Originally Posted by
uneverno
http:///forum/post/3039478
I hear ya. The perspectives just don't make sense to me on a logical level. Then again, the definition of the word "faith" includes within it a defiance of logic. Hebrews 11:1...
You are correct in your assesment of me. I am not a believer. I was brought up with Christianity, and have read the bible numerous times. I think it's a very interesting history of the Jewish people. I think that there are some valuable parables imparted in the books, as well as some critical lessons for humanity as a whole. I have no issue w/ the red words in the Gospels.
Back to the OP, it's an interesting question, to which I would have to answer: No.
First, it's a matter of speculation whether or not Jesus existed at all. Outside the New Testament, most of which was written 70-100 years after his death, there is no historical record of the man.
Second, it is highly unlikely that an unmarried Rabbi, of 30 something years of age, would have been taken seriously within the cultural/historical context of his day. He would almost certainly have been considered a pariah, not a prophet, and we know he was definitely not considered the Messiah. So where did that idea come from?
Lastly, the formalization of Christianity as a religion, was largely the result of the first Council of Nicea in 325. The council was a politically motivated gathering whose sole purpose was to consolidate the power of Constantine as Emperor of Rome. Books, such as the Gospels of Thomas and Judas, were rejected, the Virgin birth was established as canonical fact, the Gnostics were declared heretics, things of that nature.
By now, we're 300+ years post Christ. (How accurately are you able to recount the daily events of any famous person from the 18th Century?)
Then, skipping ahead a dozenish centuries, we have the translation of the Bilble from Latin (which had been dead for nearly 1000 years by then) to King James' English. The King, being involved in a power struggle at the time, had passages rewritten to his liking.
In addition, we have the translational difficulties between archaic Latin, Greek, and Hebrew (which was also dead by then and which when written, did not include vowels, so they had to be assumed by linguistic archaeologists), and old and modern English.
So, we end up with misinterpretions such as "Thou shalt not kill." Meaning, murder, not kill in the modern English context, assuming the older languages were correctly represented. That's an obvious example. Re-intepreting a single language within its historical context is far from an easy task, let alone interpreting 5.
"I don't want to start any blasphemous rumours but I think that God's got a sick sense of humour, and when I die, I expect to find Him laughing."
Depeche Mode
Show me your sources.
Here's a source that negates your theory of writings that surfaced 70-100 years after Jesus' death, and the validity of those writings.
http://www.creatingfutures.net/validity.html
>No, it's not a fundie site. These facts show that we have a more accurate picture of the New Testament than we do about Caesar, ruler of the known world.
Archaeologists use the bible as a valid source when searching for artifacts and ruins. Something must be said about this.
Man, I'm feeling a little dejavu here. Didn't we just have a thread about this?
If something happened 2k years ago, why are we still talking about it? If Jesus was a false prophet, then why was his impact so profound that it's still igniting conversations today? If Jesus was a fraud, He would have fallen into the depths of history and His story would have been long forgotten. There is so much controversy around Jesus' ministry - that's undeniable. We have so much historical material on Jesus and the NT. Revisions are still being made (different versions, commentaries or interpretative books). Even if this was just a piece of History, why do we revisit it so often? Why does it confound so many scholars?
It's because it's true and we can't find a way to falsify it. We try using evolution but that's flawed too. We try focusing on the bible's origins, but they are even further validated by present study. We have Hebrew-literate scholars who study the text, which is actually an older language than Latin.
But we're missing one big aspect altogether. Personal experience. 85% of the world believes in a higher power. Something must be said about that. You can't say that 85%, myself included, are all delusional.
(P.S. I cut your quote above because swf said my post was too long)
