The Christian Taliban

[Grand Vol]

Like the old saying, the victor vicar writes the history.

Fixed to more appropriate term for the setting.

 

[PKT_VOL]

The ancients came up with many stories of how life began, most crediting it to a supreme being of one type or another, a God.

There are actual historical events or stories based on events in the OT but as with any historical record, over time it gets twisted and changed to fit different narratives. Like the old saying, the victor writes the history.

Right, but at what point during the game of telephone (always fascinated at that as kid) does the story no longer represent the original story/input (in a way that we can say it was based on a original true story)?

The same thing with the story of Jesus. One has to define what elements are essential to the claim "Jesus existed". How much of the story can one take away or change and still assert that "Jesus existed" is a true statement?

 

[VolsSportsFan]

Well, such as the story of Noah. Would you believe that story to have some historical backing since there is evidence of regional floods that caused major destruction?

Or Jesus for another example. Whether or not you believe in the religious aspects, do you think there was a person that claimed to be the son of God? Too much historical evidence outside of the Bible points towards there being such a man instead of just a myth. And furthermore, how was it the people of that time were so convinced such a man existed?

I don't doubt there was an actual Jesus or person that was the basis of the Biblical accounts, though I think the evidence outside the Bible isn't as overwelming as is usually stated.

 

[Grand Vol]

Right, but at what point during the game of telephone (always fascinated at that as kid) does the story no longer represent the original story/input (in a way that we can say it was based on a original true story)?

The details are somewhat skewed, but as for the moral of the story. Like Noah for example. The moral of the story was to have faith and God would protect you. That hasn't changed (that we know of) since that time.

The same thing with the story of Jesus. One has to define what elements are essential to the claim "Jesus existed". How much of the story can one take away or change and still assert that "Jesus existed" is a true statement?

I think Jesus is a different example since written history was being conducted at a far higher level during that time than the OT days. There is plenty of written evidence to support his teachings more so than say Moses for example. The deeds (water to wine, fish in a basket, etc) are a little harder to grasp, but the reality that a man named Jesus that claimed to be the son of God is far easier to believe.

 

[hog88]

Right, but at what point during the game of telephone (always fascinated at that as kid) does the story no longer represent the original story/input (in a way that we can say it was based on a original true story)?

The same thing with the story of Jesus. One has to define what elements are essential to the claim "Jesus existed". How much of the story can one take away or change and still assert that "Jesus existed" is a true statement?

Good questions. Ones I have no answer for, I guess it just falls back to faith.

I for one believe in God and that Jesus is his son (chosen messenger). I do not believe that the bible (OT or NT) is the literal word of God or Jesus. I believe many of the stories in the OT are based on actual events with a great deal of made up in them to explain things that they had no way to explain. I believe much of the NT has been corrupted by various people through the years.

In short, the general message of the 10 commandments along with Jesus's of how you should treat people are good. If you live your life as close to that as possible you can't go wrong. I do not believe that I have to show up at a building every Sunday and leave money to get into heaven.

 

[MercyPercy]

Well, such as the story of Noah. Would you believe that story to have some historical backing since there is evidence of regional floods that caused major destruction?

So in essence, you're asking if I believe it is possible for a myth to have some original basis in history which was twisted over time. Sure. I am merely granting a possibility. There is still no evidence for the specific flood myth of the bible. It is likely just the flood story from the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Or Jesus for another example. Whether or not you believe in the religious aspects, do you think there was a person that claimed to be the son of God? Too much historical evidence outside of the Bible points towards there being such a man instead of just a myth. And furthermore, how was it the people of that time were so convinced such a man existed?

I grant the possibility of an eccentric preacher named Jesus existing at that point in history. I'm not sure how me granting that possibility will play into your overarching point, though. I guess I'll just have to wait and see.

 

[PKT_VOL]

The details are somewhat skewed, but as for the moral of the story. Like Noah for example. The moral of the story was to have faith and God would protect you. That hasn't changed (that we know of) since that time.

Sure. The problem with that is that you have to take the story figuratively and other flood/creation/destruction stories could say the same. Unless God has many Noahs around the world.

The other problem is that if conveying a moral happens to be the essence of the story, it would open the flood gates to all other kinds of stories which do precisely the same thing. Thus, I'm not sure Christians would want to justify it based on merely the moral being conveyed.

I think Jesus is a different example since written history was being conducted at a far higher level during that time than the OT days. There is plenty of written evidence to support his teachings more so than say Moses for example. The deeds (water to wine, fish in a basket, etc) are a little harder to grasp, but the reality that a man named Jesus that claimed to be the son of God is far easier to believe.

Of course it is easier to believe. You take all the magic out of the story.

The problem is many Christians would consider the mere idea (assuming it is true) "Jesus was simply a man who professed being the son of God" as qualifying that the statement "Jesus existed" to be false. For them, if "Jesus" doesn't have all the bells and whistles that make "Jesus", Christ, then he might as well not have existed at all. For what purpose or relevance would a mere religious man living 2000 years ago have on their life if he wasn't who he said he was, didn't do what was said that he did, and can't deliver on what he preached?

 

[Grand Vol]

So in essence, you're asking if I believe it is possible for a myth to have some original basis in history which was twisted over time. Sure. I am merely granting a possibility. There is still no evidence for the specific flood myth of the bible. It is likely just the flood story from the Epic of Gilgamesh.

More of the answer I was looking for originally.

I grant the possibility of an eccentric preacher named Jesus existing at that point in history. I'm not sure how me granting that possibility will play into your overarching point, though. I guess I'll just have to wait and see.

No overarching point. Just seeing if you believed in any of the historical context (and not just geographic locations) that the Bible possibly provides.

Mercy, you don't believe in religion. I accept that and have my own beliefs. I don't ask you believe in what I do and I don't ridicule you for not believing. I take a more practical approach to see what your boundaries are so to speak. I'll admit the very strong likelihood that many of the stories (especially the OT) are metaphorical, but the moral of the story is what matters. You admit not everything in the Bible is made up.

Give and take.

 

[Grand Vol]

The problem is many Christians would consider the mere idea (assuming it is true) "Jesus was simply a man who professed being the son of God" as qualifying that the statement "Jesus existed" to be false. For them, if "Jesus" doesn't have all the bells and whistles that make "Jesus", Christ, then he might as well not have existed at all. For what purpose or relevance would a mere religious man living 2000 years ago have on their life if he wasn't who he said he was, didn't do what was said that he did, and can't deliver on what he preached?

Generally it goes back to the God thread that TRUT started and the questions he posed in the original post. What is God? Or in this case, who was Jesus Christ.

For me, I have the faith he did what has been written and recorded. I can't prove it, just go on faith alone.

Call me ignorant if you please.

 

[hog88]

Generally it goes back to the God thread that TRUT started and the questions he posed in the original post. What is God? Or in this case, who was Jesus Christ.

For me, I have the faith he did what has been written and recorded. I can't prove it, just go on faith alone.

Call me ignorant if you please.

Well..........



Not going to do that because we probably have similar beliefs when it comes to this.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Good questions. Ones I have no answer for, I guess it just falls back to faith.

I for one believe in God and that Jesus is his son (chosen messenger). I do not believe that the bible (OT or NT) is the literal word of God or Jesus. I believe many of the stories in the OT are based on actual events with a great deal of made up in them to explain things that they had no way to explain. I believe much of the NT has been corrupted by various people through the years.

In short, the general message of the 10 commandments along with Jesus's of how you should treat people are good. If you live your life as close to that as possible you can't go wrong. I do not believe that I have to show up at a building every Sunday and leave money to get into heaven.

And I would say that such is pretty reasonable; especially if you believe Jesus being the son of God is figurative and not literal. I do find it fascinating that people hang onto every word.

For example, many compare Jesus to Socrates as far as existing. Basically, that there is equal evidence for both. One thing that is rarely talked about in such a discussion is the veracity of what we know about each. For example, the philosophy from the historical Socrates is basically what Plato said in his earlier dialogues. I think it would be crazy for anyone to think that Socrates said every word that Plato attributes to him during his trial. How on Earth could Plato have remembered every word perfectly or write fast enough while present at trail? We have recording devices today and still mess it up from time to time.

Yet, many Christians hang onto every word of Jesus (and other parts of the Bible) when such words were not written down as they happened, years afterwards, meetings on what gets into cannon, translations, etc. You would think they would take more of a general overview verse a literal reading.

 

[Grand Vol]

Well..........



Not going to do that because we probably have similar beliefs when it comes to this.

Very likely.

I'm still gonna kick your ass on the side of I40.

 

[hog88]

Very likely.

I'm still gonna kick your ass on the side of I40.

Air Force. All that needs to be said.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Generally it goes back to the God thread that TRUT started and the questions he posed in the original post. What is God? Or in this case, who was Jesus Christ.

For me, I have the faith he did what has been written and recorded. I can't prove it, just go on faith alone.

Call me ignorant if you please.

Ok. If it turned out that Jesus was merely a rabbi who preached during that time, would declare the statement "Jesus existed" as true or false?

 

[Grand Vol]

Ok. If it turned out that Jesus was merely a rabbi who preached during that time, would declare the statement "Jesus existed" as true or false?

Obviously true.

The real question is "was Jesus the son of God?"

 

[hog88]

And I would say that such is pretty reasonable; especially if you believe Jesus being the son of God is figurative and not literal. I do find it fascinating that people hang onto every word.

For example, many compare Jesus to Socrates as far as existing. Basically, that there is equal evidence for both. One thing that is rarely talked about in such a discussion is the veracity of what we know about each. For example, the philosophy from the historical Socrates is basically what Plato said in his earlier dialogues. I think it would be crazy for anyone to think that Socrates said every word that Plato attributes to him during his trial. How on Earth could Plato have remembered every word perfectly or write fast enough while present at trail? We have recording devices today and still mess it up from time to time.

Yet, many Christians hang onto every word of Jesus (and other parts of the Bible) when such words were not written down as they happened, years afterwards, meetings on what gets into cannon, translations, etc. You would think they would take more of a general overview verse a literal reading.

I can't wrap my brain around why people hang to every word as it's well the gospel truth. Take my MIL for example she claims that the dinosaurs never existed because they are not explicitly mentioned in the bible. She believes their fossils are the work of the devil to make us question God.

I used to drive her batshizz crazy simply by saying God could be like a Captain Kirk. That was worth hours of fun.

 

[hog88]

Obviously true.

The real question is "was Jesus the son of God?"

What is the "son of God" supposed to mean really? I thought we were all God's children and none of us were virgin born.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

I can't wrap my brain around why people hang to every word as it's well the gospel truth. Take my MIL for example she claims that the dinosaurs never existed because they are not explicitly mentioned in the bible. She believes their fossils are the work of the devil to make us question God.

I used to drive her batshizz crazy simply by saying God could be like a Captain Kirk. That was worth hours of fun.

The Satan thing is quite another discussion.

 

[joevol320]

Pretty much; really no different than a lot of legends and tales.

gaytorfan. there are thousands of archeological finding that were mention 1st in the Bible but later found through archeology. Daniel's prophecy was proven 100% correct to the point that historians claimed the Bible was written after the prophesized events happened. yet further study showed it was written thousands of years prior. the Bible predicted Christ birth which also true, predicted Israel would become a nation which was true.

gaytorfan you should actually study the Bible instead of making ignorant assumptions son.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Obviously true.

Interesting.

The real question is "was Jesus the son of God?"

Yep. Certainly the more profound question (although less intriguing for someone like myself).

 

[apevol]

Homosexual bestiality with big lizrds. Woah, joe. Calm down.

 

[joevol320]

And I would say that such is pretty reasonable; especially if you believe Jesus being the son of God is figurative and not literal. I do find it fascinating that people hang onto every word.

For example, many compare Jesus to Socrates as far as existing. Basically, that there is equal evidence for both. One thing that is rarely talked about in such a discussion is the veracity of what we know about each. For example, the philosophy from the historical Socrates is basically what Plato said in his earlier dialogues. I think it would be crazy for anyone to think that Socrates said every word that Plato attributes to him during his trial. How on Earth could Plato have remembered every word perfectly or write fast enough while present at trail? We have recording devices today and still mess it up from time to time.

Yet, many Christians hang onto every word of Jesus (and other parts of the Bible) when such words were not written down as they happened, years afterwards, meetings on what gets into cannon, translations, etc. You would think they would take more of a general overview verse a literal reading.

PK have you studied the Biblical manuscripts? I would say not. what fail to understand that there were thousands of manuscripts that were translated or years by multiple people. the translations that we get the king james and new kings james were very accurate. if you're talking talk about a topic, maybe try studying it some.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

gaytorfan. there are thousands of archeological finding that were mention 1st in the Bible but later found through archeology. Daniel's prophecy was proven 100% correct to the point that historians claimed the Bible was written after the prophesized events happened. yet further study showed it was written thousands of years prior. the Bible predicted Christ birth which also true, predicted Israel would become a nation which was true.

gaytorfan you should actually study the Bible instead of making ignorant assumptions son.

I don't think you want to go down the archeology discussion.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I can't wrap my brain around why people hang to every word as it's well the gospel truth. Take my MIL for example she claims that the dinosaurs never existed because they are not explicitly mentioned in the bible. She believes their fossils are the work of the devil to make us question God.

I used to drive her batshizz crazy simply by saying God could be like a Captain Kirk. That was worth hours of fun.

Agreed. It sounds like endless entertainment. Within the Christian faith, I'm not sure if I am more intrigued by Protestant fundamentalists or Mormons.

 

[apevol]

I can't wrap my brain around why people hang to every word as it's well the gospel truth. Take my MIL for example she claims that the dinosaurs never existed because they are not explicitly mentioned in the bible. She believes their fossils are the work of the devil to make us question God.

I used to drive her batshizz crazy simply by saying God could be like a Captain Kirk. That was worth hours of fun.

Sounds like you participate in the common man/mother in law relationship with a lot more mischief than most.