Captain Cranks
Footballguy
Societal evolution seems to do a better job of judging good deeds vs bad deeds than the God of the Bible. See: Slavery, ethnic cleansing, ownership of women, punishments not fitting the crime, etc.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
A Prayer Of Salvation (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter Paddington
- Start date
dkp993
Footballguy
Also according to Christianity, it doesn’t matter. You can be Ted Bundy but if you ask Jesus for forgiveness and accept him in your heart on your death bed. Boom. You’re in. Conversely, if you’re mother Theresa in your life’s actions but don’t believe in Jesus, off to eternal damnation you go. So ultimately, deeds don’t matter.
The Longtime Lurker
Footballguy
This is the one of, if not the biggest flaw in the Christian belief system imo. Trust the words of men not a god and just believe, that's it. Sin on Saturday, saved on Sunday isn't a concept I find endearing.
A lot of folks would reconcile this by saying that there are elements of truth in all religions. But, the other religions don’t have the whole truth, which, if you’re a Christian, you’d say is Christianity.
For example, you brought up Buddhism earlier. IMO, Buddhism in not incompatible with Christianity, particularly because the former is non-theistic. Indeed, Christianity/ Buddhism both emphasize the rejection of self and worldly inclinations/ desires, as well as the spreading of love, justice, and peace. Moreover, the Christian notion of theosis (i.e., becoming one with God as your life’s purpose) is quite similar to the Buddhist’s pursuit of nirvana. So, a Christian may tell a Buddhist that they’ve found the “good life”, while not understanding that it stems from the ultimate level of reality, God/ Jesus.
Again, the above is just an example. You could substitute Christianity/ Buddhism with just about any two major religions and find similarities amongst them, especially when it comes to their moral philosophy/ ethics. The major differences are going to come down to what they call God (or gods), their heroes/ heroines (e.g., prophets), locations of major events, and what amounts to other cultural particulars. But, I’ve never seen these latter things as being irreconcilable.
So, I guess what I’m getting at is: Who’s to say that we haven’t found the same God and way of living, but through different means? IMO, it’s perfectly consistent with the idea that the existence of God is self-evident and ditto with his will + word. Thus we should expect all people, across all societies/ cultures to come to some understanding of his truth.
I’m a Catholic and I don’t agree with this characterization at all. IMO, having faith in God isn’t just professing your belief in him. I see faith as being inextricably linked with proper living; hence faith includes good works. So, the idea is that you grow closer to God by being faithful to his will/ word, and you separate yourself from him by being unfaithful. Therefore, you absolutely gain/ lose salvation through your acts.
The Longtime Lurker
Footballguy
This is a notion i can get behind and ultimately the point I would also make. It seems to me that across eras, cultures, beliefs (whether it's a Buddhist in Tibet, a pagan in early Europe, a shaman in the Amazon, Hindu in India) humanity has found overlap in many instances. When i hear other religions are false, yet appear to be the foundation that more "modern or western" religions are based upon or atleast compatible as you mention I become curious as to why they're considered false.
The Longtime Lurker
Footballguy
Ok so i was also raised Catholic and i know doing good deeds is absolutely attributed to salvation, however that becomes clouded in my view due to the idea that ultimately to be saved you must believe. Good deeds without belief wasn't enough in my upbringing. As mentioned above you can be Ted Bundy and ask for forgiveness on your death bed and if sincere you will be saved. Yet if i struggle to believe and live an otherwise good life it won't be enough in the end.
In your view this is incorrect?
dkp993
Footballguy
You’re speaking to how one should practice their belief and live as Jesus professes. Kudos to those that do. But the “rules” of your faith don’t require this. In reality, it actually provides an out to not have to act like this.
Can you elaborate more on what you mean?
My understanding is that you don’t need to be a Christian to be saved, nor do you even have to believe in God. What’s required is that you pursue God (i.e., you’re being faithful to God), which I take to be that you are living a life that’s consistent with his will and his word. While it may be ideal for a person to be a Christian, that doesn’t exclude those who don’t have a belief in Christianity through no fault of their own.
Regarding any person, I believe that what faith requires is the total transformation of oneself at the deepest of levels (i.e., your mind/ soul). When I say good works are necessary, that’s because actions follow being and reflect who you are at your core. But, you still need to be doing good for the right reasons. So, it’s not sufficient to just say you believe in something, nor does it even suffice to do good. Indeed, you have to embody the good, which means the reorientation of your paradigm away from that of original sin (i.e., pride/ vanity/ self-love/ selfishness) towards one of true love (unconditional, selfless, and self-sacrificial love).
Note: If we go back to the first paragraph, that’s why I say it’s ideal to be a Christian because it’s certainly easier to attain this level of good if you’ve been graced with the forgiveness of your sins, the Holy Spirit, an understanding of God’s word, and Jesus as your example.
Do I believe that a deathbed confession/ conversion of a serial killer constitutes the level of spiritual transformation that I mentioned in my previous post? Absolutely not. I’m not the divine mind, so I’m not qualified to pass judgment. And, God is rich in mercy and forgiveness. But, I think this person is destined to purgatory, at best.
I’d note that I don’t believe that I’m going straight to heaven either. No, I’m going to purgatory like the vast majority of people.
dkp993
Footballguy
Ultimately what kind of human being you are or what your actions were in life don’t matter in regards to the afterlife. If at the end you repent and accept Jesus you’re in. So the idea of good and bad deeds being judged by God (as Paddingtons post mentioned which started this portion of the conversation) also ultimately becomes worthless. It’s a loophole in Christianity I just can’t reconcile.
Thanks. I get it, the "Thief on the cross" example of the guy who (apparently) had done bad and followed Jesus right at the very end is a thing. I can see that. Or the person who does terrible things and then sincerely repents and follows Jesus.
The reality for people claiming to follow Jesus though is different.
The Bible is clear that grace isn’t a “get-out-of-sin-free card.” Salvation through Jesus changes how we relate to sin, not gives us license to keep doing it.
Romans 6:1–2 (NLT)
Paul makes it clear: grace isn’t a free pass to keep sinning. If we’ve truly accepted Jesus, our old life, the one ruled by sin, is supposed to be over. Continuing in it would go against who we now are in Him.
Romans 6:15–18 (NLT)
Paul’s point is that everyone serves something. If we choose sin, it leads to death and destruction. If we choose God, it leads to real life. Grace frees us from sin’s control. It doesn’t excuse it.
James 2:17
James emphasizes that genuine faith naturally produces changed behavior. A person who claims faith but lives unchanged is missing the kind of faith that saves. The kind that results in repentance and obedience.
Now this opens up a whole different discussion angle about the "Once saved, always saved", question. And the idea that you can't get to heaven by works. BUT works are a pretty good indication of your faith.
I don't claim to understand how all that fits.
The Longtime Lurker
Footballguy
Thanks. This idea of Christianity, that good deeds and living the right way can be rewarded regardless makes a lot more sense to me. I wish it were the brand of Christianity more practitioners were able to fit into their faith
The Longtime Lurker
Footballguy
I asked a few pages back what the expectation of heaven looks like for the Christian posters. Most responses were along the lines of not really thinking about it, or letting it be realized when the time comes to paraphrase (i hope that was the correct take from those that responded). You mention an expectation of purgatory, so I'm thinking you may have also have an expectation of what heaven may look like? Curious what your thoughts are for the ultimate reward when this life is over.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
If I dismiss the idea that God ever needed Christ's sacrifice to save anyone (and I generally do), this is more or less the point of Jesus' sacrifice to me. It saved those that believed from the rules imposed on God (God cannot do this. God must have that.) by humans that turn the Law into something to condemn rather than to be the gift of freedom as intended. This condemnation prevented God's people from being free to people of God as was always intended. With all of this "theatrics" unnecessary to God, but no other way for the masses we are now free to "sin boldly" as we try to do our tiny part to move the world closer to God's kingdom.
I'm a believer, but I'm okay being labeled a heretic.
dgreen
Footballguy
I'm not sure why you're trying to tell him what the rules of his faith are. I totally understand why you and others have a particular view of Christianity, but that doesn't make that the only view nor does it make it the "correct" view. Throughout all of these threads, there's been a group of us trying to say, "It's possible you were sold a false view of Christianity" but that is repeatedly disregarded and the assumption continues to be that one particular strand of Christianity is THE "rules of our faith".
dgreen
Footballguy
This is why many scholars prefer the word “fidelity” over “faith”. The latter has become all about mental agreement, while the former carries a meaning of obedience (deeds/works) and loyalty (to a king).
dkp993
Footballguy
Not sure I’d agree with your closing word being “faith” as accurate (from my perspective). I’d say “heart” or “kindness”. Faith implies belief of something else (God or the kindness of others or etc etc etc. belief can be broad) where you can have a huge heart and be super kind and still not “believe” but simply be doing kind works because it’s what you feel is right.
Unfortunately, as I understand it, that good person still ends up on the outside looking in in the afterlife.
dkp993
Footballguy
Completely fair, poor choice of words on my part. Was never intending to tell him personally how to believe, certainly never my intention. Should have included, as I did elsewhere, “rules as I understand them”. Thank you.
dkp993
Footballguy
To speak to this point….
When speaking about (or to) an individuals beliefs, whatever they are, I don’t feel like I have the right to judge nor do I feel compelled in anyway to change that persons opinion or beliefs. Any interaction I have in these regard are an attempt to understand why said person believes what they do. I’m genuinely fascinated by it.
When speaking about the beliefs system as a whole, Christianity in this case as it’s what I’m most familiar with, the reason I have been “repeatedly disregarding” your position is not that I don’t understand it or respect it, it’s just simply not what I think is most common understanding of Christianity imo. I know you’ve provided stats before that show I’m incorrect in my belief but frankly it just hasn’t been my experience in my 50yrs walking the earth. Could I be wrong, ABSOLUTELY, it’s just the base of understanding I’m operating from.
dgreen
Footballguy
Thanks. And, yeah, it makes sense that's been your experience. It's been the experience for a lot of us. There's been a shift in how Christianity is talked about, though. Not everywhere, obviously, but it's growing. It's a really big paradigm shift and outside the realm of what many are willing to even consider as possibly being correct.
I'll admit it's been frustrating to feel like some of our posts have been disregarded because I think there are some great conversations to be had, but I think we're stuck in different conversations.
dkp993
Footballguy
I think we are, at least from my perspective. I’m looking at, and talking about, the “system” of Christianity (as I understand it, which may be antiquated), not an individual beliefs system.
While I can’t get there myself, I respect and appreciate your version of Christianity. It makes more sense to me.
Unfortunately, I can’t give a satisfactory answer to your question. I see heaven as living in union with God for all eternity. But, I know a lot more about what God isn’t than I do about what he is, and that’s because God is a transcendent being who’s mostly incomprehensible to us. For example, God is not just eternal, but immutable. One of the implications is that he’s immaterial and exists outside of time. So, how can I make sense of what living alongside God means when my entire conception of reality is confined to this material world with time being axiomatic to it? Furthermore, I’m too morally flawed to grasp true love/ goodness, and my limited brain power constrains my mind from possessing all knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. And so on. That said, the way I conceive of heaven is the full release of the material/ worldly shackles that prevent you from being more like God, which is something that I mediate on a lot.
What I’m more confident in is what I believe that hell entails. My belief is that man is composed of metaphysical parts: form/ soul and matter/ body, where this combo constitutes man’s essence, and his essence needs to be imparted with existence (by God) for him to actually exist. Moreover, I don’t believe that evil “exists” in the way that most people think of it. To me, evil is a privation, that is, it’s the absence of good. I also see good as analogous to being and truth. The idea is that man has being as the kind of thing he is to the extent that he satisfies the ideal (or true) nature of that thing. So, if hell is the ultimate evil, it is the absence of being or existence. Therefore, hell means that you are totally separated from God and no longer exist (i.e., you experience spiritual death).
dkp993
Footballguy
Interesting concepts. Thanks for sharing.
The Longtime Lurker
Footballguy
Thanks, i thought this was a very satisfactory response. I ask the question in hopes of an answer like this. It's a personal question and the answer likely is different for everyone.
Nobody knows what happens when we die. Christians have an expectation of a reward after death, but much like God's true identity it remains a mystery as to what the ultimate reward truly is. I think your thoughts on both heaven and hell to be very interesting and I'm glad you shared them.
Thanks for the conversation, it's given me some very good for for thought.
Paddington
Footballguy
I am saying that the same God of Abrahamic Religions has been worshipped all through history. He created all things. He created Adam and Eve, but mankind as a whole turned on him to sin. A segment of the Angels saw that the women were beautiful and fell, they married the women and had children that became giants according to the Bible. They corrupted the blood line men and those hslf breed men became very wicked and very powerful. They lived hundreds of years in those days. That’s where God spoke to Noah and told him to build the ark because he was going to destroy the earth. But Noah also preached to mankind for a hundred years as they laughed and mocked him. The flood came in and destroyed the former world. From Noah to Abraham... Noah was still alive until the time of Abraham. He was there to tell them the truth of the true God. Most men rejected and worshiped false gods. But God called Abraham out of that and created the nation of Israel. He gave them the Ten Commandments and the law.
The Epic of Gilgimesh was based on the Biblical Story. Some Scholars believe it predates, the Bible, others say it doesn't. Even so, Gilgamesh confirms that the Biblical story is true amd yes, there are flood legends all over the ancient world, which affirms the Biblical story, not vice versa. The box that they supposedly floated on Gilgamesh could never have floated. They would have died it was a cube. The only boat that could have actually floated and saved Mankind and all the animals was the arc. Even secular scientists have to admit that the ark was of the perfect dimensions. Even if Gilgamesh was penned before Genesis, and it's not proven either way, it doesn't mean that's a Bible borrowed from gilgamesh. All it means is that the flood really happened.
There are no ancient cultures tens of thousands of years ago. The oldest known human writings and civilizations are about 4,500 years old. That is on par with Noah's flood. Everything was wiped out in the flood before that point. The pyramids all around the world are replicas of the Tower of Babel which happened just a couple of 100 Years After the flood 4,500 years ago. The Tower of Babel it was the beginning of all false religions and cults, pagan religions. That is the time when men were separated into different groups and different languages. They separated and spread out around the world and became different races of people. That's where your different religions come from.
The reason why all of these false religions overlap is because they all began at the same place. The Tower of Babel in Babylon Iraq. God separated them because they rose up against Him and he separated them by a different languages and they broke apart in groups and populated the different continents in the world. They became different races of people because of their separation from each other. Isn't it interesting that we have pyramids in Egypt and in South America, Mexico, China and different parts of the world? They are all based on the Tower of Babel. That's where the different religions came from. That's where the different languages came from. And that is we're different races of people began. They all separated and isolated from each other which caused a type of lateral adaptation which reinforced a different features causing the different races. They are all human beings created from the same two people.
If you get the means you should go visit the ark encounter in Kentucky and the Creation Museum. It will give you a much different perspective than what you may have been receiving from secular sources. You should not think that just because it is a biblical point of view that it is not based on science because that is completely false. They look at the same evidence but they draw different conclusions then secular scientists might.
The Longtime Lurker
Footballguy
Some of this is a perspective i hadn't heard before. I think it helped understand where you're coming from a little more. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
rockaction
Footballguy
Interlude and Theme Music
open.spotify.com
Brother Love's Travelling Salvation Show
Neil Diamond · All-Time Greatest Hits · Song · 2014
open.spotify.com
Last edited:
The Longtime Lurker
Footballguy
What no Cranberries?Interlude and Theme Music
Brother Love's Travelling Salvation Show
Neil Diamond · All-Time Greatest Hits · Song · 2014
Captain Cranks
Footballguy
It is the overwhelming consensus among mainstream, non-denominational scholars that the Epic of Gilgamesh is a significantly older text than the Bible. The earliest components of Gilgamesh date to around 2100 BCE, over a thousand years before the earliest written biblical texts.
The only individuals or sources that generally place the Bible's composition (specifically Genesis) earlier than the Epic of Gilgamesh are those from creationist or specific evangelical apologetics organizations, not mainstream academic biblical scholars or historians.
These individuals typically operate from a theological premise of biblical inerrancy and a specific interpretation of biblical chronology, which assumes:
The only individuals or sources that generally place the Bible's composition (specifically Genesis) earlier than the Epic of Gilgamesh are those from creationist or specific evangelical apologetics organizations, not mainstream academic biblical scholars or historians.
These individuals typically operate from a theological premise of biblical inerrancy and a specific interpretation of biblical chronology, which assumes:
- The events described in Genesis happened as literal history at an extremely early date.
- Moses, as the traditional author, wrote the Book of Genesis around 1400-1450 BCE, making it, in their view, older than the earliest surviving copies of the Epic of Gilgamesh (c. 1800 BCE), or they suggest the Gilgamesh story is a distorted, embellished version of a single, true historical event recounted in the Bible.
dkp993
Footballguy
Here’s ChatGPT’s thoughts on your secular scientist and the arks perfect dimensions statement….
Do secular scientists generally admit that the ark was of the perfect dimensions to house all animals in the animal kingdom
No, secular scientists do not generally claim that Noah’s Ark (as described in the Bible) had “perfect dimensions” to house all animals in the animal kingdom.
Here’s what the mainstream, secular (non-religious) scientific view is:
1. The Ark narrative is treated as a myth or legend
Most scientists and historians view the story of Noah’s Ark in Genesis as an ancient Near Eastern flood narrative, similar to other Mesopotamian stories like the Epic of Gilgamesh. It’s not considered a literal historical or engineering account.
2. Feasibility studies by secular engineers
Some naval engineers and creationists have analyzed the Ark’s dimensions (Genesis 6:15 — 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, 30 cubits high — roughly 450 x 75 x 45 feet).
These studies sometimes note that the length-to-width ratio (~6:1) is reasonably stable for a large wooden vessel — it would resist capsizing in rough seas.
However:
This observation doesn’t imply the Ark could have housed all species or been seaworthy as described.
Large wooden ships beyond about 300 feet long tend to flex and leak without metal reinforcement — something not available in the supposed time of the Ark.
3. Capacity problem
Even with those “hydrodynamic” dimensions, secular scientists note that:
There are millions of known animal species today (and far more historically).
Even if “kinds” were used instead of species, the number of animals, their food, waste management, and care needs make the Ark scenario logistically impossible by any natural standard.
4. Summary
The Ark’s proportions are plausible for stability in a general engineering sense.
There’s no secular scientific consensus that the Ark could physically or biologically accommodate “all animals.”
The story is viewed as symbolic or mythological, not as a literal engineering record.
rockaction
Footballguy
What no Cranberries?Interlude and Theme Music
Brother Love's Travelling Salvation Show
Neil Diamond · All-Time Greatest Hits · Song · 2014
It was definitely an oversight. I listened to it last night.
Neil! Not the Pip's Invitation Neil, but the Mrs. Rannous one.
I did post about salvation last night but thought better of it. It wasn't a bad post; it just wasn't something I thought advanced the thread or added to it a lot.
dgreen
Footballguy
This isn't something I've been all that familiar with, however I stumbled across some recent scholarship that is arguing for the authenticity of the Josephus passage. Here's a short podcast episode I listened to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn1P0krloq0. And, his book has actually been made available free as a PDF if it's something you're interested in.
Last edited:
Paddington
Footballguy
No problem. Thank you also.
Paddington
Footballguy
From My Chat GPT:
That’s a really interesting topic — and yes, this claim comes up a lot!
The idea that Noah’s Ark had “perfect” dimensions for seaworthiness comes from both biblical descriptions and modern analyses comparing them to stable ship ratios. Let’s unpack it:
---
Biblical Dimensions
In the Bible (Genesis 6:15), God tells Noah:
> “The ark is to be 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high.”
Depending on how you define a cubit (usually around 18 inches / 45.7 cm), that’s roughly:
Length: 450 feet (137 meters)
Width: 75 feet (23 meters)
Height: 45 feet (13.7 meters)
So the length-to-width ratio is 6:1.
---
Naval Architecture Perspective
Modern naval architects often point out that:
A 6:1 ratio is near optimal for large cargo ships and barges — it balances stability, strength, and wave-handling ability.
Cargo ships today often use ratios between 6:1 and 8:1, depending on purpose and hull design.
A 1993 study by Korean naval engineers (from the Korea Research Institute of Ships and Ocean Engineering) modeled the Ark’s proportions and found:
It would be extremely stable, hard to capsize, and could survive rough seas.
It wasn’t fast or maneuverable — but for floating survival, it would work.
---
So, “Perfect Dimensions”?
“Perfect” might be an overstatement — the Ark wasn’t designed for navigation or efficiency, just to float and survive a flood. But the proportions described are remarkably well-suited for that purpose. Whether or not the Ark was historical, the dimensions as described are realistically seaworthy from a physics standpoint.
---
Would you like me to show a comparison between the Ark’s dimensions and a modern cargo ship or barge design? It really illustrates how close they are.
That’s a really interesting topic — and yes, this claim comes up a lot!
The idea that Noah’s Ark had “perfect” dimensions for seaworthiness comes from both biblical descriptions and modern analyses comparing them to stable ship ratios. Let’s unpack it:
---
Biblical DimensionsIn the Bible (Genesis 6:15), God tells Noah:
> “The ark is to be 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high.”
Depending on how you define a cubit (usually around 18 inches / 45.7 cm), that’s roughly:
Length: 450 feet (137 meters)
Width: 75 feet (23 meters)
Height: 45 feet (13.7 meters)
So the length-to-width ratio is 6:1.
---
Naval Architecture PerspectiveModern naval architects often point out that:
A 6:1 ratio is near optimal for large cargo ships and barges — it balances stability, strength, and wave-handling ability.
Cargo ships today often use ratios between 6:1 and 8:1, depending on purpose and hull design.
A 1993 study by Korean naval engineers (from the Korea Research Institute of Ships and Ocean Engineering) modeled the Ark’s proportions and found:
It would be extremely stable, hard to capsize, and could survive rough seas.
It wasn’t fast or maneuverable — but for floating survival, it would work.
---
So, “Perfect Dimensions”?“Perfect” might be an overstatement — the Ark wasn’t designed for navigation or efficiency, just to float and survive a flood. But the proportions described are remarkably well-suited for that purpose. Whether or not the Ark was historical, the dimensions as described are realistically seaworthy from a physics standpoint.
---
Would you like me to show a comparison between the Ark’s dimensions and a modern cargo ship or barge design? It really illustrates how close they are.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Maybe in a day or two, won't be around too much tomorrow to give it a listen.
I think my most recent reading about this was actually from a mythicist. It argued against that these are both Christian interpolations forged before or by Eusebius. The arguments are that Josephus would never use such language for what he would have perceived as a troublemaker. As evident by the words he used for other troublemakers, other subversives. That it took two centuries for any Christian writer to notice, especially since Origen quoted Josephus elsewhere. That its insertion breaks the narrative flow. Etc. So, I guess that would be what I would look for in the debate over the "disputed" part.
I don't think that this is however the scholarly majority opinion. I think that it is some of this was original, some of it "enhanced" along the way. But this isn't really a debate I'm too concerned about. Authentic? Not? Either way this doesn't really tell me very much about the historical Jesus which I am already rather certain existed. Maybe not as much like the Gospel accounts as a believer would prefer, but pretty certain there was a Jesus that had a small following then went to play the big stage of Passover which led to his downfall in human terms. Which somehow, someway was not the end of the story. Which is pretty much the extent of which that Josephus being 100% authentic confirms.
That being said, I'm still a sucker for such things so I'll try to get to your links when I can. (Oh, and I will quit reading the second that your link says this is secular
)
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Still haven't read or listened, but the PDF looks like TC Schmidt. He is featured on the Wikipedia article and, jumping ahead his argument is that it is authentic but missing a few words here or there. For example, I think he argues "He was Christ" was really "He was thought to be Christ" which is consistent with the neutral to negative attitude that Christians, until recently had over these passages. Will still look more to get it "from the horses mouth" rather than a Wiki article, but I am guessing from the Wiki that he will more or less align with my thoughts that it supports a "minimalistic" historical Jesus rather than the Jesus from John with the events of the synoptics that it tends to be used to support.Maybe in a day or two, won't be around too much tomorrow to give it a listen.
I think my most recent reading about this was actually from a mythicist. It argued against that these are both Christian interpolations forged before or by Eusebius. The arguments are that Josephus would never use such language for what he would have perceived as a troublemaker. As evident by the words he used for other troublemakers, other subversives. That it took two centuries for any Christian writer to notice, especially since Origen quoted Josephus elsewhere. That its insertion breaks the narrative flow. Etc. So, I guess that would be what I would look for in the debate over the "disputed" part.
I don't think that this is however the scholarly majority opinion. I think that it is some of this was original, some of it "enhanced" along the way. But this isn't really a debate I'm too concerned about. Authentic? Not? Either way this doesn't really tell me very much about the historical Jesus which I am already rather certain existed. Maybe not as much like the Gospel accounts as a believer would prefer, but pretty certain there was a Jesus that had a small following then went to play the big stage of Passover which led to his downfall in human terms. Which somehow, someway was not the end of the story. Which is pretty much the extent of which that Josephus being 100% authentic confirms.
That being said, I'm still a sucker for such things so I'll try to get to your links when I can. (Oh, and I will quit reading the second that your link says this is secular
Time to shut up, do my next errand and then dig in to this.
dgreen
Footballguy
From the little I looked into it, his work isn't so much about supporting a historical Jesus but just about the legitimacy of the Josephus text. Maybe he does then use that to argue for a historical Jesus, but the only discussion I've seen is about the text itself and not to then use the text to prove anything else.Still haven't read or listened, but the PDF looks like TC Schmidt. He is featured on the Wikipedia article and, jumping ahead his argument is that it is authentic but missing a few words here or there. For example, I think he argues "He was Christ" was really "He was thought to be Christ" which is consistent with the neutral to negative attitude that Christians, until recently had over these passages. Will still look more to get it "from the horses mouth" rather than a Wiki article, but I am guessing from the Wiki that he will more or less align with my thoughts that it supports a "minimalistic" historical Jesus rather than the Jesus from John with the events of the synoptics that it tends to be used to support.Maybe in a day or two, won't be around too much tomorrow to give it a listen.
I think my most recent reading about this was actually from a mythicist. It argued against that these are both Christian interpolations forged before or by Eusebius. The arguments are that Josephus would never use such language for what he would have perceived as a troublemaker. As evident by the words he used for other troublemakers, other subversives. That it took two centuries for any Christian writer to notice, especially since Origen quoted Josephus elsewhere. That its insertion breaks the narrative flow. Etc. So, I guess that would be what I would look for in the debate over the "disputed" part.
I don't think that this is however the scholarly majority opinion. I think that it is some of this was original, some of it "enhanced" along the way. But this isn't really a debate I'm too concerned about. Authentic? Not? Either way this doesn't really tell me very much about the historical Jesus which I am already rather certain existed. Maybe not as much like the Gospel accounts as a believer would prefer, but pretty certain there was a Jesus that had a small following then went to play the big stage of Passover which led to his downfall in human terms. Which somehow, someway was not the end of the story. Which is pretty much the extent of which that Josephus being 100% authentic confirms.
That being said, I'm still a sucker for such things so I'll try to get to your links when I can. (Oh, and I will quit reading the second that your link says this is secular
Time to shut up, do my next errand and then dig in to this.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Watched the video. His main points is that the vocabulary of the primary passage fits very well with what Josephus uses elsewhere in his writings. Word usages and such. He also comments near the end on his opinion that the passage fits narratively where it is placed. Ultimately though he mostly wants a "watered" down translation where things such as "appeared" becomes "seems to appear" that neuter the "claims". And more or less fits into the historical narrative. That being said he goes one step further and states that the passage, even when neutered is in agreement with the synoptic gospels and John. Which I think many a Christian might run with, but he then waters down his own statement with the basic historical outline.From the little I looked into it, his work isn't so much about supporting a historical Jesus but just about the legitimacy of the Josephus text. Maybe he does then use that to argue for a historical Jesus, but the only discussion I've seen is about the text itself and not to then use the text to prove anything else.Still haven't read or listened, but the PDF looks like TC Schmidt. He is featured on the Wikipedia article and, jumping ahead his argument is that it is authentic but missing a few words here or there. For example, I think he argues "He was Christ" was really "He was thought to be Christ" which is consistent with the neutral to negative attitude that Christians, until recently had over these passages. Will still look more to get it "from the horses mouth" rather than a Wiki article, but I am guessing from the Wiki that he will more or less align with my thoughts that it supports a "minimalistic" historical Jesus rather than the Jesus from John with the events of the synoptics that it tends to be used to support.Maybe in a day or two, won't be around too much tomorrow to give it a listen.ose
I think my most recent reading about this was actually from a mythicist. It argued against that these are both Christian interpolations forged before or by Eusebius. The arguments are that Josephus would never use such language for what he would have perceived as a troublemaker. As evident by the words he used for other troublemakers, other subversives. That it took two centuries for any Christian writer to notice, especially since Origen quoted Josephus elsewhere. That its insertion breaks the narrative flow. Etc. So, I guess that would be what I would look for in the debate over the "disputed" part.
I don't think that this is however the scholarly majority opinion. I think that it is some of this was original, some of it "enhanced" along the way. But this isn't really a debate I'm too concerned about. Authentic? Not? Either way this doesn't really tell me very much about the historical Jesus which I am already rather certain existed. Maybe not as much like the Gospel accounts as a believer would prefer, but pretty certain there was a Jesus that had a small following then went to play the big stage of Passover which led to his downfall in human terms. Which somehow, someway was not the end of the story. Which is pretty much the extent of which that Josephus being 100% authentic confirms.
That being said, I'm still a sucker for such things so I'll try to get to your links when I can. (Oh, and I will quit reading the second that your link says this is secular
Time to shut up, do my next errand and then dig in to this.
What makes him suspect to me though is the tease for the next episode where he supposedly argues that Josephus knew people who were present at Jesus' trial. Maybe I'll look at his arguments, but I don't really see much of a trial, yet alone attendance.
dgreen
Footballguy
The interviewer, Peter Williams, is someone I kind of like but he can be way too apologeticy for me. So, I wouldn't be surprised if they take things in an overly positive direction.Watched the video. His main points is that the vocabulary of the primary passage fits very well with what Josephus uses elsewhere in his writings. Word usages and such. He also comments near the end on his opinion that the passage fits narratively where it is placed. Ultimately though he mostly wants a "watered" down translation where things such as "appeared" becomes "seems to appear" that neuter the "claims". And more or less fits into the historical narrative. That being said he goes one step further and states that the passage, even when neutered is in agreement with the synoptic gospels and John. Which I think many a Christian might run with, but he then waters down his own statement with the basic historical outline.From the little I looked into it, his work isn't so much about supporting a historical Jesus but just about the legitimacy of the Josephus text. Maybe he does then use that to argue for a historical Jesus, but the only discussion I've seen is about the text itself and not to then use the text to prove anything else.Still haven't read or listened, but the PDF looks like TC Schmidt. He is featured on the Wikipedia article and, jumping ahead his argument is that it is authentic but missing a few words here or there. For example, I think he argues "He was Christ" was really "He was thought to be Christ" which is consistent with the neutral to negative attitude that Christians, until recently had over these passages. Will still look more to get it "from the horses mouth" rather than a Wiki article, but I am guessing from the Wiki that he will more or less align with my thoughts that it supports a "minimalistic" historical Jesus rather than the Jesus from John with the events of the synoptics that it tends to be used to support.Maybe in a day or two, won't be around too much tomorrow to give it a listen.ose
I think my most recent reading about this was actually from a mythicist. It argued against that these are both Christian interpolations forged before or by Eusebius. The arguments are that Josephus would never use such language for what he would have perceived as a troublemaker. As evident by the words he used for other troublemakers, other subversives. That it took two centuries for any Christian writer to notice, especially since Origen quoted Josephus elsewhere. That its insertion breaks the narrative flow. Etc. So, I guess that would be what I would look for in the debate over the "disputed" part.
I don't think that this is however the scholarly majority opinion. I think that it is some of this was original, some of it "enhanced" along the way. But this isn't really a debate I'm too concerned about. Authentic? Not? Either way this doesn't really tell me very much about the historical Jesus which I am already rather certain existed. Maybe not as much like the Gospel accounts as a believer would prefer, but pretty certain there was a Jesus that had a small following then went to play the big stage of Passover which led to his downfall in human terms. Which somehow, someway was not the end of the story. Which is pretty much the extent of which that Josephus being 100% authentic confirms.
That being said, I'm still a sucker for such things so I'll try to get to your links when I can. (Oh, and I will quit reading the second that your link says this is secular
Time to shut up, do my next errand and then dig in to this.
What makes him suspect to me though is the tease for the next episode where he supposedly argues that Josephus knew people who were present at Jesus' trial. Maybe I'll look at his arguments, but I don't really see much of a trial, yet alone attendance.
I came across Schmidt's work from a tweet of someone I mentioned earlier, Jason Staples. Staples was a student of Ehrman and someone who doesn't play the apologetics game, from what I've seen. If Staples thinks it is quality scholarship, that's worth a lot to me. But, I'll admit that Staples is my current scholar crush.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
On the blog, Ehrman mostly uses Josephus to address the question of whether Jesus would have been allowed to have a proper burial. Because Josephus writes that Jews "even bury crucified victims". But in a way that makes it vague on context. I don't remember precisely the conclusion, but since he seems to quite likes the Life of Brian treatment I'm guesting "not usually".The interviewer, Peter Williams, is someone I kind of like but he can be way too apologeticy for me. So, I wouldn't be surprised if they take things in an overly positive direction.Watched the video. His main points is that the vocabulary of the primary passage fits very well with what Josephus uses elsewhere in his writings. Word usages and such. He also comments near the end on his opinion that the passage fits narratively where it is placed. Ultimately though he mostly wants a "watered" down translation where things such as "appeared" becomes "seems to appear" that neuter the "claims". And more or less fits into the historical narrative. That being said he goes one step further and states that the passage, even when neutered is in agreement with the synoptic gospels and John. Which I think many a Christian might run with, but he then waters down his own statement with the basic historical outline.From the little I looked into it, his work isn't so much about supporting a historical Jesus but just about the legitimacy of the Josephus text. Maybe he does then use that to argue for a historical Jesus, but the only discussion I've seen is about the text itself and not to then use the text to prove anything else.Still haven't read or listened, but the PDF looks like TC Schmidt. He is featured on the Wikipedia article and, jumping ahead his argument is that it is authentic but missing a few words here or there. For example, I think he argues "He was Christ" was really "He was thought to be Christ" which is consistent with the neutral to negative attitude that Christians, until recently had over these passages. Will still look more to get it "from the horses mouth" rather than a Wiki article, but I am guessing from the Wiki that he will more or less align with my thoughts that it supports a "minimalistic" historical Jesus rather than the Jesus from John with the events of the synoptics that it tends to be used to support.Maybe in a day or two, won't be around too much tomorrow to give it a listen.ose
I think my most recent reading about this was actually from a mythicist. It argued against that these are both Christian interpolations forged before or by Eusebius. The arguments are that Josephus would never use such language for what he would have perceived as a troublemaker. As evident by the words he used for other troublemakers, other subversives. That it took two centuries for any Christian writer to notice, especially since Origen quoted Josephus elsewhere. That its insertion breaks the narrative flow. Etc. So, I guess that would be what I would look for in the debate over the "disputed" part.
I don't think that this is however the scholarly majority opinion. I think that it is some of this was original, some of it "enhanced" along the way. But this isn't really a debate I'm too concerned about. Authentic? Not? Either way this doesn't really tell me very much about the historical Jesus which I am already rather certain existed. Maybe not as much like the Gospel accounts as a believer would prefer, but pretty certain there was a Jesus that had a small following then went to play the big stage of Passover which led to his downfall in human terms. Which somehow, someway was not the end of the story. Which is pretty much the extent of which that Josephus being 100% authentic confirms.
That being said, I'm still a sucker for such things so I'll try to get to your links when I can. (Oh, and I will quit reading the second that your link says this is secular
Time to shut up, do my next errand and then dig in to this.
What makes him suspect to me though is the tease for the next episode where he supposedly argues that Josephus knew people who were present at Jesus' trial. Maybe I'll look at his arguments, but I don't really see much of a trial, yet alone attendance.
I came across Schmidt's work from a tweet of someone I mentioned earlier, Jason Staples. Staples was a student of Ehrman and someone who doesn't play the apologetics game, from what I've seen. If Staples thinks it is quality scholarship, that's worth a lot to me. But, I'll admit that Staples is my current scholar crush.
As for the TF, I think this freebee is about as far as the blog gets.
Back to Schmidt. It seems that his argument that Josephus would have known those at Jesus' trial is that because Josephus was born about the same time as Christianity in Jerusalem to a family of elites, he grew up rubbing elbows with the Sadducees that had Jesus executed. That he interacted with those that knew Jesus. I don't think that the Sadducees knew all that much about Jesus. And when they told Pilate that Jesus was the cause of commotion during the Passover, stirring up sentiment in the crowds I don't think there was much of a trial. So, it is going to take a bit of convincing here. I have downloaded the PDF and skimmed. Maybe in a day or two I will realize that this paragraph will be "spot on" or "dead wrong". Thanks for providing it.
The Longtime Lurker
Footballguy
The idea of historical Jesus, but not from the Bible is something I've always found interesting. Outside of the Josephus passages (which may or may not be a source on historical Jesus) are there other mentions that get pointed to as proof of existence outside of the Bible?
I read a book "Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth" many years ago and found it a unique representation to the day to day life a historical Jesus might have experienced. With accounts outside of the Bible seemingly hard to come by it was a interesting to have a picture what life for someone presenting new ideas and challenging the status quo would have looked like 2k years ago. I don't think it's written from belief or faith, but instead an attempt at historical recreation for the life of someone claiming to be a "messiah" (Jesus was one of many claiming the title at the time as i understand it).
I read a book "Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth" many years ago and found it a unique representation to the day to day life a historical Jesus might have experienced. With accounts outside of the Bible seemingly hard to come by it was a interesting to have a picture what life for someone presenting new ideas and challenging the status quo would have looked like 2k years ago. I don't think it's written from belief or faith, but instead an attempt at historical recreation for the life of someone claiming to be a "messiah" (Jesus was one of many claiming the title at the time as i understand it).
I think it was pointed out materials (wood) used would not be favorable for that size/length without having steel to reinforce structural members. Your AI response doesn't specify materials used so while this may be ideal today (with materials of today) it wasn't likely the case in Noah's time.
dgreen
Footballguy
I think I understand why people want to exclude "the Bible" when asking about the historic Jesus, but can someone unpack that for me more because something just isn't quite clicking for me. I'm trying to remember back to the link @Captain Cranks posted earlier about the historical method and how that might apply here.
I mean, if the 27 books were never canonized into one "book" many years later, would people say, "Does Jesus appear in any writings other than Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, ! Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, Jude, and Revelation"? That's 26 different texts from, at minimum, nine different authors (and most likely more). And then there's things like the Epistle of Barnabas, Gospel of Thomas, Clement, the Didache, etc.
While all of these are certainly biased writings, their bias doesn't seem to be that they all want to try to convince people into thinking a person existed who never existed. I think one could argue their bias was to try to convince people that this historical person performed great miracles and rose from the dead, but that agenda would assume the person was historical. The NT seems like strong evidence for the historical Jesus, but people usually want to discard it in this discussion. Again, I think I understand, but I also kind of don't.
I mean, if the 27 books were never canonized into one "book" many years later, would people say, "Does Jesus appear in any writings other than Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, ! Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, Jude, and Revelation"? That's 26 different texts from, at minimum, nine different authors (and most likely more). And then there's things like the Epistle of Barnabas, Gospel of Thomas, Clement, the Didache, etc.
While all of these are certainly biased writings, their bias doesn't seem to be that they all want to try to convince people into thinking a person existed who never existed. I think one could argue their bias was to try to convince people that this historical person performed great miracles and rose from the dead, but that agenda would assume the person was historical. The NT seems like strong evidence for the historical Jesus, but people usually want to discard it in this discussion. Again, I think I understand, but I also kind of don't.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
@Paddington 's list - Early Secular Writings Regarding Christ - is pretty comprehensive. My issue is that it is mislabeled. Nothing on it is both "secular" and "early" when "early" is defined as contemporary to the New Testament writings (within about 100 years give or take from Jesus' death). As detailed here. The definition of "early" is relevant because after this time there are all kinds of Christian writings which are not orthodox and thus dismissed. One of the reasons they are dismissed is that they are too far removed from the actual events. So, if that is the standard that is going to be applied, it should apply to everything. But while the strength of the older evidence might be lower than if it was earlier, it is still evidence. The same way that those heretical Christian ideas might be crazy and useless to reconstructing what the historical Jesus did and say, the idea that they are applying these crazy ideas to someone named Jesus makes them at least a bit of evidence for a historical Jesus' existence.
As for Jesus being a zealot, assuming that we define that as Jesus being a ringleader for an armed uprising, I used to believe that Judas betrayed Jesus when he finally figured out that this was not who Jesus was. That to Judas it was Jesus that betrayed him. I still occasionally entertain that idea, but I am more in the Jesus was an apocalypse guy instead and Judas was doing what he was instructed to do whether directly from Jesus, or indirectly from the Holy Spirit.
Much of what I find problematic about Jesus makes more sense when you get the idea that there is "no time to waste" because Daniel's "Son of Man" is arriving any day now. Especially if you allow whether or not Jesus meant himself when he mentions "Son of Man" to be ambiguous from reference to reference. The problematic ideas are still problematic if one is being asked to literally apply them to 21st century life, but less so for a 1st century Jew struggling to survive looking for answers for why his people suffer.
dgreen
Footballguy
Can you say more about this? I know Ehrman uses this language, too: Jesus as an apocalyptic preacher. What apocalypse is he preaching and what are the implications/results of this apocalypse?
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
While there are those that argue otherwise, I take it that most of the New Testament outside of the gospels simply presuppose that Jesus was a real person at some point in the prior twenty to hundred years. They seldom speak to what Jesus did (at least while alive) or say other than in passing. The gospels are pretty much the only source, despite their inherent bias to reconstruct what a historical Jesus was likely about. And for a whole lot of reasons, you don't end up with much of a "historical" picture and need to use other perspectives to fill in the gaps. That is assuming one's goal is to "know Jesus" to better understand God and/or better understand what it means to follow Jesus and/or just to understand what all of those crazy Christians (like me) are all about.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
