[Cold Iron]

Bent;308715 said:

They come from faith, so of course there is no real reasoning to them, or that would defeat the point. But you still don't seem to be correct, to me.
My beliefs stay constant. Jesus died and was resurected, virgin mother, etc. There is no change in that. And never will be. Ever. Because these fundamentals are the only things that I have in this world, everything else is just material. And now I have a question, as I am not certain at the moment, do ou believe in the fundamental parts of Christianity? Are you an athiest? what are our personal beliefs?

I believe they are images that evoke emotion, symbols that aid understanding and convey unconscious concepts. I believe they bring advantages to individuals and to societies. I believe god has different contexts, and we should do more than just follow, but learn and understand, so we can teach and improve. I believe religion is dynamic, and can and should itself be improved. I do not call myself a Christian. In fact I try to avoid labels altogether, but I have been describes as somewhat of a pantheist.

[amphibian]

Cold Iron;308733 said:

In fact I try to avoid labels altogether, but I have been describes as somewhat of a pantheist.

Pant-heister? Rodeo, we may have found your missing pants.

As a relatively disinterested observer (Hindu and not an acquaintance of either of you), I have to say that I'm somewhat uncomfortable with what Cold Iron's trying to do. People change when they're ready to change and outside poking and prodding doesn't do much good until the situation is right.

Bent, I get the impression that you're young enough to not really understand or truly believe in what you do believe in. To me, it seems you've accumulated around you a collection of things and beliefs from your family and friends that you'll reevaluate with an older and wiser eye later. Part of growing up is realizing what in your head you should keep or toss out and accepting that what seemed so lustrous and shiny before often dulls with a few more years under your belt.

[Cold Iron]

Dude, he's 27. And I'm not trying to change him, just prove a point.

[Bent]

Dude, I am 27 and my beliefs are my own. Granted, they might need a little edumacation and disiplesip training, but I enjoy discussing others beliefs, instead of discarding hem out of hand, I just wish CI wasn't going to burn in hell for not believing as I do. That was a joke, CI, well sort of, my beliefs do say you and everyone different would burn, but I struggle with this. I guess the truth will come when we are dead huh?

~Please don't take offence, it was just a joke.

[Cold Iron]

Bent;309231 said:

Dude, I am 27 and my beliefs are my own. Granted, they might need a little edumacation and disiplesip training, but I enjoy discussing others beliefs, instead of discarding hem out of hand, I just wish CI wasn't going to burn in hell for not believing as I do. That was a joke, CI, well sort of, my beliefs do say you and everyone different would burn, but I struggle with this. I guess the truth will come when we are dead huh?

~Please don't take offence, it was just a joke.

None taken, mostly because I know you mean no maliciousness, but also because I partially agree with you...

Burning in hell after death is to me a metaphor for unhappiness in this life. I believe we do not experience birth or death but rather a kind of "forever" caused by the nature of awareness. In a manner exactly the same as I discussed in the definition of god thread, what happens after I die has no meaning, I will not experience it. My experience is limited to the period of time I am alive, but my awareness of this time is as if it is "all time". The concept of the existence of time outside our life span is nothing more than that, a concept. We have proof for it and believe in it, but we can not experience it.

Regardless of the nature of my death, my brain will experience a final state. It will be no different to the state of my awareness at any other time. So my eternity, if I were to die right now, would be the state of my mind right now. What is a state of mind? The collection of all my emotions. Thoughts are something altogether different, they are nothing more than images and cease to exist as soon my focus shifts. My emotions make up my present state and these add up to something like a ratio of love:fear.

So heaven is a metaphor for a loving state of mind, and hell is a metaphor for a fearful state of mind. And religion is all about the manipulation of this state.

The argument for how faith in Jesus can cause a loving state of mind would be a little longer than I have time to tackle right now, but suffice it to say that my state of mind could be improved by said faith, thus improving my love:fear ratio and improving my final state to something more like heaven and less like hell...



ETA: Faith requires humility, something which I obviously lack.

[anakronisM]

Morgoth;218329 said:

not to mention that the Romans were almost fanatic in their devotion to keeping records, yet no record - apart from the bible - exist which mention this tradition of releasing one prisoner on that day.

Still we find that 24633 exact kopies (manuscripts) of the New Testament Bible (greek, latin and other) which is excessively more documented than any antique source. And the fact that there are four gospels with four different authors puts the level on the historical content.

[Cause]

doxa;330618 said:

Still we find that 24633 exact kopies (manuscripts) of the New Testament Bible (greek, latin and other) which is excessively more documented than any antique source. And the fact that there are four gospels with four different authors puts the level on the historical content.

Are you saying mass producing something makes it true, or that writing about something years after it happens (Not good for accuracy) but doing it four times makes it true?

[Cougar]

Four independent sources is what Doxa means, which is incredibly rare for any ancient historical text, although I'd argue this isn't strictly the case since they were gathered together.

[amphibian]

Cougar;330674 said:

Four independent sources is what Doxa means, which is incredibly rare for any ancient historical text, although I'd argue this isn't strictly the case since they were gathered together.

Not only were they gathered together, nobody's even sure which was written first or how exactly they relate to each other.

For further illustration of this fascinating theological/historical mess, Wikipedia carries this graphic to describe the synoptic problem:

[anakronisM]

Cause;330627 said:

Are you saying mass producing something makes it true, or that writing about something years after it happens (Not good for accuracy) but doing it four times makes it true?

My point is not that it proves that it's true, my point is to show the New Testament as an historical documentation. You have to consider for yourself what to believe.

Still it is written in the range of many eyewitnesses of that time , Luke who wrote The gospel of luke claimed in Luke 1:1-4 That he himself heard eyewitnesses and their views on the events. And doing research apart from others material.

And noone would argue that the Synoptics is not dependent on each other, but its no copies. But the Gospel of John is independent. Synoptics is written mainly in the range of living eyewitnesses.

[Cold Iron]

doxa;330887 said:

My point is not that it proves that it's true, my point is to show the New Testament as an historical documentation. You have to consider for yourself what to believe.

It's still not really clear what you're saying.

[councilor]

since christains are the followers of christ and he was betrayed by one of them, then wasn't christ betrayed by christians?

i mean the only jewish thing you could say about them was that they were ex j
jews.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

councilor;339185 said:

since christains are the followers of christ and he was betrayed by one of them, then wasn't christ betrayed by christians?

i mean the only jewish thing you could say about them was that they were ex j
jews.

You're referring to Judas, who was Christian, but the thread is referring overall to other people who were still Jewish, and if they did or did not betray him.

[palaeologos]

tharinock;215807 said:

It bothers me when people say, "Judas betrayed jesus, and judas was a jew, therefore jews betrayed jesus." That was because christians did not yet exist. just jews that did believe in christ and those that did not. Judas did believe in christ and was in fact one of his closest followers and chosen by the omniscent jesus for some reason. thus the man who betrayed jesus was clearly the closest thing at the time to official christianity.

I don't think you can really speak of "Christians" until after the Resurrection occurs; maybe not even until after Pentecost.

In any case, the usual rationale for citing Jews as the killers of Jesus is the Gospel of St John, where he repeatedly talks about "the Jews" when referring to the chief priests & scribes associated with the Temple. According to John, these Temple functionaries plotted to have Jesus killed in order to prevent Jesus from declaring himself the Jews' king (which is what they thought he was up to).

[palaeologos]

councilor;339185 said:

since christains are the followers of christ and he was betrayed by one of them, then wasn't christ betrayed by christians?

i mean the only jewish thing you could say about them was that they were ex j
jews.

They weren't "ex-Jews". They continued to keep the Mosaic Law and to worship as Jews. Christian worship didn't exist until after Jesus had died and risen.

Until the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70, there was a community of Jewish Christians who continued to worship at the Temple and kept all the distinctive Jewish practices while also celebrating the Communion on Sunday and holding Christian beliefs. Once the Temple was razed and the Jews expelled from Jerusalem, this stopped (obviously).