The Christian Thread!

[schwager]

^^ Revenge XD No, really, It's a different kind of Christian. There's heaps of different "catagories" of Christian, I for instance am a Brethren/Baptist.

 

2. Without trying to offend anyone, *Whispers* I've never met a christian that's anything like what she belives. Hence the upcoming scripture.

 

Revelation 22:14-15

"Blessed are those who wash thier robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs,those who practise magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practises falsehood.

 

Revelation 21: 8

"But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practise magic arts, the idolater and all liars- thier place will be in the fiery lake of buring sulfur. This is the second death."

 

Hopefully you noticed the "magic arts" stuff. To write whole books about that and aquaint yourself so much with it is clearly going directly against those two versus.

 

 

I think you are bit off-base here. To write a fantasy story is a bit different than practising magic arts. If I were to write a documentary about witchcraft and other forms of "magic arts", does that mean that I am practising those beliefs? Absolutely not. It is a book that you pick up in the fiction section of the library. Though I do not enjoy the Harry Potter books, that is simply because of my taste in books. The book wasn't written with the intention of converting people to believe in witchcraft and wizardry, and I haven't seen the author attempt to convey a message other than a fantasy story to entertain those who read it. It does not go against those two versus at all. If the author were to convey a message with the intention of converting people to the beliefs of sorcery and witchcraft, then those two versus would apply. However, this is not the case.

[Halo_92]

I find this incredibly weird.

These people who lived a coupla doors down are hardcore Christians, Ya' know going to awana and stuff like that but let their kids read, watch, and even bought them "magic wands" from harry potter.

 

Frankly I find that VERY disturbing.

[RC-1162]

harry potter is kids stuff and not satanic, period. i mean, i'm not a fan of it (frankly, it disgusts me) but really, if the author is supposedly anti-christian, then why blame the book? there might be people out there who like HP, so the church should leave them be.

[St. Jimmy]

I think you are bit off-base here. To write a fantasy story is a bit different than practising magic arts. If I were to write a documentary about witchcraft and other forms of "magic arts", does that mean that I am practising those beliefs? Absolutely not. It is a book that you pick up in the fiction section of the library. Though I do not enjoy the Harry Potter books, that is simply because of my taste in books. The book wasn't written with the intention of converting people to believe in witchcraft and wizardry, and I haven't seen the author attempt to convey a message other than a fantasy story to entertain those who read it. It does not go against those two versus at all. If the author were to convey a message with the intention of converting people to the beliefs of sorcery and witchcraft, then those two versus would apply. However, this is not the case.

I never said she wrote the books with the intention of converting people. It's just that she claims to be a Christian and then goes and writes novels and stuff that are clearly pro-wizardry. The Bible is clearly anti-magic arts and wizardry. Also, If you were to make a documentary about that kind of stuff with the intent of making it purely educational, and so we could better understand these things, You're right. That doesn't mean you're practising those believes. Actually I never said she was practising them either, I just wonder what kind of person calls themselves a Christian and then goes out and openly celebrates wizardry?

[TK-8252]

It's just that she claims to be a Christian and then goes and writes novels and stuff that are clearly pro-wizardry.

 

It's not really "pro-wizardry" though. That'd be like saying that Star Wars is "pro-Force." It's just telling a story.

[St. Jimmy]

Look, All I'm saying is that, she says she's a Christian but she doesn't have any issues with the magic arts. Surely you'd think that there was something else to write about rather than wizards of all things.

[TK-8252]

Look, All I'm saying is that, she says she's a Christian but she doesn't have any issues with the magic arts.

 

It's just fiction!

 

Surely you'd think that there was something else to write about rather than wizards of all things.

 

*Shrug*

 

People like her books. Why not write about wizards.

[St. Jimmy]

It's just fiction!

 

*Shrug*

 

People like her books. Why not write about wizards.

Fiction that goes against her "beleives"

She can write about wizards see if I care? But calling yourself a Christian and then forming a wizardry empire is blasphemous.

Third comandment dude, Exodus 20:7

"You shall not take the name of your LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain."

[SkinWalker]

I find it ironic that devout believers of one fiction are offended by another fiction in which no one actually believes is true. Credulity knows no bounds.

[St. Jimmy]

Yeah thanks for that.

[Smon]

Fiction that goes against her "beleives"

She can write about wizards see if I care? But calling yourself a Christian and then forming a wizardry empire is blasphemous.

Third comandment dude, Exodus 20:7

"You shall not take the name of your LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain."

I think the bible was just a series of stories meant to help people live a better life but some people jsut took it way, way too far.

 

Who knows? Maybe some modern literature will be worshipped in three-thousand years...

 

FLASHFORWARD SEQUENCE...

 

Priest-And the lord did say, as he departed the material sphere, "UP, UP, AND AWAY!"

Followers-"Up, up and away, in the name of our lord and against the bald one..."

 

...plus I think God approves of a lot of this stuff. He has a very big sense of humor. Think about it: he appeared as a burning bush, he told an elderly man to build a boat and live with animals for forty days, and of course there's the platypus.

 

Plus God sounds like kind of a dick after you read the book of Job where God puts this guy through utter hell just to settle a bet with Satan.

[St. Jimmy]

Hah! Yes, yes there is the platypus... As for the Bible just being a whole bunch of stories.. Don't think so. There's plenty of stuff in there that is in no way a story. And as soon as it was written it had followers throughout at least a thousand years! you can't tell me that as soon as it was written (as a story) people just disregarded it as a story and chose to base thier lives on it. With the burning bush, The way He chooses to appear has to do with symbolism, every time. You think He just chose to take Noah and his family on the ark for a joke? Really, come on. And actually, I've currently been reading the book of Job and He put Job through all that to prove things to satan, and It really opened Job's eyes. Job thought he knew God about as well as you can get to know God, and God let him know that he had so much more to learn, therefore, helping him and in the end having a 'happy ending'.

[Pho3nix]

I think the Bible is just a life-guidance book, but people tend to take it too seriously.

It has alot of "advice" or rules that are quite obvious like It's not ok to kill another person etc. I don't need a fictional storybook to tell me that, I can figure that out for myself.

[Rexraptor2000]

I'm Christian and I think that people can tend to take the bible a bit to seriouly also.

[swphreak]

I seriously doubt that upon reading a fictional story book, anyone is going to go practice magic and wizardry. If they do, then, they're so damn stupid that they need to go to hell anyway.

 

After watching Star Wars, were people going to go learn how to be a Jedi and use the Force on people??

 

Uhhh... hopefully these people aren't serious.

 

 

I find it annoying when I read about mothers wanting Potter banned because of witchcraft, ect, and when asked if they've actually read the book, their response is "no." If Christians, mothers, or anyone else doesn't like something, they have every right to not partake in it.

 

Another reason why religion should be a personal thing and stay in the church, not in the government influencing legislation.

[Joetheeskimo]

schwager, your post echoes my thoughts exactly.

 

Why did the Christians launch the Crusades and the Inquisition?

 

Medieval "Christians" were not Christians. The Church thought of nothing but its own gain. Medieval Christians didn't even have access to the Bible. That's how the Reformation came to be - because Martin Luther believed the Catholic church had strayed very far from the original principles of the religion.

 

And yet divorce rates for Christians are higher than divorce rates for atheists/agnostics.

 

Just because a man declares himself a "Christian" doesn't mean he has any interest in the principles of Christianity whatsoever.

 

Huh?? I'd never heard that before. IIRC, J.K. Rowling is a self-proclaimed Christian.

 

I think she's Orthodox Christian. I did some "research" () on Google and it looks like I'm wrong.

I don't think that Harry Potter is some kind of abomination, because it's really no different than a lot of books that have to do with magic out there -- even Lord of the Rings has magic, and it's highly recommended by a lot of Christians.

 

Pho3nix, I also consider the Bible as a life-guide. I don't worship it. It wasn't made for us to worship. It was made so that we don't forget the whole reason we're following this religion.

By the way, don't call in fictional. I'll understand if you don't want to believe Jesus performing miracles, but all of the stories you find in there are historically accurate, and any historian will tell you that.

 

Plus God sounds like kind of a dick after you read the book of Job where God puts this guy through utter hell just to settle a bet with Satan.

 

God put Job through all that to test his faith. And Job did a much better job (no pun intended) than I ever would in that situatation.

And the only reason Satan even got to do all that -- the only reason Satan even got to speak with God -- was because God let him. You make Him sound like some insecure gambler.

[Rexraptor2000]

I agree with you all the way joetheeskimo5.

[Astrotoy7]

ah. this thread is like those crop patterns designs... perfect concentric circles

 

the cantina used to be a refuge from religion threads...and now

 

By the way, don't call in fictional. I'll understand if you don't want to believe Jesus performing miracles, but all of the stories you find in there are historically accurate, and any historian will tell you that.

 

um, no. So much of the Old Testament is mythology for starters. As for the Gospels, there are gaps and discrepancies between the "big 4". Then read the story of Jesus(Hazreti Isah) in the Kuran/Koran/Koroon/Qu'ran () and then St Thomas' 'gospel' and see what historical facts you can actually qualify...?

 

As a Muslim, Jesus' message to us from the Kuran is one of Brotherhood and Tolerance. The rest of it....well, there is no rest of it as far as Muslims are concerned. That was Jesus core message, and one which only he makes. Indeed, in the Kuran, Jesus could be described as the most human of all the prophets, with a message as pertinent today as it was back then.

 

I often get asked, "Why dont Muslims worship Jesus" and "Dont you believe in Jesus" etc. My answer is, and anyone who has read the Kuran properly will tell you the same. Jesus(Hazreti Isah) is very dear to all peace loving Muslims. I find it sad that "Christian" demoninations sometimes seem to forget the powerful message of Jesus teachings alone. This seems to pale against things like the Immaculate Conception/Resurrection etc. Take out these things and is Jesus message any less important ? No, of course not.

 

I think it is an important distincton the Kuran makes re-the Conception/Resurrection. Rather than go into it, I encourage Christians to read the Kuran and see what they get out of it

 

mtfbwya

[Joetheeskimo]

Yeah, I think this should be in Senate Chambers

[Halo_92]

ok i'll send a request.

[SkinWalker]

I must remind all involved, that much of the dissenting voices here come from the fact that the OP advertised the thread in his thread. If you don't want attention, don't advertise.

 

Also, none of the core claims of biblical mythology are historically accurate. Indeed, there is much that is historically inaccurate that its clear that the limited perspectives of its Bronze/Early Iron Age authors had more of a mind to create a set of fictions to propagandize their cults and maintain power than to tell "history."

 

And no historian I've ever met would agree that the bible is overall historically accurate, not even some of the theological historians I've read and met.

[Joetheeskimo]

I'm not only talking about Genesis, Exodus, etc. I'm mostly talking about the New Testament. Whether or not Jesus was the Messiah, he did exist. And his death is very much historically accurate. I'm not expecting you to believe right off the bat that he was raised from the dead, but it did say that the Jews covered the story up (for understandable reasons), which is why you will find no mention of him being resurrected in most historical sources: because the only ones who found out were those closely involved.

[SkinWalker]

There are no historical references to Jesus that are independent and contemporary. All the extra-biblical references to Jesus were well after his alleged time and hearsay.

 

Borrowed from my friend, Iasion:

 

JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)

 

The famous Testamonium Flavianum in the Antiquities of the Jews is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :

* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the Jew Josephus (who remained a Jew and refused to call anyone "messiah" in his book which was partly about how false messiahs kept leading Israel astray.),

* The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages,

* The T.F. was not mentioned by any of the early CHurch fathers were reviewed Josephus. Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.

* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.

* (The other tiny passage in Josephus is probably a later interpolation.)

An analysis of Josephus can be found here:

http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/supp10.htm

 

(The 2nd reference may be to ANOTHER Jesus.)

 

In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)

But, yes,

it COULD just be actual evidence for Jesus - late, corrupt, controversial but just POSSIBLY real historical evidence.

 

 

TACITUS (c.112CE)

 

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:

* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.

* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)

* Tacitus accepts the recent advent of Christianity, which was against Roman practice (to only allow ancient and accepted cults and religions.)

* This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.

 

This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -

but

merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)

So,

this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,

it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/ToC/0067.php

 

 

PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)

 

About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.

So,

Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth,

just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/pliny.html

 

 

SUETONIUS (c.115CE)

 

Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, (about 75 years after the war) Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:

* this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "useful"), and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos"

* this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was.

So,

this passage is not evidence for Jesus,

it's nothing to do with Jesus,

it's evidence for Christians grasping at straws.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/suetonius.html

 

 

IGNATIUS (107CE? 130-170CE?)

 

The letters of Ignatius are traditionally dated to c.107, yet:

* it is not clear if he really existed, his story is suspicious,

* his letters are notoriously corrupt and in 2 versions,

* it is probable that his letters were later forgeries,

* he mentions only a tiny few items about Jesus.

So,

Ignatius is no evidence for Jesus himself,

at BEST it is 2nd century evidence to a few beliefs about Jesus.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ignatius.html

 

 

QUADRATUS (c.125CE)

 

Quadratus apparently wrote an Apology to Hadrian (117-138), but:

* we have none of his works,

* it is not certain when he wrote,

* all we have is 1 sentence quoted much later.

So,

Quadratus is uncertain evidence from about a century later.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/quadratus.html

 

 

THALLUS (date unknown)

 

We have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote, there are NONE of Thallus' works extant.

What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse".

But,

there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he merely referred to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians MIS-interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a false reading.)

 

Richard Carrier the historian has a good page on Thallus:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/thallus.html

 

So,

Thallus is no evidence for Jesus at all,

merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.

 

 

PHLEGON (c.140)

 

Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon actually said anything about Gospel events, he was merely talking about an eclipse (they DO happen) which LATER Christians argued was the "darkness" in their stories.

So,

Phlegon is no evidence for Jesus at all -

merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.

 

 

VALENTINUS (c.140CE)

 

In mid 2nd century the GNOSTIC Valentinus almost became Bishop of Rome, but:

* he was several generations after the alleged events,

* he wrote of an esoteric, Gnostic Jesus and Christ,

* he mentioned no historical details about Jesus.

So,

Valentinus is no evidence for a historical Jesus.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/valentinus.html

 

 

POLYCARP (c.155CE)

 

Polycarp wrote in mid 2nd century, but :

* he is several generations after the alleged events,

* he gives many sayings of Jesus (some of which do NOT match the Gospels),

* he does NOT name any evangelist or Gospel.

So,

Polycarp knew sayings of Jesus,

but provides no actual evidence for a historical Jesus.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp.html

 

 

LUCIAN (c.170CE)

 

Nearly one-and-a-half CENTURIES after the alleged events, Lucian satirised Christians, but :

* this was several generations later,

* Lucian does NOT even mention Jesus or Christ by name.

So,

Lucian is no evidence for a historical Jesus, merely late 2nd century lampooning of Christians.

 

 

GALEN (late 2nd C.)

 

Late 2nd century, Galen makes a few references to Christians, and briefly to Christ.

This is far too late to be evidence for Jesus.

 

 

NUMENIUS (2nd C.?)

 

In the 3rd century, Origen claimed Numenius "quotes also a narrative regarding Jesus--without, however, mentioning His name" - i.e. Numenius mentioned a story but said nothing about Jesus, but by Origen's time it had become attached to Jesus' name.

This not any evidence for Jesus, it's just later wishful thinking.

 

 

TALMUD (3rd C. and later)

 

There are some possible references in the Talmud, but:

* these references are from 3rd century or later, and seem to be (unfriendly) Jewish responses to Christian claims.

* the references are highly variant, have many cryptic names for Jesus, and very different to the Gospel stories (e.g. one story has "Jesus" born about 100BC.)

So,

the Talmud contains NO evidence for Jesus,

the Talmud merely has much later Jewish responses to the Gospel stories.

 

 

 

MARA BAR SERAPION (date unknown)

 

A fragment which includes -

"... What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?",

in the context of ancient leaders like Socrates.

It is NOT at all clear WHEN this manuscript was written, nor exactly who it is referring too, but there is no evidence it is Jesus.

 

 

--------

 

In short,

* there are no Roman recods of Jesus,

* there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus,

* the claimed evidence is very weak - late, forged, suspect or not about Jesus at all.

* the T.F. is probably the best "evidence", but it is at best corrupt, at worst forged.

[Joetheeskimo]

You have some very good evidence there. However, if you are right and if Jesus never existed, then what drove the early Christians? To quote my above post:

 

Furthermore, from a purely historical standpoint, you have to admit that Christianity spread incredibly fast after Jesus' time, despite heavy oppression from the Roman Empire. If Christianity is fake, then why did the early believers manage to spread Christianity across all of the known Mediterranean world, on pain of death, with frequent killings and imprisonments leaving them unfazed? Why did they not fear death?

 

Perhaps it was widespread hallucinations.

[TK-8252]

You have some very good evidence there. However, if you are right and if Jesus never existed, then what drove the early Christians? To quote my above post:

 

 

 

Perhaps it was widespread hallucinations.

 

Well, what drove the early Muslims? They created the largest empire in history, albeit a short-lived one (darn Crusaders).