

Have you read "The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity" by Hyam Macoby? If you haven't, this post makes me suspect you'd enjoy it. Both my father and I were able to see the author's spin (wanting to get the Jewish priests off the hook for the execution of Christ... rather than just pointing out that the Jews all held the Roman appointed priests of the temple in complete and utter contempt and that they in no way represented the Jewish people, but rather Roman interests) but aside from that, it is a REALLY fascinating book.

Get the Jewish priests off the hook? No way. That's ignorant. The priests wanted Jesus killed because he would undermine their entire power base.

As for the Romans...well fine. They threw a lot of people on the cross. That's just how they operated.

[Darth Buddha]

Well, not exactly.

Those priests were appointed and approved by the Romans. They were pretty much puppets for said Romans. So really, their power base was dependent on Roman considerations. I believe such priests were known as Saduccees... as opposed to the Pharisees.

Really, check out "The Mythmaker", it does a good job of summarizing stuff I encountered in bits and pieces elsewhere, and I really don't think this is a safe place to go into the accuracy of Biblical accounts!

[buckner]

Well, not exactly.

Those priests were appointed and approved by the Romans. They were pretty much puppets for said Romans. So really, their power base was dependent on Roman considerations. I believe such priests were known as Saduccees... as opposed to the Pharisees.

Really, check out "The Mythmaker", it does a good job of summarizing stuff I encountered in bits and pieces elsewhere, and I really don't think this is a safe place to go into the accuracy of Biblical accounts!

The saducces were more political and the pharisees were more religious the saduccees held more power then the pharisees.

[buckner]

The saduccees denied the resurection of dead and angels. Basically the saduccees were liberal and the pharisees conservative.

[Daniel's_twin]

the Pharisees and the Sadducees actually had the Israelite nation in their minds while trying to crucify Jesus. They didn't recognize him as God's son, like a lot of people today, and saw him as a public menace instead. They were afraid that his followers would incite a rebellion against the Romans, which would cause the destruction of Jerusalem, and possibly the irradication of their entire race.

And more then that, Jesus had to be crucified to fulfill the prophesies. But He (Jesus) was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; The chasetisement for our peace was upon Him, And by his stripes, we are healed. Isaiah 53:5

And by the way, Aschen, Jesus did fulfill all Old Testament prophesies concerning the Jewish Messiah. God wasn't talking about a physical temple, He was talking about a spiritual temple that he would build in those who trusted and believed in His son. And if the temple is rebuilt, I'm gonna start praying and praying 'cause it'll mean that the Earth will really soon.

[aschen]

God wasn't talking about a physical temple.

Isn't that more a matter of interperatation?

To whoever said that there was more physical proof of Jesus than Caesar:

Did Jesus have statues made of him? Did he leave behind actual notes and letters?

I can't think of anything he physically left behind- can you?

Perhaps the closest would be the Knights Templar and some of the French royalty. But even that is highly controversial and more the ramblings of conspiracy nuts than concrete historical fact.

[Darth Buddha]

And by the way, Aschen, Jesus did fulfill all Old Testament prophesies concerning the Jewish Messiah. God wasn't talking about a physical temple, He was talking about a spiritual temple that he would build in those who trusted and believed in His son. And if the temple is rebuilt, I'm gonna start praying and praying 'cause it'll mean that the Earth will really soon.

Oh, good grief. According to a Christian he fulfilled said prophecies. Obviously according to the Jews he did not. What pray tell are YOUR sources? Sunday school? Might that not be just the least bit biased? Really. Mix in religion and people start expecting others to buy all sorts of theories and stories just to prove that their invisible friend is the right invisible friend!

Back to angels on the head of a pin, more or less.

Drop it and let's get back to mythology or anything other than your rather dreary belief set ... or mine for that matter.

[roswellgray]

Ok, my Lecture Mode has just been engaged. Prepare to learn more than you ever wanted to about the formation of the New Testament . Yes, this is wildly off topic. But hey, sometimes I just can't help myself .

In answer to your question: presumably, because they were. Paul's letters were written ca. 30 AD. And they were letters; we have no sermons, no records of his preaching, and we don't even have the letters written to him that he was responding to. It's like hearing half of a telephone call; one has to try and figure out what the situation is by reading between the lines. We don't have all his letters, and we're pretty sure that some letters that were attributed to him weren't actually written by him. Also, we're pretty sure some of the "letters" are incomplete, and others are sections of several letters that were passed around and pieced together.

the gospels were written (iirc off the top of my head) 60-120 AD. The rest of the New Testament (the other epistles and the Revelation of John) were written in the period, but for the most part slightly later. Nor were the four canonical Gospels the only ones written. They're not even the only ones that survived to this day; we have portions and in some cases the entirety of several gospels (by which I mean, stories of Jesus' life) that were written about the same time but not included in the Bible. The Gospels were written because the original group of apostles who personally knew Jesus were dying out, as were the people they directly taught. Old age, persecution, etc. The Gospels were written to preserve their memories of Christ and teach new-comers to the faith. Each had a slightly different take on events due to source material, the author's point of view, and the community for which it was written.

Mark was the first written of the four canonical Gospels, and is the most matter-of-fact and succinct. Both Matthew and Luke take the Gospel of Mark and edit it for their own audience, adding in material both from a common source (commonly referred to by scholars as "Q," because while they're pretty sure it exists due to various textual evidence, nobody's found it yet) as well as material strictly their own. Matthew was writing for a Jewish audience; his Gospel relies heavily on quotations from the Hebrew scriptures and Jewish symbolic/ritual/prophetic tradition. Matthew's main concern is to establish Jesus as the Messiah, the Annointed One of God, as prophesied. Luke was writing for Gentiles (mostly Greek) and his work is more literate and polished; he emphasises the roles of non-Jews and women especially, and takes care to explain the significance of Jewish culture when Matthew assumes his audience is aware of such things. Luke's main concern is to establish Jesus as the Savior of the world, and as innocent of the crime for which he was killed.

John (written last) bears little relation to the other three gospels, both in attitude, style, and internal chronolgy. John the Evangelist used different source material, and assumed his audience was both already familiar with the story, and already accepted Jesus as the Messiah, the Savior, the Son of God. He was more concerned with theology and Jesus' teachings than with the miracles and day-to-day events; long set speeches by both Jesus and the disciples are more common. The famous "I am" statements ("I am the Bread of Life," "I am the Good Shepphard," "I am the vine,") all come from John. In some ways, John's approach to his material is almost 180 degrees opposed to that of the other three Gospels--where they are trying to convince their audience that Jesus is divine as well as human, John tries to convince his audience that Jesus was human as well as divine. You see, by the time John was written, a separate religious group known as the Gnostics was trying to take over some of Jesus' teachings and incorporate them into their own framework of belief as they'd already taken dualism from Persian Zoroastrianism. From what scholars have been able to piece together, John the Evangelists' congregation was in some danger of being taken over by the Gnostics; he wrote his Gospel essentially to counter their influence.

The epistles from writers other than Paul came after this for the most part, and the Revelation of John (note, Revelation is singular, _not_ plural, and that the John who wrote it was neither the author of the Gospel nor the disciple) was the last to be written. While I highly doubt the theory that Revelation was written in some sort of code, it is a confusing and often disturbing book that becomes much more readable when you compare it with the apocalyptic portions of the book of Daniel in the Old Testament and realize that John was using the same terminology/imagery.

How did these disparate writings come to be gathered together and declared canon? It's an interesting story. See, the Roman Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity in the year 312 (mostly for political reasons; he thought a unified empire under one emperor needed a unified religion under one God). And having done so, he wanted to spread this religion he had decided to patronize (he wasn't baptized until shortly before his death twenty-five years later). Only to find that this religion he had chosen to unify the empire with ... wasn't unified. There was no set hierarchy; there was no set theology (though many aspects of the faith were at least generally agreed upon); there was no set group of religious texts (while some books had wide acceptance, 'canon' varied by congregation and region); and (what appalled him the most) was that there was no set list of holy places upon which he could build churches and shrines. And a theological controversy was brewing.

So he set out to fix all that. He called together the leaders of the church from all around the Empire, in what is called the First Council of Nicaea (325 AD). The main business of the Council was to write the Nicene Creed and decide what to do about Arian theology (they rejected it as heresy); however, they also put together a tentative list of which writings were considered canonical and which were not and compiled a list of holy places where Constantine could put up churches and shrines (including what is now St. Peter's in Rome). Despite some lingering dispute, this Council marked the formation of the Old Testament as we know it today.

hi,

Great post. Altho I was nurtured by a very fervent and devout Christian tradition I am long since persuaded of the atheist worldview. However, I heard for years about these other gospels and would be interested in perusing them. Did any modern scholars collect these various uncanonical gospels into one book? I would be interested in buying it to read the different perspectives of these other authors.

[puddlejumper747]

I can't think of anything he physically left behind- can you

Hmmm....the Shroud of Turin comes to mind....and just maybe His Church....
And the fact that hundreds people would have never died for a purely imaginary person they just made up!!!

[Ruisseaux]

i didnt even know my thread was still around

[puddlejumper747]

Most Christians hold that ezekiel is having a vison of the temple that will be built in the millennium reign of God after the rapture and tribulation.

That's great....except for the fact that there is not going to be a Rapture!!! God is not going to just pull His Church up off the face of the Earth and leave everyone else out there alone in the dark. That's all really a very inaccurate/unfortunate interpretation of Scripture. Christ's Church will always be around here on this Earth in order to guide and instruct others until the End of Time and the Second Coming of Christ in all His glory.

....as relevant as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

::smiles because he knows the answer:: Yes....All of them.

[aschen]

For whom ever said they were pray for me, do me a favor- pray for my sister. She's christian. She just got into her 3rd accident within 6 months time. This is driving me up the frikkin wall.

[Darth Buddha]

For whom ever said they were pray for me, do me a favor- pray for my sister. She's christian. She just got into her 3rd accident within 6 months time. This is driving me up the frikkin wall.

I need the laugh, aschen.

First time I re-entered a church in a decade (and that was a decade ago) the minister's wife rushed to a pillar and put her hand on it to declare "I can't believe it is not shaking!" Needless to say, after a particularly noxious holy roller tried to convince a Sunday School class that "Buying a Stairway to Heaven" was Satan worshipping material that would damn listeners to hell I had to take my leave.

Now I just tell folks who want to pray for me or mine that I appreciate the sentiment, but I'd rather the Allmight not be given a direct fix of my exact location at any given time!

[aschen]

I believe, in my heart and in my soul that I have the gods upon my side. They are my gods, friends and comrades through the journey that we call life.

I ask them for guidance, for help in affairs of love and the likes.

And even after a single blot, I feel a certain presence within me. It's sort of a weight, a heavy feeling. I call forth the gods, my ancestors and my deceased loved once.

"Stay those who would stay, leave those who would leave."

I ask for wisdom and guidance. I do praice them as they are meant to be praised.

The gods are there for me, and for that I am eternally grateful.