A Belief In God

[Lt_Ripley]

I don't think you know Christian history very well. Have you ever read the book of Acts or the Epistles? But of course you wouldn't understand. You don't seem to display that you understand the Gospel very well.

The original people that followed Jesus? Like Peter, James, John, and Jude (Who wrote Epistles)? Or the Gospels written by Matthew and John? It seems like you write off the Bible but nothing that is outside of it (bias), in which case it makes it pointless to discuss this with you. Just saying.

I see you don't know Christian history very well. seems you have no clue about the bible ... talking about pointless ..... try educating yourself on the bible. common knowledge.

you really think Matthew and John wrote those texts ?? lmao. seems you don't understand.

Paul wrote 7 of his letters the rest are contested , but remember he never met Jesus. He isn't an original disciple.

the rest ? like the Epistle to the Hebrews ? First Epistle of Peter ? John ?

The authorship of many of these epistles is contested by the majority of modern scholars and historians. In particular, with respect to the authorship of the Pauline epistles, the pastoral epistles are rejected by two thirds of modern academics,[citation needed] and only seven of the Pauline epistles are regarded as uncontested. The authorship of the Epistles of John is also questioned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle

on Matthew =

he Early Christian tradition attributes the Gospel to Matthew, one of Jesus' disciples. [1][2] Beginning in the 18th century scholars have increasingly questioned that traditional view, and today most scholars agree Matthew did not write the Gospel which bears his name.[3] Most contemporary scholars describe the author as an anonymous Christian writing towards the end of the first century.

on John -

The internal evidence against the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel is conclusive. The Apostle John did not write it. John, the apostle, was a Jew; the author of the Fourth Gospel was not a Jew. John was born at Bethsaida; the author of the Fourth Gospel did not know where Bethsaida was located. John was an uneducated fisherman; the author of this Gospel was an accomplished scholar. Some of the most important events in the life of Jesus, the Synoptics declare, were witnessed by John; the author of this knows nothing of these events. The Apostle John witnessed the crucifixion; the author of this Gospel did not. The Apostles, including John, believed Jesus to be a man; the author of the Fourth Gospel believed him to be a god.

Regarding the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, Dr. Davidson says: "The Johannine authorship has receded before the tide of modern criticism, and though this tide is arbitrary at times, it is here irresistible" (Canon of the Bible, p. 127).

Edited April 8, 2009 by Lt_Ripley

[Bluefinger]

The authorship of many of these epistles is contested by the majority of modern scholars and historians. In particular, with respect to the authorship of the Pauline epistles, the pastoral epistles are rejected by two thirds of modern academics,[citation needed] and only seven of the Pauline epistles are regarded as uncontested. The authorship of the Epistles of John is also questioned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle

So, people who haven't challenged the Gospel until 1800 years after the fact suddenly have authority on their authenticity? (Silence of evidence for skepticism does not mean that no evidence exists.) You have way more faith than I do.

Edited April 8, 2009 by Bluefinger

[Lt_Ripley]

So, people who haven't challenged the Gospel until 1800 years after the fact suddenly have authority on their authenticity? (Silence of evidence for skepticism does not mean that no evidence exists.) You have way more faith than I do.

people have been challanging this since at least around 350 AD or so ( ...... and remember ... alot of those scholars are christian ones. and they didn't suddenly do anything. most of that has been common knowledge for ages going back to easily 350 AD. . however , it wasn't common knowledge to common man.

All 27 books of the NT are written by anonymous authors, save for the Pauline epistles (Pastorals)--of which only seven (Romans, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, First Thessalonians, and Philemon) of the thirteen are considered to be by Paul's hand. And the portrait of Jesus painted by the cannonical gospels is irreducibly diverse.

As for apostolic authorship ...

The majority of modern scholars now largely discount this evidence for apostolic authorship, aside from seven of Paul's letters...

SOURCE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_testament#Authorship

Here's a few brief comments by some of the world's leading Biblical exegetes ...

... Now, today, scholars of the New Testament wouldn't agree with Irenaeus, because we don't know who wrote the gospels we call Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, any more than we know who wrote the Gospel of Thomas. They're all attributed to disciples of Jesus, but we don't really know who wrote them. And we don't know whether they came as the earliest sources or not. In fact, chances are they didn't...Elaine H. Pagels, The Harrington Spear Paine Foundation Professor of Religion Princeton University

... It may surprise people to know that it's really not until the year 367 that we have a list of New Testament books that conforms exactly to the list of the twenty-seven books we would call the New Testament today. So throughout the second and third centuries there was quite a lot of fighting about which ones are in and which ones not...Elizabeth Clark, John Carlisle Kilgo Professor of Religion and Director of the Graduate Program in Religion Duke University

The four gospels that we find in the New Testament, are of course, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The first three of these are usually referred to as the "synoptic gospels," because they look at things in a similar way, or they are similar in the way that they tell the story. Of these then, Mark is the earliest, probably written between 70 and 75. Matthew is next - written somewhere between 75 and about 85, maybe even a little later than that. Luke is a little later still, being written between 80 and maybe 90 or 95. And, John's gospel is the latest, usually dated around 95, although it may have been completed slightly later than that, as well...L. Michael White, Professor of Classics and Director of the Religious Studies Program University of Texas at Austin

The gospels are very peculiar types of literature. They're not biographies. I mean, there are all sorts of details about Jesus that they're simply not interested in giving us. They are a kind of religious advertisement. What they do is proclaim their individual author's interpretation of the Christian message through the device of using Jesus of Nazareth as a spokesperson for the evangelist's position...Paula Fredriksen, William Goodwin Aurelio Professor of the Appreciation of Scripture, Boston University

Well, there are what we might identify as contradictions in the account. Some of this has to do with our methodology. If we want to read the gospels as eye witness accounts, historical records and so on, then not only are we in for some tough going, I think there's evidence within the material itself that it's not intended to be read that way. I mean that there are certain concerns that are being addressed in this literature. And we become theologically and even historically tone deaf to those concerns, if we don't give them due consideration. It's now consensus in the New Testament scholarship to some extent [that]... in the gospels we're dealing with theologians, people who are reflecting theologically on Jesus already. And there's all indication that what we now refer to as theological reflection was there at the very beginning of things...

... Well, they don't claim to be eye witness accounts of his life. I don't think that the people who are responsible for those documents were staying up at night worried about those kinds of things. They're making certain arguments and they have concerns..., and they are articulating those arguments and they're forwarding those concerns based on what they know and what other people know about what Jesus said and did.--Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School

... What the gospels do share, of course, is Jesus. But that is almost trivial to say that. Because they are interested in not simply repeating Jesus. They are interested in interpreting Jesus. Matthew, even when he has Mark in front of him, will change what Jesus says. And that's what's most important for me, to understand the mind of an evangelist. It is that Matthew is saying, "I will change Mark so that Mark's Jesus speaks to my people." Now, there's a logic to his change. He's not just changing it to be difficult. He will change Mark, but what Jesus says in Mark does not make sense to Matthew's people.... What is consistent about the gospels is that they change consistent with their own theology, with their own communities' needs. They do not change at random. If you begin to understand how Matthew changes Mark, you see it worked again and again and again. You don't have to make up a different reason for every change. Once you understand Matthew's theology, you can almost predict how he will change.

For somebody who thinks the four gospels are like four witnesses in a court trying to tell exactly how the accident happened, as it were, this is extremely troubling. It is not at all troubling to me because they told me, quite honestly, that they were gospels. And a gospel is good news ... "good" and "news" ... updated interpretation. So when I went into Matthew, I did not expect journalism. I expected gospel. That's what I found. I have no problem with that...John Dominic Crossan, Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies DePaul University

The New Testament was written by many different people. The traditional belief is that all the books were written by the apostles or their followers (e.g. Mark and Luke). Modern scholars now largely discount this assumption aside from seven of Paul's letters. Except for Hebrews, no serious question about the authorship of any of the books as listed above was raised in the church before the 18th century, when critical inquiry into the New Testament began....

...The problems with correctly assigning authorship to ancient works like those in the New Testament can be demonstrated by looking at its four gospels.

Because of the many similarities between Matthew, Mark, and Luke, they are often referred to as the "Synoptic Gospels" ("seeing-together"). The Gospel of John, in contrast, contains much unique narrative and dialogue and is considered to be different in its emphasis from the other three gospels. The question of how the similarities between the synoptic gospels arose is known as the synoptic problem. How material from each gospel was introduced to other gospels brings up significant problems in assigning authorship. Was each written by one individual, the four simply relaying in their own words the events of Jesus' life they themselves witnessed? Was there a first author and gospel whose work substantially contributed to the later gospels? Was each gospel written over a relatively short or long period of time? Was each gospel written by only one person?--Encyclopedia

Here's some links from major academic sources you should find useful. wink2.gif

GOSPELS (Rutgers University)

http://virtualreligion.net/vri/nt2.html#Gospels

Christian Origins (Fordham University)

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/asbook11.html

World Civilizations to 1500 (Washington State University)

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/CHRIST/CHRIST.HTM

Early Christian Writings

http://earlychristianwritings.com/

Sean ( my favorite source. to the point without the yadda yadda yadda )

we can't be sure of even what Jesus said ....

The Jesus Seminar is a group of New Testament scholars who have been meeting periodically since 1985. The initial two hundred has now dwindled to about seventy-four active members. They initially focused on the sayings of Jesus within the four Gospels to determine the probability of His actually having said the things attributed to Him in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Each scholar offered his/her opinion on each "Jesus" statement by voting with different colored bead:

# Red: Jesus undoubtedly said this or something very like it.

# Pink: Jesus probably or might have said something like this.

# Gray: Jesus did not say this, but the ideas are close to His own.

# Black: Jesus did not say this; it represents a later tradition.

The consensus position was determined by the average weighted score, rather than by simple majority. This meant that all opinions were reflected in the decisions. The voting system means that the reader can second-guess each vote. The Five Gospels defines not only the result of the vote (red, pink, gray, or black) but also how many polls were necessary to reach a conclusion (if any were necessary at all) and why various fellows chose to vote in different ways.

Attendees, however, did more than vote. They met semi-annually to debate the papers presented. Some verses required extensive debate and repeated votes

The Seminar concluded that of the various statements in the "five gospels" attributed to Jesus, only about 18% of them were likely uttered by Jesus himself (red or pink). The Gospel of John fared worse than the synoptic gospels, with nearly all its passages attributed to Jesus being judged inauthentic[13]. The Gospel of Thomas includes just two unique sayings that the seminar attributes to Jesus: the empty jar (97) and the assassin (98). Every other probably-authentic or authentic saying has parallels in the synoptics.

http://www.westarinstitute.org/Seminars/seminars.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar

Edited April 8, 2009 by Lt_Ripley

[Mattshark]

And there is a lot of historical evidence of this. (Whether someone can count the sources as reliable is based primarily on bias, IMO).

Feel to present some (and no the bible is not evidence for the bible).

[ambelamba]

Lt, he will just think that you are deceived by Satan. When I was a Christian I genuinely believed that skeptics and non-believers are deceived. I pitied them. Really.

[Lt_Ripley]

Lt, he will just think that you are deceived by Satan. When I was a Christian I genuinely believed that skeptics and non-believers are deceived. I pitied them. Really.

how sad for him , but every party needs a party pooper.

[Beckys_Mom]

Have you ever considered Jesus Christ? There is a whole movement of believers that say He was resurrected from the dead three days after He died. People died for this without resistance. This doesn't sound like something they would just make up. There had to be overwhelming support for it to have grown so much.

And there is a lot of historical evidence of this. (Whether someone can count the sources as reliable is based primarily on bias, IMO).

With all due respect blue..I have already followed Jesus.(my mother being born again ect)....been there, done it...I do come from a large chrstian background and I am the only member of my family that broke the mould and went of to face my own path...I am happy with just following god my own lil way lol

I never took my path out of fear or because I felt I had to..I took it because over time, it felt right

We all take paths that make us feel better and comfortable...............I cant ever go back to christianity...spent upteen years in it.and now I feel there is so much more to look at....religion is not for me..I understand it..I just no longer feel the need to agree with it

Trust me, if my own loving mother cannot convert me or talk me back, no one can LOL

But thank you so very much for asking... I enjoyed your site too.well written and some nice stuff on it..at least I took a look lol..thanks mate ...but I think you know where I stand and we can both respect that lol

Edited April 8, 2009 by Beckys_Mom

[Beckys_Mom]

geri, I'd start here:

cut and pasted from Copasetics wall of informative posts (physics, biology related..)

copasetic quotes:

"Laws are statements made about ideal systems mostly mathematical in nature. These systems are ideal, not actual systems. Theories define the why and explain how some fact or law may occur."

For instance, Newton's law of universal gravitation states:

QUOTE Every point mass attracts every other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses

(Borrowed from Wikipedia)

But WHY, are these masses actually attracted to one another? Above, all we have is a definitive statement regarding interactions, it doesn't help us understand why and how these interactions are taking place. Sure we have mathematical descriptions of gravitation from Newton's works, but they don't explain how these phenomena come to be, merely that they exist in this manner.

To explain this we need Einstein's theories which explain the interaction between space, time and mass.

Theories contain laws, facts, observations, hypotheses and logical inferences. "Upgrading" a theory to a law would be a great disservice to the theory.

~Hope that helps

This post has been edited by Copasetic: May 27 2008, 11:41 AM

That looks to me like an intersting read...one of which I will be sure to take a closer look and tomorrow I will gladly look at that...thanks for it...but my eyes are stingy lol and I need sleep.......looks good

tomorrow I will be sure to get back to this

RAPTOR...you have also gave me something to look at..and dont think I won't get back LOL I sure will mate

thanks all...the muppet needs to rest her lil brain cell for the night LOL...it's like being back in school again classic I like it cheers all

[Emma_Acid]

Intolerant (false) religion always has that oppressive stench to it.

And what gives you the right to label any other religion false? How do you know the religion you're following is the right one?

And there is a lot of historical evidence of this.

And where is this evidence exactly? And don't say the bible. You can't have a self-confirming historical source.