A Prayer Of Salvation (1 Viewer)

[Dr. Manhattan]

Understood, I question the motives of refusing to write them down and the insistence on an oral only history, but this was informational.

Along this line, Papias wrote

"For I did not think that information from the books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice."

So, I think there was, at least for a while preference to oral sources. And Papias learned from what the "elders" told others, as in "disciples of disciples".

"And if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders arrived, I made enquiries about the words of the elders—what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and John the Elder, the Lord’s disciples, were saying. "

A preference is understandable, however relying on oral voices is a multi-generational form of telephone, and extremely unreliable unfortunately.

 

[dkp993]

Understood, I question the motives of refusing to write them down and the insistence on an oral only history, but this was informational.

Along this line, Papias wrote

"For I did not think that information from the books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice."

So, I think there was, at least for a while preference to oral sources. And Papias learned from what the "elders" told others, as in "disciples of disciples".

"And if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders arrived, I made enquiries about the words of the elders—what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and John the Elder, the Lord’s disciples, were saying. "

A preference is understandable, however relying on oral voices is a multi-generational form of telephone, and extremely unreliable unfortunately.

Some will argue that you are thinking in modern day terms. The theory is that the oral tradition of the past was much more sacred therefore less likely to be changed from person to person, unlike today.

While I understand this theory, I’m not sure I subscribe to it. People are still people and communication in general is complicated and layered. While they may have placed more importance on it than we do it’s still a very flawed process so its accuracy imo is suspect (to be kind).

 

[Zow]

As for the timeline, my education was:

- Jesus likely born around 4 B.C./B.C.E and therefore he allegedly died and rose from the dead around 25-30 A.D./C.E.
- The Gospel of Mark is considered the first Gospel written around 65-70 A.D./C.E. Some scholars do believe it may have been Mark because of the race to the tomb story. Regardless, if you make Mark a teenager a time at the death of Christ, he's writing the Gospel like 30 years after the fact (with an intended Gentile audience) when he is considered quite old for a human back then.

From an evidentiary perspective, the longer a witness waits to reduce his account to writing the generally less credible it's considered. Ergo, even putting aside the inherent unreliability of an eyewitness account, you're expecting a human to be accurate literally thirty plus years later and writing for a defined purpose and/or agenda?

The other Gospels were written at an even later date than Mark's so they are presumably less reliable.

Matthew and John are written as firsthand accounts, regardless of their authorship dates (which requires a LOT of speculation, some of which could very well be incorrect).

Luke and Mark are actually secondhand. They were both younger contemporaries of the apostles and other first hand witnesses but wrote down what they were told by those that were there.

The gospels easily cover the most well recorded 3 year period in all of ancient history and their scholarly accuracy is miles ahead of anything else from around that time and for the next 500 years or more.

The concept of Mark as the first written assumes the concept of the gospels as mostly fiction. Once you assume the gospels are true, it is most likely Matthew's was written first but possibly distributed as fragmented short stories that Mark and Luke copied with some added input from others. There wasn't exactly a printing press around in 35-40 AD.

See, this is the thing about religion - everything you state is entirely different than the monks taught me while they were literally writing the St. John's bible at the time and they certainly don't think the stories are fiction. Further, a neutral/generic google search does not produce the same answers you state and, instead, support what I postulated at least in regards to Mark being the first Gospel written around 65-70 C.E./A.D. Additionally, your second sentence is arguably just subjective opinion. Finally, when you state that one must assume truth (I appreciate you qualifying your statement with that assumption) it basically concedes that nothing about the writing of the gospels is uncontroverted fact.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

A preference is understandable, however relying on oral voices is a multi-generational form of telephone, and extremely unreliable unfortunately.

Not really, it is worse than that because these stories are not only crossing time, they are crossing languages and cultures. To tie in to the mention about literacy, the last I read -

"the only literary works which can with certainty be attributed to Palestinian Jews of the first century C.E. are the writings of Josephus and the no longer extant works of his opponent Justus of Tiberias” (both of whom “received a Greek education and were influenced by Graeco-Roman writing”). - Source (indirectly) Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine

=============
Luke Timothy Johnson uses a different analogy in one of his Great Courses lessons (Earliest Stages-Paul and the Oral Tradition). His analogy is at family Thanksgiving gathering at Grandma's house after she has been gone for a few years. Keeping her traditions alive in a ritual setting and telling memories of Grandma. He points out that no one is asked to provide the "authorized" biography of Grandma, instead there is a free-flowing anecdotal sharing of stories. Everybody has some kind of memory to share. No one has every story but in the telling and retelling a shared story of Grandma emerges and eventually there is no one left who actually knew Grandma to add to it so the story becomes set. But as they get past down from one generation to another, from one household to another a great deal of variety emerges in the details. And no one cares about exactly when or exactly where or exactly whatever. What is important is what she did and say and what was really important is what it meant. And how it reveals something about who Grandma was. Ultimately it becomes almost like Grandma is there. And this isn't just about Grandma as it is really about us.

His point then about early Christians is that they did this with Jesus with one important distinction. They didn't do this to "make it like Jesus was there", they did it because they believed that Jesus was already there. And in some ways, this is what a Sunday service today is like.

But for this discussion, the point is that this is how I think stories of Jesus were preserved early. Memories of Jesus was shared and passed on. The "heart of the stories" was well preserved, the details changed every few telling. Because no one cared about this stuff! So, by the time things are first being written down it is just a bunch of stories and sayings. "Pearls". The Gospel writers come along and string these "pearls", both written and still just oral together to form a narrative. Mark first and while both Matthew and Luke chop away at things they apparently disliked about Mark, they more or less keep his string of pearls intact as they insert other pearls into the narrative. Some of these new pearls they shared and then placed in different places in their own narratives. And we end up with beautiful strings of pearls that each in their own way share memories of Jesus' essence, though they vary in all kinds of details.

And I think that my view of how the gospels came to can be true no matter what one ultimately believes in Jesus. You can still believe that God or the Holy Spirit was guiding the authors. You can have no belief in God at all. The only thing you cannot do is believe that these stories are literal accounts of events.

 

[Zow]

A preference is understandable, however relying on oral voices is a multi-generational form of telephone, and extremely unreliable unfortunately.

Not really, it is worse than that because these stories are not only crossing time, they are crossing languages and cultures. To tie in to the mention about literacy, the last I read -

And were inevitably relayed for political purposes or biases as Jerusalem was a pretty wild place that century.

 

[dgreen]

Understood, I question the motives of refusing to write them down and the insistence on an oral only history, but this was informational.

Along this line, Papias wrote

"For I did not think that information from the books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice."

So, I think there was, at least for a while preference to oral sources. And Papias learned from what the "elders" told others, as in "disciples of disciples".

"And if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders arrived, I made enquiries about the words of the elders—what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and John the Elder, the Lord’s disciples, were saying. "

A preference is understandable, however relying on oral voices is a multi-generational form of telephone, and extremely unreliable unfortunately.

Some will argue that you are thinking in modern day terms. The theory is that the oral tradition of the past was much more sacred therefore less likely to be changed from person to person, unlike today.

While I understand this theory, I’m not sure I subscribe to it. People are still people and communication in general is complicated and layered. While they may have placed more importance on it than we do it’s still a very flawed process so its accuracy imo is suspect (to be kind).

How many phone numbers did you used to have memorized vs how many do you have memorized today?

ETA: I'm assuming you're kind of old like me

 

[dkp993]

Understood, I question the motives of refusing to write them down and the insistence on an oral only history, but this was informational.

Along this line, Papias wrote

"For I did not think that information from the books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice."

So, I think there was, at least for a while preference to oral sources. And Papias learned from what the "elders" told others, as in "disciples of disciples".

"And if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders arrived, I made enquiries about the words of the elders—what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and John the Elder, the Lord’s disciples, were saying. "

A preference is understandable, however relying on oral voices is a multi-generational form of telephone, and extremely unreliable unfortunately.

Some will argue that you are thinking in modern day terms. The theory is that the oral tradition of the past was much more sacred therefore less likely to be changed from person to person, unlike today.

While I understand this theory, I’m not sure I subscribe to it. People are still people and communication in general is complicated and layered. While they may have placed more importance on it than we do it’s still a very flawed process so its accuracy imo is suspect (to be kind).

How many phone numbers did you used to have memorized vs how many do you have memorized today?

ETA: I'm assuming you're kind of old like me

I’ll counter that with questions of my own. How many phone numbers carry context, emotion, motivation, power and political reasons to change them or shape them in the retelling/recalling of the numbers? Also when telling others those phone numbers how often are they misremembered by the person (or multiple lines of people) being told?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

And were inevitably relayed for political purposes or biases as Jerusalem was a pretty wild place that century.

Sure, a pretty major event in the narrative happens in Jerusalem, but I think (think, not know) very little of what Christianity becomes happens in Jerusalem. Especially once Paul's traveling tentmaking operation picked up the story.

 

[Dr. Manhattan]

Understood, I question the motives of refusing to write them down and the insistence on an oral only history, but this was informational.

Along this line, Papias wrote

"For I did not think that information from the books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice."

So, I think there was, at least for a while preference to oral sources. And Papias learned from what the "elders" told others, as in "disciples of disciples".

"And if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders arrived, I made enquiries about the words of the elders—what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and John the Elder, the Lord’s disciples, were saying. "

A preference is understandable, however relying on oral voices is a multi-generational form of telephone, and extremely unreliable unfortunately.

Some will argue that you are thinking in modern day terms. The theory is that the oral tradition of the past was much more sacred therefore less likely to be changed from person to person, unlike today.

While I understand this theory, I’m not sure I subscribe to it. People are still people and communication in general is complicated and layered. While they may have placed more importance on it than we do it’s still a very flawed process so its accuracy imo is suspect (to be kind).

I get your point, but I don't think people are intentionally changing stories most of the time. You are more fallible than you realize and your brain fills in gaps automatically with what it think makes the most sense. I'm not suggesting the changes were necessarily malicious or intentional. But to think a story passed down orally for 30 years is accurate is...a stretch.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

How many phone numbers did you used to have memorized vs how many do you have memorized today?

ETA: I'm assuming you're kind of old like me

I still know a few by memory that wouldn't have worked for 40+ years now. And I guess that a subset of those I'd swear up and down that I remember correctly, but if anyone actually checked I do not.

 

[Dr. Manhattan]

A preference is understandable, however relying on oral voices is a multi-generational form of telephone, and extremely unreliable unfortunately.

Not really, it is worse than that because these stories are not only crossing time, they are crossing languages and cultures. To tie in to the mention about literacy, the last I read -

"the only literary works which can with certainty be attributed to Palestinian Jews of the first century C.E. are the writings of Josephus and the no longer extant works of his opponent Justus of Tiberias” (both of whom “received a Greek education and were influenced by Graeco-Roman writing”). - Source (indirectly) Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine

=============
Luke Timothy Johnson uses a different analogy in one of his Great Courses lessons (Earliest Stages-Paul and the Oral Tradition). His analogy is at family Thanksgiving gathering at Grandma's house after she has been gone for a few years. Keeping her traditions alive in a ritual setting and telling memories of Grandma. He points out that no one is asked to provide the "authorized" biography of Grandma, instead there is a free-flowing anecdotal sharing of stories. Everybody has some kind of memory to share. No one has every story but in the telling and retelling a shared story of Grandma emerges and eventually there is no one left who actually knew Grandma to add to it so the story becomes set. But as they get past down from one generation to another, from one household to another a great deal of variety emerges in the details. And no one cares about exactly when or exactly where or exactly whatever. What is important is what she did and say and what was really important is what it meant. And how it reveals something about who Grandma was. Ultimately it becomes almost like Grandma is there. And this isn't just about Grandma as it is really about us.

His point then about early Christians is that they did this with Jesus with one important distinction. They didn't do this to "make it like Jesus was there", they did it because they believed that Jesus was already there. And in some ways, this is what a Sunday service today is like.

But for this discussion, the point is that this is how I think stories of Jesus were preserved early. Memories of Jesus was shared and passed on. The "heart of the stories" was well preserved, the details changed every few telling. Because no one cared about this stuff! So, by the time things are first being written down it is just a bunch of stories and sayings. "Pearls". The Gospel writers come along and string these "pearls", both written and still just oral together to form a narrative. Mark first and while both Matthew and Luke chop away at things they apparently disliked about Mark, they more or less keep his string of pearls intact as they insert other pearls into the narrative. Some of these new pearls they shared and then placed in different places in their own narratives. And we end up with beautiful strings of pearls that each in their own way share memories of Jesus' essence, though they vary in all kinds of details.

And I think that my view of how the gospels came to can be true no matter what one ultimately believes in Jesus. You can still believe that God or the Holy Spirit was guiding the authors. You can have no belief in God at all. The only thing you cannot do is believe that these stories are literal accounts of events.

Is it unreasonable to think a kind and compassionate man bathed the homeless and tended to the sick, achieving "miraculous" recoveries simply be cleaning wounds and providing food and care and these tales were exaggerated over the years through the oral re-tellings?

Could his eloquence and charisma allowed him to barter for and secure wine for people via trades or negotiation later turned into he "turned water into wine"?

There plenty of reason to be skeptical. To question. To doubt, except you are explicitly told you should not, you should instead have faith. This would be a ridiculous ask in any other scenario.

I do not have "faith" in my surgeon inherently, I have faith because he went to medical school and has performed countless operations.

I don't put blind trust into my financial advisor and let him handle my funds on faith, I trust him because he has a proven track record of success and relevant degrees.

 

[Captain Cranks]

See, this is the thing about religion - everything you state is entirely different than the monks taught me while they were literally writing the St. John's bible at the time and they certainly don't think the stories are fiction. Further, a neutral/generic google search does not produce the same answers you state and, instead, support what I postulated at least in regards to Mark being the first Gospel written around 65-70 C.E./A.D. Additionally, your second sentence is arguably just subjective opinion. Finally, when you state that one must assume truth (I appreciate you qualifying your statement with that assumption) it basically concedes that nothing about the writing of the gospels in uncontroverted fact.

Only a small minority of biblical scholars believe that Matthew was the first gospel written. I'd like to see Jayrod's sources for his claims.

 

[dgreen]

Understood, I question the motives of refusing to write them down and the insistence on an oral only history, but this was informational.

Along this line, Papias wrote

"For I did not think that information from the books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice."

So, I think there was, at least for a while preference to oral sources. And Papias learned from what the "elders" told others, as in "disciples of disciples".

"And if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders arrived, I made enquiries about the words of the elders—what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and John the Elder, the Lord’s disciples, were saying. "

A preference is understandable, however relying on oral voices is a multi-generational form of telephone, and extremely unreliable unfortunately.

Some will argue that you are thinking in modern day terms. The theory is that the oral tradition of the past was much more sacred therefore less likely to be changed from person to person, unlike today.

While I understand this theory, I’m not sure I subscribe to it. People are still people and communication in general is complicated and layered. While they may have placed more importance on it than we do it’s still a very flawed process so its accuracy imo is suspect (to be kind).

How many phone numbers did you used to have memorized vs how many do you have memorized today?

ETA: I'm assuming you're kind of old like me

I’ll counter that with questions of my own. How many phone numbers carry context, emotion, motivation, power and political reasons to change them or shape them in the retelling/recalling of the numbers? Also when telling others those phone numbers how often are they misremembered by the person (or multiple lines of people) being told?

True. Phone numbers might not be the best analogy for the type of information being communicated. My point was more about how humanity loses particular skills as new technologies arise.

 

[dgreen]

There plenty of reason to be skeptical. To question. To doubt, except you are explicitly told you should not, you should instead have faith. This would be a ridiculous ask in any other scenario.

I know plenty of churches have this attitude. And there's probably one person in this thread who would agree. But, most of the believers in this thread probably encourage questions and are pretty comfortable with doubts.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Only a small minority of biblical scholars believe that Matthew was the first gospel written. I'd like to see Jayrod's sources for his claims.

Maybe someone will pull a copy of a long, lost gospel written in Aramaic (or even Hebrew) off a burial mask soon.

 

[Northern Voice]

I get the discussion in here but honestly if you can't tell the stories are fiction because they feature a guy rising from the dead, a guy parting a sea, a guy walking on water, a guy putting two of every living animal species in the world on a boat, I think a donkey talks at one point? Fish and bread magically multiply at another. I think maybe a fish swallows someone and he lives in there a few days?

I know someone said up thread essentially that Christians aren't expected to think critically about these things but come on folks.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I get the discussion in here but honestly if you can't tell the stories are fiction because they feature a guy rising from the dead, a guy parting a sea, a guy walking on water, a guy putting two of every living animal species in the world on a boat, I think a donkey talks at one point? Fish and bread magically multiply at another. I think maybe a fish swallows someone and he lives in there a few days?

I know someone said up thread essentially that Christians aren't expected to think critically about these things but come on folks.

None of this craziness would have been thought of as crazy in the first century. In fact, it was rather effective to slowly but consistently convert pagans over the following few hundred years. Then another "miracle" story and the cash it provided help convert a whole lot more.

What was considered crazy is that the great hoped for messiah would come to such a shameful, even cursed death at the hands of the occupiers. Not only was this crazy it was offensive in a way that resulted in violent outbursts per one that confessed to be prone to such outburst.

Finally, there should be no denying that Jesus rose from the dead at least metaphorically. As almost 2000 years later that seeming nonsignificant, run of the mill crucifixion of a rural peasant with images of his own grandeur is still dominating how our society functions. Like it or not. (I know your vote.)

 

[dkp993]

I get the discussion in here but honestly if you can't tell the stories are fiction because they feature a guy rising from the dead

As this is a core tenet to Christianity I doubt you will find many Christians that don’t think at least this story is true.

 

[Psychopav]

I get the discussion in here but honestly if you can't tell the stories are fiction because they feature a guy rising from the dead, a guy parting a sea, a guy walking on water, a guy putting two of every living animal species in the world on a boat, I think a donkey talks at one point? Fish and bread magically multiply at another. I think maybe a fish swallows someone and he lives in there a few days?

I know someone said up thread essentially that Christians aren't expected to think critically about these things but come on folks.

None of this craziness would have been thought of as crazy in the first century. In fact, it was rather effective to slowly but consistently convert pagans over the following few hundred years. Then another "miracle" story and the cash it provided help convert a whole lot more.

What was considered crazy is that the great hoped for messiah would come to such a shameful, even cursed death at the hands of the occupiers. Not only was this crazy it was offensive in a way that resulted in violent outbursts per one that confessed to be prone to such outburst.

Finally, there should be no denying that Jesus rose from the dead at least metaphorically. As almost 2000 years later that seeming nonsignificant, run of the mill crucifixion of a rural peasant with images of his own grandeur is still dominating how our society functions. Like it or not. (I know your vote.)

The vast majority of Christians believe miracles in general happened and still happen.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The vast majority of Christians believe miracles in general happened and still happen.

No argument here. But the person I was replying to called these things crazy, so I interpreted that as he does not think the same. And responded iwth how pretty much no one would have thought like he does in the pagan world. That his preference for a world without religion at all was not an available option for another thousand plus years. So, his thesis that the world would better off if Christianity never took root needs to consider what might have replaced it in the first few centuries rather than modern ideas.

As for Christians believing in miracles today, I'll let a non-believer handle that. I've posted numerous times that Christians just need to be honest and lean into the simple idea that we believe in crazy stuff that is not logically and/or rationally explained. But most often my side instead doubles and triples down on the crazy thinking some claim is self-evident rather than easily dismissed.

 

[BrutalPenguin]

As for the timeline, my education was:

- Jesus likely born around 4 B.C./B.C.E and therefore he allegedly died and rose from the dead around 25-30 A.D./C.E.
- The Gospel of Mark is considered the first Gospel written around 65-70 A.D./C.E. Some scholars do believe it may have been Mark because of the race to the tomb story. Regardless, if you make Mark a teenager a time at the death of Christ, he's writing the Gospel like 30 years after the fact (with an intended Gentile audience) when he is considered quite old for a human back then.

From an evidentiary perspective, the longer a witness waits to reduce his account to writing the generally less credible it's considered. Ergo, even putting aside the inherent unreliability of an eyewitness account, you're expecting a human to be accurate literally thirty plus years later and writing for a defined purpose and/or agenda?

The other Gospels were written at an even later date than Mark's so they are presumably less reliable.

Matthew and John are written as firsthand accounts, regardless of their authorship dates (which requires a LOT of speculation, some of which could very well be incorrect).

Luke and Mark are actually secondhand. They were both younger contemporaries of the apostles and other first hand witnesses but wrote down what they were told by those that were there.

The gospels easily cover the most well recorded 3 year period in all of ancient history and their scholarly accuracy is miles ahead of anything else from around that time and for the next 500 years or more.

The concept of Mark as the first written assumes the concept of the gospels as mostly fiction. Once you assume the gospels are true, it is most likely Matthew's was written first but possibly distributed as fragmented short stories that Mark and Luke copied with some added input from others. There wasn't exactly a printing press around in 35-40 AD.

But don't Matthew and Luke pretty much take Mark as source material, and where they differ from Mark, they disagree. How can Mark not be first?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

As for the timeline, my education was:

- Jesus likely born around 4 B.C./B.C.E and therefore he allegedly died and rose from the dead around 25-30 A.D./C.E.
- The Gospel of Mark is considered the first Gospel written around 65-70 A.D./C.E. Some scholars do believe it may have been Mark because of the race to the tomb story. Regardless, if you make Mark a teenager a time at the death of Christ, he's writing the Gospel like 30 years after the fact (with an intended Gentile audience) when he is considered quite old for a human back then.

From an evidentiary perspective, the longer a witness waits to reduce his account to writing the generally less credible it's considered. Ergo, even putting aside the inherent unreliability of an eyewitness account, you're expecting a human to be accurate literally thirty plus years later and writing for a defined purpose and/or agenda?

The other Gospels were written at an even later date than Mark's so they are presumably less reliable.

Matthew and John are written as firsthand accounts, regardless of their authorship dates (which requires a LOT of speculation, some of which could very well be incorrect).

Luke and Mark are actually secondhand. They were both younger contemporaries of the apostles and other first hand witnesses but wrote down what they were told by those that were there.

The gospels easily cover the most well recorded 3 year period in all of ancient history and their scholarly accuracy is miles ahead of anything else from around that time and for the next 500 years or more.

The concept of Mark as the first written assumes the concept of the gospels as mostly fiction. Once you assume the gospels are true, it is most likely Matthew's was written first but possibly distributed as fragmented short stories that Mark and Luke copied with some added input from others. There wasn't exactly a printing press around in 35-40 AD.

But don't Matthew and Luke pretty much take Mark as source material, and where they differ from Mark, they disagree. How can Mark not be first?

Using Luke Timothy Johnson as source again from that same course, different lesson.

About 90% of Mark is found in both Luke and Matthew and about 10% is found in neither. They also share another body of material not found in Mark, mostly sayings. When one Matthew or Luke are in agreement with Mark, they both agree. When they don't agree with Mark, they don't agree at all despite using the same shared materials. (They also had their own unique sources.)

 

[Paddington]

Not sure what you are getting at. Every one of these writings is regarding Jesus Christ. They give different details of what happened to Him and about His followers. Also, I noticed that you skipped quite a few of these. My point is that it is a historical fact that Jesus Christ lived, died on the cross and is believed by His followers to be resurrected and the Son of God. You can't argue that. What event would cause them to believe He is the Son of God?

Early Secular Writings Regarding Christ​

Published: March 10, 2006 In: Price Tags
TACITUS: (55-117) A.D.)
Cornelius Tactitus is regarded as the greatest historian of ancient Rome. Writing on the reign of Nero, Tacitus alludes to the death of Christ and to the existence of Christians in Rome.
“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of on of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the word find their center and become popular.”

PLINY THE YOUNGER: (112 A.D.)
Pliny was governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor who wrote a letter to Trajan regarding how to deal with Christians who worshiped Christ. These letters concern an episode which marks the first time the Roman government acknowledged Christianity as a religion separate from Judaism, and set a precedent for the massive persecution of Christians that takes place in the second and third centuries.
“They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sand in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath not to any wicked deeds, not to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor to deny any trust when they should be call to deliver it up, after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food —but food of an ordinary but and innocent kind.”

BABYLONIAN TALMUD: (Completed in the 6th Century A.D.)
The Babylonian Talmud is a Rabbinic commentary of the Jewish scriptures (Tanach: Old Testament). They are a look into what is a hostile source was saying about Jesus. They could not deny the miracles but claimed that it was sorcery rather than admit to what was a known fact.
“ On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because He has practiced sorcery (an admission of his miracles) and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor let him come forward and plead on his behalf. But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the even of the Passover.”
The Babylonian Talmud, vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a

LUCIAN: (120-180 A.D.)
a Greek satirist that spoke scornfully of Christ and Christians, affirming that they were real and historical people, never saying that they were fictional characters.
“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day — the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account….You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.”
Lucian, The Death of Peregrine. 11-13.

LETTER OF MARA BARSARAPION: (73 A.D.)
Mara Bar-Serapion was a Syrian who lived in the first century A.D. He wrote a letter to his son Serapion that mentions the Jews who killed their King. The letter is now in the possession of the British Museum.
“What benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as judgment for their crime. Or, the people of Samos for burning Pythagoras? In one moment their country was covered with sand. Or the Jews by murdering their wise king?…After that their kingdom was abolished. God rightly avenged these men…The wise king…Lived on in the teachings he enacted.”

THALLUS: (52 A.D.)
One of the first secular writers that mentioned Christ. Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. Unfortunately, his writings are only found as citations by others. Julius Africanus, a Christian who wrote about AD 221 mentioned Thallus’ account of an eclipse of the sun (Luke 23:44-45).
“On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.”
Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18:1.

PHLEGON: (1st Century)
A secular historian wrote a history named, “Chronicles.” This original work has been lost, Julius Africanus preserved a small fragment in his writings. Phlegon mentions the eclipse (Matthew 27:45) during the crucifixion of Jesus.
“During the time of Tiberius Caesar an eclipse of the sun occurred during the full moon.”
Africanus, Chronography, 18:1.

SUETONIUS: (69-140 A.D.)
A Roman historian and annalist of the Imperial House under the Emperor Hadrian. He refers to Christ and Christians and the “disturbances” caused by them, namely not worshipping idols and loving all, including their tormentors.
“Because the Jews at Rome caused constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [Christ], he [Claudius] expelled them from the city [Rome].” Acts 18:2, which took place in 49 A.D.
Life of Claudius, 25:4.

In another work Suetonius wrote about the fire which devastated Rome in 64 A.D. under the reign of Nero. Nero blamed the Christians and exacted a heavy punishment upon them, among them covering them with pitch and burning them alive in his gardens.
“Nero inflicted punishment on the Christians, a sect given to a new and mischievous religious belief.”
Lives of the Caesars, 26.2

TOLEDOTH YESHU: (6 Century)
This is a derogatory version of the life of Jesus, growing out of the response of the Jewish community to Christianity. The tradition presented here is most commonly dated to approximately the 6th century CE. The text it self is closer to the 14th century.
Mentions the empty tomb and that the Jewish leaders found it empty. That Jesus was crucified on the eve of the Passover and that He claimed to be God. That Jesus performed sorcery, he healed, and that he taught Rabbis. All of this from a hostile source, with the references above it is a historical fact that Jesus did miracles. His enemies could not refute it, rather they explained it away as sorcery!

CELSUS: (2nd Century)
Criticizes the Gospels, unknowingly reinforces the authors and the content, he alludes to 80 different quotes in the Bible. Admits that the miracles of Jesus were generally believed in the 2nd century.

JULIAN THE APOSTATE: (332-363 A.D.)
Emperor of Rome mentions the Gospels, miracles and other facts about Jesus. Julian had struggled to end the power of Christians in the Roman Empire. Since the day fifty years earlier that Constantine conquered in the sign of the cross, Christian influence had steadily grown. As Julian lay dying from a mortal wound he made the following remark:

“As he bled, the dying emperor groaned, “You have conquered, O Galilean,” referring to Jesus Christ.

CLEMENT OF ROME: (100 A.D.)
Clement affirms the Resurrection, Gospels and that Jesus was sent to earth by God to take away our sins.
“Clement was the fourth bishop of Rome, the first being Peter. Did he know Peter and Paul? It is completely possible that those two Spirit-filled men taught him. Clement even wrote a letter to the Corinthian church that echoed the teachings of the apostles.”

 

[Paddington]

IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH: (50-107 A.D.)
Disciple of the apostles Peter, Paul, and John, who was martyred for his faith in Jesus. He was obviously convinced that Jesus really had lived and that Jesus was all that the apostles has said He was.
“…nearness to the sword is nearness to God; to be among the wild beasts is to be in the arms of God; only let it be in the name of Jesus Christ. I endure all things that I may suffer together with him, since he who became perfect man strengthens me…We have not only to be called Christians, but to be Christians.”
While the emperor Trajan was on a visit to Asia Minor, he arrested Ignatius. When the bishop confessed his faith in Christ, the Emperor sent him in chains to Rome to die. He was hustled to the arena at once and thrown to two fierce lions who immediately devoured him.

QUADRATUS: (125 A.D.)
Bishop of Athens and a disciple of the apostles. Church historian Eusebius has preserved the only work that we have from Quadratus.
“The deeds of our Savior were always before you, for they were true miracles; those that were healed, those that were raised from the dead, who were seen, not only when healed and when raised, but were always present. They remained living a long time, not only whilst our Lord was on earth, but likewise when he had left the earth. So that some of them have also lived in our times.”
Eusebius, IV, III

EPISTLE OF BARNABAS: (130-38 A.D.)
Mentions the Resurrection, miracles, content of the Gospels and the crucifixion of Jesus.

ARISTIDES: (138-161 A.D.)
Aristides was a second-century Christian believer and philosopher from Athens. This portion of his defense of Christianity was addressed to the Roman Emperor Antonius Pius, who reigned from 138-161 A.D.
“The Son of the most high God, revealed by the Holy Spirit, descended from heaven, born of a Hebrew Virgin. His flesh he received from the Virgin, and he revealed himself in the human nature as the Son of God. In his goodness which brought the glad tidings, he has won the whole world by his life-giving preaching…He selected twelve apostles and taught the whole world by his mediatorial, light-giving truth.
And he was crucified, being pierced with nails by the Jews; and he rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. He sent the apostles into all the world and instructed all by divine miracles full of wisdom. Their preaching bears blossoms and fruits to this day, and calls the whole world to illumination.”
Carey, “Aristides,” 68.

JUSTIN MARTYR: (106-167 A.D.)
Justin Martyr is regarded as one of the greatest early Christian apologists. He was born around 100 A.D and was beheaded for his faith in Jesus in 167 A.D. He mentions as facts many things about Jesus and Christianity, such as: The Magi (wise men who brought gifts from Arabia), King Herod, His crucifixion, His garments parted among the Roman soldiers, the apostles leaving him on the night of his arrest, his fulfilled prophecies, His resurrection and His ascending into heaven among many others. These quotes can be found in his debate with Trypho the Jew.

HEGESIPPUS: (2 Century)
Eusebius draws the conclusion that Hegesippus was a Jew that wrote five books called, “Memoirs.” Only fragments remain of his original work in the writings of Eusebius. They show that Hegesippus traveled extensively trying to determine if the stories of Jesus and the apostles were true. He found that they were accurate, even in the troubled church in Corinth.
“The Corinthian church continued in the true doctrine until Primus became bishop. I mixed with them on my voyage to Rome and spent several days with the Corinthians, during which we were refreshed with the true doctrine. On arrival at Rome I pieced together the succession down to Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus, Anicetus being succeeded by Soter and he by Eleutherus. In every line of bishops and in every city things accord with the preaching of the Law, the Prophets, and the Lord.”
Eusebius, The History of the Church, 9.22.2.

 

[Paddington]

TRAJAN: (53-117 A.D.)
Trajan is a Roman Emperor who wrote a letter [see letter] in response to the Governor of Asia Minor, Pliny the Younger. Pliny needed advice in dealing with “Christians” who renounced their belief in Jesus due to fear of torture and execution.

MACROBIUS: (4th-5th Century)
Pascal (Pensees) mentions a quote of Augustus Caesar as an evidence to the murder of the 7-20 male babies (this is based on the population of Bethlehem in 4-6 B.C., which was 700-1,000 people) by King Herod in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:16).
King Herod heard that a king was to be born and his fear and mental instability caused him to kill these male children under two years of age. King Herod killed his Wife, mother in law, and three sons. This is in character with his life of murder and paranoia. King Herod’s reign was described by his enemies as, “He stole to the throne like a fox, ruled like a tiger, and died like a dog.”
Saturnalia, lib. 2, ch.4.

HADRIAN: (106-167 A.D.)
Justin Martyr quotes this Roman Emperor’s letter to Minucius Fundanus, proconsul of Asia Minor. This letter deals with accusations from pagans against the Christians.
“I have received the letter addressed to me by your predecessor Serenius Granianus, a most illustrious man; and this communication I am unwilling to pass over in silence, lest innocent persons be disturbed, and occasion be given to the informers for practicing villainy. Accordingly, if the inhabitants of your province will so far sustain this petition of theirs as to accuse the Christians in some court of law, I do not prohibit them from doing so.
But I will not suffer them to make use of mere entreaties and outcries. For it is far more just, if any one desires to make an accusation, that you give judgment upon it. If, therefore, any one makes the accusation, and furnishes proof that the said men do anything contrary to the laws, you shall adjudge punishments in proportion to the offences.
And this, by Hercules; you shall give special heed to, that if any man shall, through mere calumny, bring an accusation against any of these persons, you shall award to him more severe punishments in proportion to his wickedness.”
Justin Martyr, The First Apology, Chapters, 68-69.

JUVENAL: (55 AD-127 AD)
Juvenal makes a reference of the tortures of Christians by Nero in Rome.
“But just describe Tigellinus and you will blaze amid those faggots in which men, with their throats tightly gripped, stand and burn and smoke, and you trace a broad furrow through the middle of the arena.”
Satires, 1, lines 147-157.

SENECA: (3 B.C.-65 A.D.)
Seneca mentions the cruelties that Nero imposes upon Christians.
“The other kind of evil comes, so to speak, in the form of a huge parade. Surrounding it is a retinue of swords and fire and chains and a mob of beasts to be let loose upon the disemboweled entrails of men. Picture to yourself under his head the prison, the cross, the rack, the hook, and the stake which they drive straight through a man until it protrudes from his throat. Think of human limbs torn apart by chariots driven in opposite directions, of the terrible shirt smeared and interwoven with inflammable materials, and of all the other contrivances devised by cruelty, in addition to those which I have mentioned!”
Epistulae Morales, Epistle 14, “On the Reasons for Withdrawing from the World.”

HIEROCLES: (AD 284-305)
A quote by Eusebius preserves some of the text of this lost work of Hierocles, Philalethes or Lover of Truth. In this quote, Hierocles condemns Peter and Paul as sorcerers. Again, their miracles could not be denied, rather they claimed that they used sorcery.
“And this point is also worth noticing, that whereas the tales of Jesus have been vamped up by Peter and Paul and a few others of the kind,–men who were liars and devoid of education and wizards.”
Eusebius, The Treatise of Eusebius, ch. 2.

ANTONIUS PIUS: (86 AD to 161 AD)
A letter from the Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius to the general assembly in Asia Minor. This letter says that the officials in Aisa Minor were getting upset at the Christians in their province, and that no changes are to be made in Antoninus’ method of dealing with them.
“The Emperor Caesar Titus AElius Adrianus Antoninus Augustus Pius, Supreme Pontiff, in the fifteenth year of his tribuneship, Consul for the third time, Father of the fatherland, to the Common Assembly of Asia, greeting: I should have thought that the gods themselves would see to it that such offenders should not escape.
For if they had the power, they themselves would much rather punish those who refuse to worship them; but it is you who bring trouble on these persons, and accuse as the opinion of atheists that which they hold, and lay to their charge certain other things which we are unable to prove.
But it would be advantageous to them that they should be thought to die for that of which they are accused, and they conquer you by being lavish of their lives rather than yield that obedience which you require of them. And regarding the earthquakes which have already happened and are now occurring, it is not seemly that you remind us of them, losing heart whenever they occur, and thus set your conduct in contrast with that of these men; for they have much greater confidence towards God than you yourselves have.
And you, indeed, seem at such times to ignore the gods, and you neglect the temples, and make no recognition of the worship of God. And hence you are jealous of those who do serve Him, and persecute them to the death.
Concerning such persons, some others also of the governors of provinces wrote to my most divine father; to whom he replied that they should not at all disturb such persons, unless they were found to be attempting anything against the Roman government. And to myself many have sent intimations regarding such persons, to whom I also replied in pursuance of my father’s judgment.
But if any one has a matter to bring against any person of this class, merely as such a person, let the accused be acquitted of the charge, even though he should be found to be such an one; but let the accuser he amenable to justice.”
Justin Martyr, The First Apology, ch. 70.

 

[dozer]

So weird.

 

[Zow]

So weird.

Debating whether that's all ChatGPT.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

My point is that it is a historical fact that Jesus Christ lived, died on the cross and is believed by His followers to be resurrected and the Son of God. You can't argue that

That is not in dispute*. It is even explicitly stated in my post. But this is hardly writings about Christ, hardly suggest that Christ is anything more than a name for the executed troublemaker. Exactly as I said. And not very useful as evidence for the "eyewitness" accounts of the bible nor evidence that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. Which was your usage here, assuming you were actively participating in a discussion. Earlier you argued that these writings were evidence of the Living God of the Bible. I don't think anyone lacking a predisposition to believe are going to find this evidence compelling for those usages.

*Well, as far as being in dispute I don't believe that any Mythist have checked in.

 

[Dr. Manhattan]

I don't know why it isn't enough that he appeared to be a good man who had good beliefs and made the world better. I don't understand the insistence that he rose from the dead or performed physics defying miracles.

 

[Zow]

My point is that it is a historical fact that Jesus Christ lived, died on the cross and is believed by His followers to be resurrected and the Son of God. You can't argue that

That is not in dispute*. It is even explicitly stated in my post. But this is hardly writings about Christ, hardly suggest that Christ is anything more than a name for the executed troublemaker. Exactly as I said. And not very useful as evidence for the "eyewitness" accounts of the bible nor evidence that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. Which was your usage here, assuming you were actively participating in a discussion. Earlier you argued that these writings were evidence of the Living God of the Bible. I don't think anyone lacking a predisposition to believe are going to find this evidence compelling for those usages.

*Well, as far as being in dispute I don't believe that any Mythist have checked in.

As a non-believer, while I wouldn't go so far as Paddington to say that Jesus's existence is "historical fact," I'd wager that it's more likely than not that a human named Jesus existed and was put to death. I mean, you have a guy proclaiming to be a prophet/god,* he convinces some outcast teenagers to follow him, and he is put to death for such proclamation during a time period where crucifixion was the punishment for such action. So, yeah, he existence is plenty feasible to me as the same bare bones description applies to other notable religious/political figures like off the top of my head Muhammad, David Koresh, Adolf Hitler, Gilgamesh, Imhotep, Jim Jones, Coltrane, etc. and they were actual people.

*I do understand that there is an argument to be made that Jesus never proclaimed to be a God, though I believe that is a minority belief.

 

[Zow]

I don't know why it isn't enough that he appeared to be a good man who had good beliefs and made the world better. I don't understand the insistence that he rose from the dead or performed physics defying miracles.

Because the thought that we die and there is nothing is really, really scary for many. While I actually have come to find solace in this possibility, I get why that's emotionally daunting.

 

[Northern Voice]

I don't know why it isn't enough that he appeared to be a good man who had good beliefs and made the world better. I don't understand the insistence that he rose from the dead or performed physics defying miracles.

Because the thought that we die and there is nothing is really, really scary for many. While I actually have come to find solace in this possibility, I get why that's emotionally daunting.

Dealing with death and community are the two redeeming factors I see in religion but I think there are ways to get there that don't believe in talking donkeys, two of every animal on a boat and people rising from the dead.

It kind of terrifies me that many of our norms are still shaped by people who belief this stuff.

 

[dkp993]

I don't know why it isn't enough that he appeared to be a good man who had good beliefs and made the world better. I don't understand the insistence that he rose from the dead or performed physics defying miracles.

Because the thought that we die and there is nothing is really, really scary for many. While I actually have come to find solace in this possibility, I get why that's emotionally daunting.

I’m not sure if for me personally the fact that I don’t dream, so every night sleep is just black nothingness, death possibly being the same is not scary. The scary/sad part is what I don’t get to participate in anymore (lives of loved ones in particular) but not the nothingness. It will be no different than like before I was born.

 

[dgreen]

I don't know why it isn't enough that he appeared to be a good man who had good beliefs and made the world better. I don't understand the insistence that he rose from the dead or performed physics defying miracles.

Someday, I want to learn a lot more about the deeply theological importance of the resurrection. The way it is talked about in some Christian circles just make it sound like yet another really good miracle.

My assumption is that it goes something like this: The Hebrew Scriptures promised restoration and deliverance. And it promised it will be God himself who does this through an anointed one (Messiah/Christ). The promises talk about God's arrival resulting in things like the blind seeing, the deaf hearing, the lame walking, etc, so Jesus' ministry lives those out as a sign that God's Kingdom has arrived. But, there's a problem when this Messiah dies. He's supposed to be ushering in this new age and now he's gone (just like all the other Messiahs before him). Plot twist: he's alive! He has the authority of God to deal with the age-old problem of sin and death. So, he prepares his followers to continue the mission and then he ascends and takes his seat on his throne as king over this kingdom. A few days later, his followers receive the promised Holy Spirit which is to guide them and help them obey this king so they, in partnership with God, can continue the mission until the king returns a second time to bring the full restoration.

 

[foxco]

I don't know why it isn't enough that he appeared to be a good man who had good beliefs and made the world better. I don't understand the insistence that he rose from the dead or performed physics defying miracles.

I find this slightly ironic given your avatar!!

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

As a non-believer, while I wouldn't go so far as Paddington to say that Jesus's existence is "historical fact," I'd wager that it's more likely than not that a human named Jesus existed and was put to death. I mean, you have a guy proclaiming to be a prophet/god,* he convinces some outcast teenagers to follow him, and he is put to death for such proclamation during a time period where crucifixion was the punishment for such action. So, yeah, he existence is plenty feasible to me as the same bare bones description applies to other notable religious/political figures like off the top of my head Muhammad, David Koresh, Adolf Hitler, Gilgamesh, Imhotep, Jim Jones, Coltrane, etc. and they were actual people.

*I do understand that there is an argument to be made that Jesus never proclaimed to be a God, though I believe that is a minority belief.

When we are talking about Jesus in these threads, I think that it is safe to say we are seldom discussing the Jesus that historians can be relatively confident existed. That Jesus is kind of boring. Important because of what follows, but not really much to talk about. A story that was a dime a dozen in the first century. At least until a few people, and then a few more, and ..., and then a lot more started believing this crazy resurrection story. Then everything changed!

 

[Psychopav]

Keith Green (RIP) didn't much like people like me (Papists), but I don't hold that against him. He certainly had an interesting perspective.

 

[foxco]

Would be so curious to see what biblical Jesus thinks of humanity these days. If I had to guess he'd be in therapy moaning about out how things went so sideways. I've never seen this many Christians acting the polar opposive of what He taught. How did empathy become a four letter word for so many?

 

[Northern Voice]

Would be so curious to see what biblical Jesus thinks of humanity these days. If I had to guess he'd be in therapy moaning about out how things went so sideways. I've never seen this many Christians acting the polar opposive of what He taught. How did empathy become a four letter word for so many?

If he existed today, he would immediately be written off as too woke.

 

[Navin Johnson]

Would be so curious to see what biblical Jesus thinks of humanity these days. If I had to guess he'd be in therapy moaning about out how things went so sideways. I've never seen this many Christians acting the polar opposive of what He taught. How did empathy become a four letter word for so many?

If he existed today, he would immediately be written off as too woke.

Yep. The NFLX series "Messiah" is pretty indicative of how he would be received by his own followers.

 

[Psychopav]

Would be so curious to see what biblical Jesus thinks of humanity these days. If I had to guess he'd be in therapy moaning about out how things went so sideways. I've never seen this many Christians acting the polar opposive of what He taught. How did empathy become a four letter word for so many?

I tend to think it's mostly same as day 1, right? He didn't exactly come into a perfect situation.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Would be so curious to see what biblical Jesus thinks of humanity these days. If I had to guess he'd be in therapy moaning about out how things went so sideways. I've never seen this many Christians acting the polar opposive of what He taught. How did empathy become a four letter word for so many?

I'd grant you that the loudest and most visible Christians all too often fit this category. And I'd grant you that there are many Christians that are "only in the game" to secure that ticket out of hell. But I think most Christians do a pretty good job of living as Jesus' taught, or at least how they interpret it. Maybe skewed priorities at times, especially in , but overall I think overall Christians, even those I disagree with on just about everything are out in the world doing the best they can to spread love.

 

[foxco]

Would be so curious to see what biblical Jesus thinks of humanity these days. If I had to guess he'd be in therapy moaning about out how things went so sideways. I've never seen this many Christians acting the polar opposive of what He taught. How did empathy become a four letter word for so many?

I tend to think it's mostly same as day 1, right? He didn't exactly come into a perfect situation.

Possibly, though we've had 2000+ years, you'd think we'd have shown progress? I do not see much progress these days unfortunately.

 

[foxco]

Would be so curious to see what biblical Jesus thinks of humanity these days. If I had to guess he'd be in therapy moaning about out how things went so sideways. I've never seen this many Christians acting the polar opposive of what He taught. How did empathy become a four letter word for so many?

I'd grant you that the loudest and most visible Christians all too often fit this category. And I'd grant you that there are many Christians that are "only in the game" to secure that ticket out of hell. But I think most Christians do a pretty good job of living as Jesus' taught, or at least how they interpret it. Maybe skewed priorities at times, especially in , but overall I think overall Christians, even those I disagree with on just about everything are out in the world doing the best they can to spread love.

I live in NY about 45 minutes north of NYC. In the last year I've witnessed half a dozen interractions between someone wearing a cruxifix screaming/mocking another person in public situations, berating them for speaking broken English, laughing about calling ICE. etc. I nearly got in a fistfight with a guy who put a stick through the spokes of a Hispanic man's bike and he took a fall -- three guys laughing, yelling get out of our country.

Obviously this doesn't represent the vast majority of Christians and I agree most are in all likelyhood terrific people, but I've never experienced such hatred in my life and it doesn't seem to be improving. I don't understand people nearly as much as I thought I guess.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I tend to think it's mostly same as day 1, right? He didn't exactly come into a perfect situation.

And come judgment day God will have lots explaining to do as to how this could possibly have been his plan. Going to be an interesting discussion explaining the method for this madness. And there is lots of madness to wade through.

 

[Psychopav]

I tend to think it's mostly same as day 1, right? He didn't exactly come into a perfect situation.

And come judgment day God will have lots explaining to do as to how this could possibly have been his plan. Going to be an interesting discussion explaining the method for this madness. And there is lots of madness to wade through.

I don't see things that way. At all, really. And this is why:

Prv 3:5-7

5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
on your own intelligence do not rely;

6 In all your ways be mindful of him,
and he will make straight your paths.

7 Do not be wise in your own eyes,
fear the LORD and turn away from evil;

Is 55

1 All you who are thirsty,
come to the water!
You who have no money,
come, buy grain and eat;
Come, buy grain without money,
wine and milk without cost!

2 Why spend your money for what is not bread;
your wages for what does not satisfy?
Only listen to me, and you shall eat well,
you shall delight in rich fare.

3 Pay attention and come to me;
listen, that you may have life.
I will make with you an everlasting covenant,
the steadfast loyalty promised to David.

4 As I made him a witness to peoples,
leader and commander of peoples,

5 So shall you summon a nation you knew not,
and a nation that knew you not shall run to you,
Because of the LORD, your God,
the Holy One of Israel, who has glorified you.

6 Seek the LORD while he may be found,
call upon him while he is near.

7 Let the wicked forsake their way,
and sinners their thoughts;
Let them turn to the LORD to find mercy;
to our God, who is generous in forgiving.

8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
nor are your ways my ways—oracle of the LORD.

9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways,
my thoughts higher than your thoughts.

10 Yet just as from the heavens
the rain and snow come down
And do not return there
till they have watered the earth,
making it fertile and fruitful,
Giving seed to the one who sows
and bread to the one who eats,

11 So shall my word be
that goes forth from my mouth;
It shall not return to me empty,
but shall do what pleases me,
achieving the end for which I sent it.

12 Yes, in joy you shall go forth,
in peace you shall be brought home;
Mountains and hills shall break out in song before you,
all trees of the field shall clap their hands.

13 In place of the thornbush, the cypress shall grow,
instead of nettles, the myrtle.
This shall be to the LORD’s renown,
as an everlasting sign that shall not fail.

 

[Zow]

Would be so curious to see what biblical Jesus thinks of humanity these days. If I had to guess he'd be in therapy moaning about out how things went so sideways. I've never seen this many Christians acting the polar opposive of what He taught. How did empathy become a four letter word for so many?

If he existed today, he would immediately be written off as too woke.

Yep. The NFLX series "Messiah" is pretty indicative of how he would be received by his own followers.

Yep. That was a pretty interesting show.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I tend to think it's mostly same as day 1, right? He didn't exactly come into a perfect situation.

And come judgment day God will have lots explaining to do as to how this could possibly have been his plan. Going to be an interesting discussion explaining the method for this madness. And there is lots of madness to wade through.

I don't see things that way. At all, really. And this is why:

Prv 3:5-7

5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
on your own intelligence do not rely;

6 In all your ways be mindful of him,
and he will make straight your paths.

7 Do not be wise in your own eyes,
fear the LORD and turn away from evil;

Is 55

1 All you who are thirsty,
come to the water!
You who have no money,
come, buy grain and eat;
Come, buy grain without money,
wine and milk without cost!

2 Why spend your money for what is not bread;
your wages for what does not satisfy?
Only listen to me, and you shall eat well,
you shall delight in rich fare.

3 Pay attention and come to me;
listen, that you may have life.
I will make with you an everlasting covenant,
the steadfast loyalty promised to David.

4 As I made him a witness to peoples,
leader and commander of peoples,

5 So shall you summon a nation you knew not,
and a nation that knew you not shall run to you,
Because of the LORD, your God,
the Holy One of Israel, who has glorified you.

6 Seek the LORD while he may be found,
call upon him while he is near.

7 Let the wicked forsake their way,
and sinners their thoughts;
Let them turn to the LORD to find mercy;
to our God, who is generous in forgiving.

8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
nor are your ways my ways—oracle of the LORD.

9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways,
my thoughts higher than your thoughts.

10 Yet just as from the heavens
the rain and snow come down
And do not return there
till they have watered the earth,
making it fertile and fruitful,
Giving seed to the one who sows
and bread to the one who eats,

11 So shall my word be
that goes forth from my mouth;
It shall not return to me empty,
but shall do what pleases me,
achieving the end for which I sent it.

12 Yes, in joy you shall go forth,
in peace you shall be brought home;
Mountains and hills shall break out in song before you,
all trees of the field shall clap their hands.

13 In place of the thornbush, the cypress shall grow,
instead of nettles, the myrtle.
This shall be to the LORD’s renown,
as an everlasting sign that shall not fail.

I take this as just saying that you trust and that you believe God has very good reasons. Reasons beyond what you and I can fathom. But I'll interpret Luke 8:16-18 right now in such a way to say that when all the secrets are revealed, I'll be listening because I know that I don't get it today.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Would be so curious to see what biblical Jesus thinks of humanity these days. If I had to guess he'd be in therapy moaning about out how things went so sideways. I've never seen this many Christians acting the polar opposive of what He taught. How did empathy become a four letter word for so many?

I'd grant you that the loudest and most visible Christians all too often fit this category. And I'd grant you that there are many Christians that are "only in the game" to secure that ticket out of hell. But I think most Christians do a pretty good job of living as Jesus' taught, or at least how they interpret it. Maybe skewed priorities at times, especially in , but overall I think overall Christians, even those I disagree with on just about everything are out in the world doing the best they can to spread love.

I live in NY about 45 minutes north of NYC. In the last year I've witnessed half a dozen interractions between someone wearing a cruxifix screaming/mocking another person in public situations, berating them for speaking broken English, laughing about calling ICE. etc. I nearly got in a fistfight with a guy who put a stick through the spokes of a Hispanic man's bike and he took a fall -- three guys laughing, yelling get out of our country.

Obviously this doesn't represent the vast majority of Christians and I agree most are in all likelyhood terrific people, but I've never experienced such hatred in my life and it doesn't seem to be improving. I don't understand people nearly as much as I thought I guess.

Matthew 25:31-46 is huge favorite of mine.

40 The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
45 He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

I think it is about as straightforward as scripture gets, but I have read more than one commentary that asserts that it doesn't say what it says.

For me this is how I reconcile Jesus saying that the greatest commandment is to "love God... and love your neighbor" with the multiple passages that say that "love your neighbor" is the only commandment. Oh, can't Jesus count to one? It reconciles because you cannot love God unless you love his children. All of them. Including the brats wearing crucifixes.

ETA: To be clear, I did not say that everyone wearing crucifixes are brats, or most, or even many.

 

[Northern Voice]

I tend to think it's mostly same as day 1, right? He didn't exactly come into a perfect situation.

And come judgment day God will have lots explaining to do as to how this could possibly have been his plan. Going to be an interesting discussion explaining the method for this madness. And there is lots of madness to wade through.

I don't see things that way. At all, really. And this is why:

Prv 3:5-7

5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
on your own intelligence do not rely;

6 In all your ways be mindful of him,
and he will make straight your paths.

7 Do not be wise in your own eyes,
fear the LORD and turn away from evil;

Is that first passage literally saying don't think for yourself, don't believe anything you see, just put faith in the imaginary sky being or am I missing some context?