Jesus (1 Viewer)

[matuski]

I've always wondered how much money is tied up in the Church. For protestants, lutherans, catholics, baptists, etc. All of Christianity pooled together, just pure profit margins. Are there stats for that? It's gotta be a pretty big time industry I would say.

Here's a photo of Southland Christian Church, I pass it by every now and then.

http://upload.wikime...tian_Church.jpg

Don't know anything about how denominational churches work, but I can tell you that there is no such thing as "profit" in your typical American nondenominational church. And church budgets are given out to church members. They know exactly where their money is going.

Really? All churches function in this way? I'd be curious to know the salary for the average pastor. At what point is his salary defined as "nonprofit?" Isn't that kind of a slippery slope?

Every church I've been a part of as a member or a staff person functioned that way. I'm an associate pastor with a Masters degree and 8 years in full-time ministry. I make $43k and have no healthcare (covered under my wife). Does that sound like I'm overpaid? Should pastors not make a wage for the services they provide?

You should absolutley be paid, I don't think that is controversial at all.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Teaching, preaching, counseling, hospital visitation, weddings, funerals, etc., most of which require a fair amount of preparation. And those services are being provided to people who find value in those services, or they wouldn't be involved in a church.

I'm with Cross here, though lets start with maybe a wrong reason. I have been to church services lead by unpaid "God will provide" pastors. While I admire the faith and dedication to it, I'll take the paid professional.In addition as the older sibling to a dying child there is no way to place a "price tag" on the support offered my sister, my mother, and all of my family - believer or not during those ten short years so long ago. Maybe it is technically anti biblical to some readings for guys like Cross to be paid. Maybe the "preparation" stuff is overstated, especially once these guys have been at it for a while, but the vast majority do plenty to earn their modest incomes. The extremes that make much more, or take advantage of their position to do bad things are the exceptions that prove the rule.I just hope that Cross doesn't use his "Good luck with that" schtick to dying patients and/or their families.

 

[matuski]

Also, why are churches exempt from taxes?

Don't get me started.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You should absolutley be paid, I don't think that is controversial at all.

The controversy comes mostly from the LDS crowd.

 

[mr roboto]

Someone needs to explain the difference between 'profit' and 'wages' to our outspoken libertarian friend.

 

[Black Box]

Mithra keeps coming up as I've posted. Dionysis the same. Seems the only sources denouncing the parallels are christian sites.

Here's a link to the Huffington Post with an article by Bart Ehrman (the ex-evangelical Christian, currently agnostic Biblical scholar) about his most recent book, Did Jesus Exist?

 

[Chairshot]

Teaching, preaching, counseling, hospital visitation, weddings, funerals, etc., most of which require a fair amount of preparation. And those services are being provided to people who find value in those services, or they wouldn't be involved in a church.

Those things all seem like things people can do as part of their service to God. I don't see why someone should draw a salary for it. Also, I would hope that the reason people join your church (or any church) is because they feel like you teach them the truth there and aid them to worship God well, not because they expect a hospital visit when they are sick because they pay your salary.That said, I realize I'm in the minority in thinking this way. All things considered, $43K isn't much compared to some of the criminals out there running mega-churches, that's for sure, so I'm not trying to give you a hard time personally. It just doesn't seem right to me that any sort of profit should be involved with worship, even if it is modest, as it appears to be in your case.

 

[mr roboto]

WAGES AREN'T PROFIT

 

[mr roboto]

In the NT, there were ministry leaders who worked other jobs (Paul at times) and ministry leaders who received a living from believers (Paul at other times).

A good sermon should take 10-20 hours of prep. Tack that onto a full time job, kids, soccer practices etc. Then add in necessary meetings, counseling, prep for Bible studies etc.

A church who asks a well-educated person to do a job well should pay them. A small group of believers who have no organization, no real programs etc (like a house church) can do without a paid minister. Once a church gets to be any real size, it requires a full-time job.

 

[proninja]

A normal pastor, in my experience, works ridiculously hard at a very stressful job. People go to their pastors for help when they're at the end of themselves. They get to deal with families falling apart, disease, death, betrayal, and all the stuff people don't often talk about because it's too painful. I've got a decent handful of pastor friends, some who do it full time, others who do it as a labor of love planting a small church that they hope serves well. They don't have it easy. Pray for your pastors.

Normal caveats about how this doesn't apply to the Joel Osteens of the world apply

 

[ren hoek]

WAGES AREN'T PROFIT

There's no profit involved in a $100k salary versus a $43k salary?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Also, why are churches exempt from taxes?

Because they're not-for-profits. Most NFPs enjoy tax-exemption.

 

[shader]

I've always wondered how much money is tied up in the Church. For protestants, lutherans, catholics, baptists, etc. All of Christianity pooled together, just pure profit margins. Are there stats for that? It's gotta be a pretty big time industry I would say.

Here's a photo of Southland Christian Church, I pass it by every now and then.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Southland_Christian_Church.jpg

Don't know anything about how denominational churches work, but I can tell you that there is no such thing as "profit" in your typical American nondenominational church. And church budgets are given out to church members. They know exactly where their money is going.

Really? All churches function in this way? I'd be curious to know the salary for the average pastor. At what point is his salary defined as "nonprofit?" Isn't that kind of a slippery slope?

Every church I've been a part of as a member or a staff person functioned that way. I'm an associate pastor with a Masters degree and 8 years in full-time ministry. I make $43k and have no healthcare (covered under my wife). Does that sound like I'm overpaid? Should pastors not make a wage for the services they provide?

Personally, no, I don't think they should receive a salary. Granted, I don't believe that someone making $43K is attempting to fleece the flock, but what services are you providing that warrant a salary?

Teaching, preaching, counseling, hospital visitation, weddings, funerals, etc., most of which require a fair amount of preparation. And those services are being provided to people who find value in those services, or they wouldn't be involved in a church.

I don't think people should be involved in a church so that they can get hospital visits, weddings, funerals and counseling. I would think they are involved in a church because they believe in the teachings of that church. That being said, you are probably right. Many people go to the churches that make them feel comfortable, and believe what they want to believe. So if they get all those "services" as a result of choosing that church, then whatever.

 

[shader]

In the NT, there were ministry leaders who worked other jobs (Paul at times) and ministry leaders who received a living from believers (Paul at other times).

A good sermon should take 10-20 hours of prep. Tack that onto a full time job, kids, soccer practices etc. Then add in necessary meetings, counseling, prep for Bible studies etc.

A church who asks a well-educated person to do a job well should pay them. A small group of believers who have no organization, no real programs etc (like a house church) can do without a paid minister. Once a church gets to be any real size, it requires a full-time job.

hmm...not sure about this one. Paul obviously got help. Paul obviously got assistance. But he travelled, stayed with people, was assisted with food, etc. It's not as if he built a house, set down roots and got a salary. So I'd disagree with you there.And I don't see the relevance of Paul working other jobs. Anyone should be allowed to work other jobs.

 

[proninja]

I've always wondered how much money is tied up in the Church. For protestants, lutherans, catholics, baptists, etc. All of Christianity pooled together, just pure profit margins. Are there stats for that? It's gotta be a pretty big time industry I would say.

Here's a photo of Southland Christian Church, I pass it by every now and then.

http://upload.wikime...tian_Church.jpg

Don't know anything about how denominational churches work, but I can tell you that there is no such thing as "profit" in your typical American nondenominational church. And church budgets are given out to church members. They know exactly where their money is going.

Really? All churches function in this way? I'd be curious to know the salary for the average pastor. At what point is his salary defined as "nonprofit?" Isn't that kind of a slippery slope?

Every church I've been a part of as a member or a staff person functioned that way. I'm an associate pastor with a Masters degree and 8 years in full-time ministry. I make $43k and have no healthcare (covered under my wife). Does that sound like I'm overpaid? Should pastors not make a wage for the services they provide?

Personally, no, I don't think they should receive a salary. Granted, I don't believe that someone making $43K is attempting to fleece the flock, but what services are you providing that warrant a salary?

Teaching, preaching, counseling, hospital visitation, weddings, funerals, etc., most of which require a fair amount of preparation. And those services are being provided to people who find value in those services, or they wouldn't be involved in a church.

I don't think people should be involved in a church so that they can get hospital visits, weddings, funerals and counseling. I would think they are involved in a church because they believe in the teachings of that church. That being said, you are probably right. Many people go to the churches that make them feel comfortable, and believe what they want to believe. So if they get all those "services" as a result of choosing that church, then whatever.

I agree. People should be involved in a church so that they can fulfil the biblical exhortation to be in community. Not to go to a nice place where people smile and think exactly what they do, but to be obedient. Those "services" are just what people who love each other do for each other. The pastor is there to lead and foster community between believers. In exchange for his time, he gets paid, so that he can afford food, a roof, and maybe some clothes for his kid. I don't see anything wrong with this.

 

[matuski]

Mithra keeps coming up as I've posted. Dionysis the same. Seems the only sources denouncing the parallels are christian sites.

Here's a link to the Huffington Post with an article by Bart Ehrman (the ex-evangelical Christian, currently agnostic Biblical scholar) about his most recent book, Did Jesus Exist?

I see nothing here that is in disagreement with my position.I don't deny a man named Jesus existed. I deny a miracle performing son of a god existed (by the name of Jesus or otherwise). The man may have existed, but sure as #### the story of Jesus is made up - and at least in a few regards, made up of the best parts of stories before him.

Thank you though for the new label of "mythicist". Always need more labels.

 

[cstu]

A normal pastor, in my experience, works ridiculously hard at a very stressful job. People go to their pastors for help when they're at the end of themselves. They get to deal with families falling apart, disease, death, betrayal, and all the stuff people don't often talk about because it's too painful. I've got a decent handful of pastor friends, some who do it full time, others who do it as a labor of love planting a small church that they hope serves well. They don't have it easy. Pray for your pastors. Normal caveats about how this doesn't apply to the Joel Osteens of the world apply

They've got to love the power they wield over people.

 

[proninja]

A normal pastor, in my experience, works ridiculously hard at a very stressful job. People go to their pastors for help when they're at the end of themselves. They get to deal with families falling apart, disease, death, betrayal, and all the stuff people don't often talk about because it's too painful. I've got a decent handful of pastor friends, some who do it full time, others who do it as a labor of love planting a small church that they hope serves well. They don't have it easy. Pray for your pastors. Normal caveats about how this doesn't apply to the Joel Osteens of the world apply

They've got to love the power they wield over people.

You don't know many pastors, do you?

 

[jomar]

In exchange for his time, he gets paid, so that he can afford food, a roof, and maybe some clothes for his kid. I don't see anything wrong with this.

Have a little faith and let God provide as he sees fit

 

[CrossEyed]

In exchange for his time, he gets paid, so that he can afford food, a roof, and maybe some clothes for his kid. I don't see anything wrong with this.

Have a little faith and let God provide as he sees fit

Maybe God uses the generosity of others to provide....and that doesn't just apply to pastors salaries.

 

[Juxtatarot]

Mithra keeps coming up as I've posted. Dionysis the same. Seems the only sources denouncing the parallels are christian sites.

Here's a link to the Huffington Post with an article by Bart Ehrman (the ex-evangelical Christian, currently agnostic Biblical scholar) about his most recent book, Did Jesus Exist?

From the article:

Moreover, aspects of the Jesus story simply would not have been invented by anyone wanting to make up a new Savior. The earliest followers of Jesus declared that he was a crucified messiah. But prior to Christianity, there were no Jews at all, of any kind whatsoever, who thought that there would be a future crucified messiah. The messiah was to be a figure of grandeur and power who overthrew the enemy. Anyone who wanted to make up a messiah would make him like that. Why did the Christians not do so? Because they believed specifically that Jesus was the Messiah. And they knew full well that he was crucified. The Christians did not invent Jesus. They invented the idea that the messiah had to be crucified.

The problem with creating a more powerful messiah is that he would have a legacy at the time of his creation. If he "overthrew the enemy", evidence of this would be abundant. Adding the crucifixion could be a clever device to avoid this problem.For the record, I have absolutely no idea if a historical Jesus existed or not. I just found this to be a weak argument.

 

[hutchins929]

JESUS

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

JESUS

he's a memerizing wizard

 

[Patrick Bateman]

Blah blah blah. Open your minds people! So sad.

 

[hutchins929]

Blah blah blah. Open your minds people! So sad.

Yeah, take the red pill...

 

[Mister CIA]

JESUS

Has a certain "One time, in band camp" rhythm.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

Blah blah blah. Open your minds people! So sad.

Yeah, take the red pill...

Obama=God

 

[Jewell]

Numerous witnesses claim to have seen Jesus Christ in New York City today

 

[Juxtatarot]

Numerous witnesses claim to have seen Jesus Christ in New York City today

Running barefoot was a nice touch although He could have gone with sandles.

 

[KCitons]

Numerous witnesses claim to have seen Jesus Christ in New York City today

How do they know it was Jesus Christ? They don't wear name badges for the marathon, just numbers. Can't really tell in that picture, maybe his sticker does say #2.

 

[matuski]

Numerous witnesses claim to have seen Jesus Christ in New York City today

I wish someone had a quote from that guy.

 

[Jayrok]

Numerous witnesses claim to have seen Jesus Christ in New York City today

I wish someone had a quote from that guy.

"where is Simon of Cyrene when you need him?"

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Numerous witnesses claim to have seen Jesus Christ in New York City today

How do they know it was Jesus Christ? They don't wear name badges for the marathon, just numbers. Can't really tell in that picture, maybe his sticker does say #2.

Are we sure it wasn't Barabbas?

 

[Chaka]

I presume you are familiar with the Council of Nicaea and the Gnostic Gospels, but if not you should look into them. It will shed some light on what we now call the bible and likely answer the question of why many people simply do not accept the bible as a factual historical document.

Wait. Wat?I'm not tossing out anything, the Council of Nicaea did the tossing, not me.

ETA And I am not arguing against the existence of Jesus, I think it is obvious he existed. We keep time by him for goodness sake.

I guess I made an assumption based on the bolded above that you included yourself in the group that simply doesn't accept the Bible as a historical document containing facts, which seems to be a mistake on my part.I really didn't mean to point a specific finger at you. I do think many people dismiss the Bible completely with these types of historical discussions, which doesn't make sense to me. Whether a person believes the Bible to be the word of God or not, it's still a valid historical document.

It's a document that likely contains some historical fact. However what is fact and what is fiction can be difficult to discern.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

It's a document that likely contains some historical fact. However what is fact and what is fiction can be difficult to discern.

Yep, that defines the gospels all right.

 

[matuski]

Jesus couldn't hack a marathon.

 

[zoonation]

He is carrying it wrong.

 

[scrumptrulescent]

Wow. I haven't looked at one of these threads for months. Glad to see everything is exactly the same.....same cynicism, same posters, same arguments and mocking one another. Nothing changes.

 

[zoonation]

Wow. I haven't looked at one of these threads for months. Glad to see everything is exactly the same.....same cynicism, same posters, same arguments and mocking one another. Nothing changes.

thanks for dropping by!

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Wow. I haven't looked at one of these threads for months. Glad to see everything is exactly the same.....same cynicism, same posters, same arguments and mocking one another. Nothing changes.

In a thread that hadn't been updated in over a year, it's odd that nothing has changed in the last few months.

 

[timschochet]

Help me in my weakness, for I've fallen out of grace.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

ETA And I am not arguing against the existence of Jesus, I think it is obvious he existed. We keep time by him for goodness sake.

People often treat the question of whether Jesus existed as a question of historical fact, rather than a question of semantics. But I think it's clear that the semantic issue is essential.

If "Jesus" means somebody who fits the exact, literal description of the character 'Jesus' provided in the New Testament, accurate in every detail, there is about a zero percent chance that Jesus actually existed.

If "Jesus" means somebody whom at least some of the stories that the character 'Jesus' in the New Testament were based on, there is about a 100% chance that Jesus actually existed. (In fact, a number of Jesuses likely existed.)

So whether Jesus actually existed necessarily comes down to the semantic issue of what we mean by "Jesus." What list of attributes must a person have in order to qualify as the (or a) historical Jesus? Must he have been born in Bethlehem? Must he have been a carpenter from Galilee? Must he have given the Sermon on the Mount? Must he have walked on water? Must he have fed a multitude with seven loaves and fish? Must he have been crucified by Pontius Pilate? What if a person meets only three of those six criteria? Does he then qualify as the historical Jesus? (Does it matter which three?)

There are hundreds of claims made about Jesus in the New Testament. Whether Jesus existed or didn't exist is not an all-or-nothing proposition. It's very likely that the historical person who most closely resembled the Biblical Jesus fits substantially more than zero of those claims, but substantially fewer than all of them.

 

[Man of Zen]

ETA And I am not arguing against the existence of Jesus, I think it is obvious he existed. We keep time by him for goodness sake.

People often treat the question of whether Jesus existed as a question of historical fact, rather than a question of semantics. But I think it's clear that the semantic issue is essential.

If "Jesus" means somebody who fits the exact, literal description of the character 'Jesus' provided in the New Testament, accurate in every detail, there is about a zero percent chance that Jesus actually existed.

If "Jesus" means somebody whom at least some of the stories that the character 'Jesus' in the New Testament were based on, there is about a 100% chance that Jesus actually existed. (In fact, a number of Jesuses likely existed.)

So whether Jesus actually existed necessarily comes down to the semantic issue of what we mean by "Jesus." What list of attributes must a person have in order to qualify as the (or a) historical Jesus? Must he have been born in Bethlehem? Must he have been a carpenter from Galilee? Must he have given the Sermon on the Mount? Must he have walked on water? Must he have fed a multitude with seven loaves and fish? Must he have been crucified by Pontius Pilate? What if a person meets only three of those six criteria? Does he then qualify as the historical Jesus? (Does it matter which three?)

There are hundreds of claims made about Jesus in the New Testament. Whether Jesus existed or didn't exist is not an all-or-nothing proposition. It's very likely that the historical person who most closely resembled the Biblical Jesus fits substantially more than zero of those claims, but substantially fewer than all of them.

I don't think that when people ask that we take for granted as a starting point that a historical Jesus existed, that they're asking you to accept the whole embodiment of his literary or mythical construct.

My father will swear to God that when he used to be a big Dr. J. fan back in his ABA days, that the good Doctor threw down a dunk from the top of the key, leaping over the entire defensive team on route to the rim...that he was able to leap up and not only nab a quarter off the top of the backboard, but leave two dimes and a nickel in its place...that he once scored 100 points against the Harlem Globetrotters during an exhibition that aired on Wide World of Sports.

None of these things ever happened, and I'll confidently set the probabilities at zero. But that doesn't mean there's some fuzziness over whether the historical figure the myths and legends were based upon existed. Even though he legitimately gets credit for none of these accomplishments, Dr. J. did, in fact, exist.

I guess that yes, you can make it a semantic argument, but in doing so, I think you're playing bait and switch with the argument people are setting forth. The "fact" they want you to accept of a historical Jesus is simply a premise. You don't seem to be so much invalidating the premise as denying the consequent -- that all the Bible says about Jesus is somehow true.

 

[KCitons]

Numerous witnesses claim to have seen Jesus Christ in New York City today

How do they know it was Jesus Christ? They don't wear name badges for the marathon, just numbers. Can't really tell in that picture, maybe his sticker does say #2.

Are we sure it wasn't Barabbas?

It certainly can't be Jesus. If we believe the bible, Jesus was nailed to the cross. There is also mention of thieves that were crucified next to Jesus. These thieves were tied, not nailed to the cross. The runner in the picture is tied to his cross, allowing him to run 10 miles. Probably why the Romans used nails.

What you don't see in that picture is the half dozen other runners about 50 feet behind him. Dressed as Roman soldiers.

If this runner would have finished the marathon with his hands and feet nailed to the cross, I would reconsider my stance on religion.

 

[NCCommish]

ETA And I am not arguing against the existence of Jesus, I think it is obvious he existed. We keep time by him for goodness sake.

People often treat the question of whether Jesus existed as a question of historical fact, rather than a question of semantics. But I think it's clear that the semantic issue is essential.

If "Jesus" means somebody who fits the exact, literal description of the character 'Jesus' provided in the New Testament, accurate in every detail, there is about a zero percent chance that Jesus actually existed.

If "Jesus" means somebody whom at least some of the stories that the character 'Jesus' in the New Testament were based on, there is about a 100% chance that Jesus actually existed. (In fact, a number of Jesuses likely existed.)

So whether Jesus actually existed necessarily comes down to the semantic issue of what we mean by "Jesus." What list of attributes must a person have in order to qualify as the (or a) historical Jesus? Must he have been born in Bethlehem? Must he have been a carpenter from Galilee? Must he have given the Sermon on the Mount? Must he have walked on water? Must he have fed a multitude with seven loaves and fish? Must he have been crucified by Pontius Pilate? What if a person meets only three of those six criteria? Does he then qualify as the historical Jesus? (Does it matter which three?)

There are hundreds of claims made about Jesus in the New Testament. Whether Jesus existed or didn't exist is not an all-or-nothing proposition. It's very likely that the historical person who most closely resembled the Biblical Jesus fits substantially more than zero of those claims, but substantially fewer than all of them.

It's far more likely that the historical Jesus fit very few of them. The Jesus of the Bible was designed to entice followers. Then he used to put an official stamp on the policies of Rome. He went from just a guy to a virgin born demi-god. And given the huge number of "Messiahs" running around the area it's also possible that historical Jesus was none of the things the Bible says and was just a blank canvas to paint a character on.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

If you talk with Jesus today or whenever ask why he did not help this girl.

http://www.examiner.com/article/christian-homeschoolers-receive-maximum-jail-time-for-death-of-child

 

[Clifford]

There was most definitely a historical person we refer to as Jesus. I believe he was the son of God, but I can easily see where many people think that the stories told about him were hyperbole, or just pumped up PR trying to get people on board with the whole Christianity thing. The man on which these stories were built undoubtedly existed.

What evidence do you base this on?I'm in the camp that a man named jesus probably existed, but I've never seen anything that one could reasonably use as a basis to make the bolded statements.

If you believe in recorded history, then it's fairly easy to believe that a man named Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. I am fairly sure there is corroborating evidence of this outside of the bible.

 

[Clifford]

Who believes there was never even a preacher named Jesus during the time described?

I think even most atheists would concede there was a historical Jesus

What counts as a historical Jesus?Anyone named Yeshua who lived between 100 BC and 100 AD? There were lots and lots of historical Jesuses.

Or anyone who died and rose again three days later to be seated at the right and of the creator of the universe? I don't think any atheists would concede that such a person existed.

Or something in between? What does it take?

The same thing it would take to establish the existence of any historical figure: combine dates, circumstances in historical accounts.

We would be looking for a man named Jesus, hailing from Nazareth, crucified under Pontius Pilate, with two other dudes.

This is easy stuff.

 

[cstu]

Why didn't Jesus show himself to everyone after he rose from the dead?

According the Bible (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) he only showed himself to the disciples, Mary Magdalene, and another Mary.

Doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Parrothead]

Why didn't Jesus show himself to everyone after he rose from the dead?

According the Bible (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) he only showed himself to the disciples, Mary Magdalene, and another Mary.

Doesn't make sense to me.

like a flasher?