Biblical Accounts and History

[Monarchist]

Greetings

As my good fellow Ummon has obliged me with his reasoning behind the Bible's truth, of late, I have been inspired to spring this subject on E.M.M. God bless him for his perserverance.

Now, why is it that major, distinguishing, gigantic, and intensely important events for all mankind that are mentioned in the Bible are not mentioned elsewhere?

There is the story in the Gospel according to Luke (7:11-17) where a funeral procession is coming from the town of Nain. A young man had died, and the pall-bearers had to take the weeping mother away to his place of burial. Jesus came about, took pity on the funereal party, and commanded the dead boy to rise. He obligingly opened his eyes, sat up, and was alive again. If this truly happened, wouldn't there have been startling accounts from across the known world of it? Why is it that we have Ovid's complete poetry collected, and yet the event of a Jewish prophet literally raising the dead goes unmentioned? The ubiquitous Romans, if they were skeptical, could easily have come around and seen the death certificate, then the resurrected boy. Even if the Romans destroyed records of this event and suppressed it, I seriously doubt whether it wouldn't have gotten out to the Parthians and other nations.

The Resurrection itself is in a similar historical situation. In this case, the Romans themselves had nailed the poor being to the Cross, and He came to life three days after his burial. Why is this not given as a complete historical reality by non-Christians during and after the events of Jesus' Resurrection? Surely, if a known "criminal" that had been crucified started walking about in Galilee again, someone would know of it. Jesus the Christ got up and was eventually recognized by His apostles as they gathered around him. Presumably the word got out about this event, for many people had seen Jesus at the Sermon on the Mountain, and they'd have liked to know about it. Where is the corroboration in historical articles? Again, we know more of Pliny the Elder's comparatively insignificant Histories than a man who died and came back to life. What does this say?

Consequently, why on Earth did Jesus just happen to undergo the Transfiguration in front of only Peter, James (of Zebedee), and John? If we multitudes of humanity were meant to learn of Jesus the Christ and believe in Him, wouldn't God have chosen a more populated place to begin this process of transfiguration? Why only reveal the Truth to the three most passionate and believing men, anyway? Show the skeptical what is true, and don't sing to the choir! What is this? It sounds more like a human invention than anything else.

Of course, there's also the minor details that differ between Matthew/Mark/Luke, and John. The first three ("Synoptic") Gospels give information and emphasis on things that the last does not even mention. We know that John says nothing on the Virgin Birth (explicitly so), yet Matthew and Luke emphasise it crucially. The first three Gospels make extensive mention of Jesus' exorcisms, and yet John says nothing. Lastly, the Synoptics put central focus on Jesus' work for the poor, but John is mostly silent. One cannot simply say that John put different emphases in his work, for there are blatantly contradictory moments. The Last Supper supposedly occurred on the day before Passover in John, but the other three apostles say the Supper took place on the day of Passover. In John, the episode of the money-changers in the Temple of Jerusalem happened early in Jesus' ministry, but the other three say it was toward the end of the ministry. John gives His ministry as having taken place over three years, and the Synoptics give the duration as merely one year. These are huge historical differences!

Did Matthew, Mark, and Luke simply suppress John's account until they died (which allowed him to write his account) or was John the one in the wrong all along? When two "divinely inspired" stories contradict each other, where do we go? I would prefer that real, believing Christians give their answers and logic here. Atheists may add their fifteen pents, but as you may know from dealing with me, I have no respect for your input on Christian doctrine.

Thank God it is possible to believe in a creator of the Universe without the Bible, for this isn't exactly inspiring a sense of faith in me.

[Ummon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Tyana

Miracles
Philostratus implies on one occasion that Apollonius had extra-sensory perception (Book VIII, Chapter XXVI). When emperor Domitian was murdered on September 18, 96 AD, Apollonius was said to have witnessed the event in Ephesus "about midday" on the day it happened in Rome, and told those present "Take heart, gentlemen, for the tyrant has been slain this day...". The words that Philostratus attributes to him would make equal sense, however, if Apollonius had been informed that the emperor would be killed at noon on Sept. 18th. Both Philostratus and renowned historian Cassius Dio report this incident, probably on the basis of an oral tradition. Both state that the philosopher welcomed the deed as a praiseworthy tyrannicide.[21] He is also said, on many occasions to have healed the wounded and the sick, and while there is nothing which details his death, or the approximate date thereof, there are claims of resurrection.[22]

There are many forms of exceptional deeds. Not all godly.

http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/sweden.htm

In 1747 Swedenborg was nominated for president of the Royal College of Mines. Communication with spirits led to his resignation from his government job. Later he wrote to the landgrave of Hessen-Darmstadt: "Because the Lord had prepared me for this from childhood, he revealed himself in person to me, his servant, and ordered me to perform this work. This happened in the year 1743, and afterward he showed me the face of my spirit and thus led me into the world of the spirits and allowed me to see heaven and its wonders, and at the same time to see hell as well, and also to speak with angels and spirits, and this has gone on continually for twenty-seven years." On a half-pension he became ascetic and added theological writings to his already lengthy list of scientific and philosophical works. His talents also included clairvoyance and prophecy. On the evening of July 19, 1759, he was visiting Göteborg. In the evening, at a party, he suddenly 'knew' that a fire raged in Stockholm, almost three hundred miles away, and threatened his own house. Next day his account of the disaster was fully confirmed.

"When, for instance, the vision arose in Swedenborg's mind of a fire in Stockholm, there was a real fire raging there at the same time, without there being any demonstrable or even thinkable connection between the two. I certainly would not like to undertake to prove the archetypal connection in this case. I would only point to the fact that in Swedenborg's biography there are certain things which throw a remarkable light on his psychic state. We must assume that there was a lowering of the threshold of consciousness which gave him access to "absolute knowledge." The fire in Stockholm was, in a sense, burning in him too." (Carl Jung in Synchronicity, 1960)

In 1762 Swedenborg went into a trance and described the assassination of the Russian Tsar Peter III. His publications from this visionary period include Worship and the Love of God, Arcana Caelestia, an exposition of the spirit teachings he received, and Heaven and Hell (1758), description of the afterlife. In Earths in the Universe Swedenborg claimed that the moon is peopled by a race which speaks through its stomachs – the sound is like belching. Contemporaries took Swedenborg's psychic powers of clairvoyance seriously: he impressed Queen Louisa Ulrica, sister of Frederick the Great, by delivering a private message from her dead brother, Augustus William. He believed he had the ability to slow down his breathing. "I became so completely accustomed to this type of respiration," he once said, "that I sometimes passed an entire hour without taking a breath. I had breathed in only enough air so that I could think." Occasionally he conversed with such prominent figures as Abraham, Solomon, and the apostles.

[Monarchist]

I apologize, but your answer doesn't seem to be related to my questions... at all. Apollonius von Tyana really means nothing to me, as his existence is not the focus of the New Testament.

[Ummon]

I showed you about two instances of sources, in different moments of history, which deal incompletely with claims of miraculous or magical results.

Truth often requires tangential approaches.

[Flavius Nevitta]

Presumably the word got out about this event, for many people had seen Jesus at the Sermon on the Mountain, and they'd have liked to know about it. Where is the corroboration in historical articles?

Only if anyone ever saw him holding the Sermon on the Mountain.

The Sermon on the Mountain and Luke's Sermon on the Plain are collections of keypoints and different quotes from Jesus rather than the discription of an actual event.

The use of the mountain is thought to be an artistic feature to parallel Jesus with Moses.

[Monarchist]

One can suppose that you are no Biblical literalist, then, Mr. Nevitta.

[Flavius Nevitta]

I'm not even a Christian...

[Playfishpaste]

Greetings

As my good fellow Ummon has obliged me with his reasoning behind the Bible's truth, of late, I have been inspired to spring this subject on E.M.M. God bless him for his perserverance.

Now, why is it that major, distinguishing, gigantic, and intensely important events for all mankind that are mentioned in the Bible are not mentioned elsewhere?

There is the story in the Gospel according to Luke (7:11-17) where a funeral procession is coming from the town of Nain. A young man had died, and the pall-bearers had to take the weeping mother away to his place of burial. Jesus came about, took pity on the funereal party, and commanded the dead boy to rise. He obligingly opened his eyes, sat up, and was alive again. If this truly happened, wouldn't there have been startling accounts from across the known world of it? Why is it that we have Ovid's complete poetry collected, and yet the event of a Jewish prophet literally raising the dead goes unmentioned? The ubiquitous Romans, if they were skeptical, could easily have come around and seen the death certificate, then the resurrected boy. Even if the Romans destroyed records of this event and suppressed it, I seriously doubt whether it wouldn't have gotten out to the Parthians and other nations.

The Resurrection itself is in a similar historical situation. In this case, the Romans themselves had nailed the poor being to the Cross, and He came to life three days after his burial. Why is this not given as a complete historical reality by non-Christians during and after the events of Jesus' Resurrection? Surely, if a known "criminal" that had been crucified started walking about in Galilee again, someone would know of it. Jesus the Christ got up and was eventually recognized by His apostles as they gathered around him. Presumably the word got out about this event, for many people had seen Jesus at the Sermon on the Mountain, and they'd have liked to know about it. Where is the corroboration in historical articles? Again, we know more of Pliny the Elder's comparatively insignificant Histories than a man who died and came back to life. What does this say?

Consequently, why on Earth did Jesus just happen to undergo the Transfiguration in front of only Peter, James (of Zebedee), and John? If we multitudes of humanity were meant to learn of Jesus the Christ and believe in Him, wouldn't God have chosen a more populated place to begin this process of transfiguration? Why only reveal the Truth to the three most passionate and believing men, anyway? Show the skeptical what is true, and don't sing to the choir! What is this? It sounds more like a human invention than anything else.

Of course, there's also the minor details that differ between Matthew/Mark/Luke, and John. The first three ("Synoptic") Gospels give information and emphasis on things that the last does not even mention. We know that John says nothing on the Virgin Birth (explicitly so), yet Matthew and Luke emphasise it crucially. The first three Gospels make extensive mention of Jesus' exorcisms, and yet John says nothing. Lastly, the Synoptics put central focus on Jesus' work for the poor, but John is mostly silent. One cannot simply say that John put different emphases in his work, for there are blatantly contradictory moments. The Last Supper supposedly occurred on the day before Passover in John, but the other three apostles say the Supper took place on the day of Passover. In John, the episode of the money-changers in the Temple of Jerusalem happened early in Jesus' ministry, but the other three say it was toward the end of the ministry. John gives His ministry as having taken place over three years, and the Synoptics give the duration as merely one year. These are huge historical differences!

Did Matthew, Mark, and Luke simply suppress John's account until they died (which allowed him to write his account) or was John the one in the wrong all along? When two "divinely inspired" stories contradict each other, where do we go? I would prefer that real, believing Christians give their answers and logic here. Atheists may add their fifteen pents, but as you may know from dealing with me, I have no respect for your input on Christian doctrine.

Thank God it is possible to believe in a creator of the Universe without the Bible, for this isn't exactly inspiring a sense of faith in me.

You have strange demands of historical accounts. There is often only one primary source of an important historical event, sometimes two. An example would be the trial of socrates, for which we only have Xenophon and Plato. Another example would be the first steam engine, whose characteristics are only described by the people who worked on it, Hero and Ctesibius.

As for the synoptic problem, it has been mulled over in VAST detail by theologians and historians in much better fashion then anyone in this thread will provide you with. For a supporting viewpoint, I'd recommend Dungan's A history of the Synoptic Problem. For an opposing view, Spong's Liberating the Gospels.

If ya can't pick stuff up anytime soon, youtube has some (note some) good commentaries on it. However, what you mentioned about the differences with John is rarely discussed, mostly because people consider john rather unreliable, and much more literary. Most scholars simply view the differences as either literary or the result of john's poor documentation.

[Monarchist]

John wasn't much of an apostle of God, then, was he? How could one of the twelve chosen be "unreliable"?

I will most definitely look at those books, both 'for' and 'against'.

[Playfishpaste]

John wasn't much of an apostle of God, then, was he? How could one of the twelve chosen be "unreliable"?

I will most definitely look at those books, both 'for' and 'against'.

Peter is kind of a complete moron compared to john, and he notates his ineptitude compared with Paul in the gospels. Intellect is not a requirement to being a good disciple.

[Ummon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John

The Fourth Gospel, like the three Synoptic Gospels, is anonymous in that it does not bear its author's name. The title, "According to John," was attached when the four Gospels were gathered together and began to circulate as one collection.[8]

The tradition that an apostle of Jesus wrote the Gospel can be found in the first two decades of the second century. There are some Church Fathers in the remainder of the second century that ascribe the text to John the Apostle.[9] Attestation of Johannine authorship is evidenced as early as Irenaeus.[2] Eusebius wrote that Irenaeus received his information from Polycarp, who is said to have known the apostles.

John A. T. Robinson, a staunch defender of the apostolic authorship of the Gospel, says the Johannine tradition did not suddenly emerge about AD 100. He says there is "a real continuity, not merely in the memory of one old man, but in the life of an ongoing community, with the earliest days of Christianity."[10]

The text itself is unclear about the issue. John 21:20–25[11] contains information that could be construed as autobiographical. Conservative scholars generally assume that first person "I" in verse 25, the disciple in verse 24 and the disciple whom Jesus loved (also known as the Beloved Disciple) in verse 20 are the same person.[12] Critics point out that the abrupt shift from third person to first person in vss. 24–25 indicates that the author of the epilogue, who is supposedly a third-party editor, claims the preceding narrative is based on the Beloved Disciple's testimony, while he himself is not the Beloved Disciple.[13][14] An early document from circa 170, the Muratorian fragment, states that while John was the primary author, several people were involved; that mutual revision was part of the original intent of the authors; and that the editors included the apostle Andrew.

The Alogi, a 2nd-century sect that denied the doctrine of the Logos, ascribed this gospel, as well as the Book of Revelation, to the Gnostic Cerinthus.[15] Irenaeus, on the other hand, asserted that John wrote his gospel to refute Cerinthus.[16]

[CtrlAltDe1337]

You raise some interesting questions, Monarchist, but I think there are satisfactory answers to these. I will try to get back to you later today but I gotta go to class soon.

[cfmonkey45]

Greetings

As my good fellow Ummon has obliged me with his reasoning behind the Bible's truth, of late, I have been inspired to spring this subject on E.M.M. God bless him for his perserverance.

Now, why is it that major, distinguishing, gigantic, and intensely important events for all mankind that are mentioned in the Bible are not mentioned elsewhere?

It's interesting because I've been asking some of these same questions and contemplating them in lieu of my readings of scriptures and my knowledge of history.



Firstly, there are a few things you should know about the Gospels. Most scholars agree with Markan Priority, which means that both Matthew and Luke built off of Mark. John was composed much later. It should be noted that these works were written following the Council of Jerusalem, so Christ's divinity was presupposed. Regarding the composition of the gospels, the source for this is probably dual, Mark having been composed as an evangelical tract towards the Christian communities, skimming over some historical details and ultimately trying to portray a character of Jesus that relates to the Church as a whole (i.e. suffering for a greater good), as well as emphasizing his philosophical beliefs, than actual history. Mark writes his gospel in homeric prose, akin to the Odyssey, in which there are many allusions (although, having said that, Jesus and Odysseus are polar opposites). The other source would be the elusive "Q document", which is, in all probability, a lost scroll detailing a number of important sayings and events. Mark was written with a Greek audience in mind, not only because of the aforementioned allusions, but because he has to continually translate aramaic phrases such as "Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani?", which means "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?".

Matthew and Luke combine and build off of both Mark and the Q document, and Luke also builds off of Matthew. Matthew and Luke both describe a virgin birth, and give an approximate birth date, but both are conflicting (Matthew gives the birth of Jesus two years before the death of Herod the Great, or in 6 BCE, whereas Luke gives it after the Census of Quirinius, or about 6 CE). These details aside, only Luke overtly claims to be giving a historical document of what happened, and goes to great length to explain and justify specific instances. Luke is also the author of the Book of Acts.

Now, despite all of the things the synoptics have in common, John is the outlier. It was composed sometime at the end of the first century, and possibly into the early second century. Ultimately, it took the Jesus narrative and reworked it to be more symbolic than literal. The crucifixion as being analogous to the sacrificial lamb is a construct to emphasize how Jesus's execution was the beginning of a new covenant. Moreover, the message regarding signs (in the synoptics, he refuses to give signs to prove his divinity) is contrasted (in John, Jesus "says" that you know he is God by the signs he has done). At this point, its necessary to take into account the audience and reasons why this would be written. Each gospel was written for a purpose, and accepted into the canon for a purpose. If you are a Christian, then you would most definitely believe in the miraculous wonders of our Lord Jesus Christ, as would early Christians. The synoptics choose this to explain why Jesus didn't lead a revolutionary movement with his god powers and instead allowed himself to be captured and crucified in order to redeem mankind. John preaches this different message to a different audience in a different time to say remind them that they know that Christ is Lord by what He has done in the Church in their time.

There is the story in the Gospel according to Luke (7:11-17) where a funeral procession is coming from the town of Nain. A young man had died, and the pall-bearers had to take the weeping mother away to his place of burial. Jesus came about, took pity on the funereal party, and commanded the dead boy to rise. He obligingly opened his eyes, sat up, and was alive again. If this truly happened, wouldn't there have been startling accounts from across the known world of it? Why is it that we have Ovid's complete poetry collected, and yet the event of a Jewish prophet literally raising the dead goes unmentioned? The ubiquitous Romans, if they were skeptical, could easily have come around and seen the death certificate, then the resurrected boy. Even if the Romans destroyed records of this event and suppressed it, I seriously doubt whether it wouldn't have gotten out to the Parthians and other nations.

See above, but I will expand on this more. Jesus' ministry at its height probably had about 10,000 to 20,000 tops. Judaea probably had much closer to 700,000-1,000,000. On passover, there were over 400,000 Jews alone in and around Jerusalem. Jesus was a small time preacher by most accounts. This means that knowledge of such a resurrection would be limited to just that small region or town. Not many at all. Moreover, why would anyone believe any of this heresay without proof? Other "miracle workers" were said to do even greater feats. So why should this carpenter from Judaea be given credence over the others from the more powerful lands of Greece and Rome?


More importantly, this has a theological aspect to it as well. How miraculous would it be if a great and powerful empire established the one true religion by force? Would we be impressed if the pantheon of Rome or Greece, or Assyria were correct, and then rose to dominance through force and blood? Or, would it be more miraculous if some "offshoot" (Hebrew- Nazerene, see prophecy in Isaiah) religion of some ancient nomadic cult became the dominant creed over all of the earth?

The Resurrection itself is in a similar historical situation. In this case, the Romans themselves had nailed the poor being to the Cross, and He came to life three days after his burial. Why is this not given as a complete historical reality by non-Christians during and after the events of Jesus' Resurrection? Surely, if a known "criminal" that had been crucified started walking about in Galilee again, someone would know of it. Jesus the Christ got up and was eventually recognized by His apostles as they gathered around him. Presumably the word got out about this event, for many people had seen Jesus at the Sermon on the Mountain, and they'd have liked to know about it. Where is the corroboration in historical articles? Again, we know more of Pliny the Elder's comparatively insignificant Histories than a man who died and came back to life. What does this say?

We do. We have the foundation of the Christian Church. Moreover, we have extreme skepticism by the authorities, since Jesus only stayed with them for a certain amount of time. Ultimately it was up to the disciples to preach the message. The greatest among these, Saul of Tarsus, later Paul, only saw Jesus in a vision which was not seen by his fellow travelers.

Consequently, why on Earth did Jesus just happen to undergo the Transfiguration in front of only Peter, James (of Zebedee), and John? If we multitudes of humanity were meant to learn of Jesus the Christ and believe in Him, wouldn't God have chosen a more populated place to begin this process of transfiguration? Why only reveal the Truth to the three most passionate and believing men, anyway? Show the skeptical what is true, and don't sing to the choir! What is this? It sounds more like a human invention than anything else.

Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Of course, there's also the minor details that differ between Matthew/Mark/Luke, and John. The first three ("Synoptic") Gospels give information and emphasis on things that the last does not even mention. We know that John says nothing on the Virgin Birth (explicitly so), yet Matthew and Luke emphasise it crucially. The first three Gospels make extensive mention of Jesus' exorcisms, and yet John says nothing. Lastly, the Synoptics put central focus on Jesus' work for the poor, but John is mostly silent. One cannot simply say that John put different emphases in his work, for there are blatantly contradictory moments. The Last Supper supposedly occurred on the day before Passover in John, but the other three apostles say the Supper took place on the day of Passover. In John, the episode of the money-changers in the Temple of Jerusalem happened early in Jesus' ministry, but the other three say it was toward the end of the ministry. John gives His ministry as having taken place over three years, and the Synoptics give the duration as merely one year. These are huge historical differences!

The problem is using all as a historical document, instead of theological ones written for explicit purposes.

[godol shmok]

The problem is using all as a historical document, instead of theological ones written for explicit purposes.

Exactely, if you want to use them as historical documents that say something about the state of art of a thinking within a certain millieu, you have to use critical methods that distinguish between your opinion and the opinions of the texts because these can't be the same after the time that stands between you and the original situation of the document.

[SigniferOne]

Thank God it is possible to believe in a creator of the Universe without the Bible, for this isn't exactly inspiring a sense of faith in me.

We've spoken privately before. You've led me to understand that you came from a family that reviled and did not treat the Bible respectfully. How reasonable would it be then to bring that mindset with you when trying to understand it yourself? Have you read the book by now? It is deeply admirable, deeply inspiring, even to someone who in the end might choose not to accept its metaphysical aspect, as long as he treated it kindly, and generously walked with it as its events unfolded. It's simply transcendent, and baffling, without you having to necessarily go all the way to become a Christian. The book itself is that good, you just have to approach it kindly, however. I am deeply stung by your cynicism and bitterness.

[Monarchist]

We've spoken privately before. You've led me to understand that you came from a family that reviled and did not treat the Bible respectfully. How reasonable would it be then to bring that mindset with you when trying to understand it yourself? Have you read the book by now? It is deeply admirable, deeply inspiring, even to someone who in the end might choose not to accept its metaphysical aspect, as long as he treated it kindly, and generously walked with it as its events unfolded. It's simply transcendent, and baffling, without you having to necessarily go all the way to become a Christian. The book itself is that good, you just have to approach it kindly, however. I am deeply stung by your cynicism and bitterness.

You should not feel so stung, kind sir! Beside that, I have indeed been reading the book itself, and am not speaking ab rectum. When brought up in cynicism and bitterness, one can hardly help but start out cynical and bitter about organized religion. When I see nor feel true spiritual evidence of the facts in this book, where can I go but to questions? It isn't as if I can just take up the high ground immediately and accept it all. I can't understand how Christ (much less any of the apostles) expects anyone to believe in the Word 2000 years on when He never shows Himself to skeptics.

Don't give me the nonsense about God speaking to us "within" (acting as the subconscious), because I've spoken to monks who've (supposedly) directly seen Mary or one of the martyrs praying atop a steeple, in situ, "alive" and well. That's rather tangible, and yet the only stories we've had of saints appearing to people have occurred to people who already believed. Why should the Christ deny a vision of His glory to any potential believer? I ask God to reveal Himself in any small sign, and I try to do it ever so humbly, but no crosses appear in the clouds; neither divine visions. All I ask is for a voice saying "I am the Way, Truth, and the Life", etc. Are you going to tell me that I don't have enough longing in me to truly see Christ, or something else? If Christ is real, physical, and in time, He should be as evident to me as a flower or grasshopper, considering the fact that He walked the Earth. At least the God I believe in hasn't walked on Earth or lived in Time; He is eternal and is everything, whence all true things come.

Just because the apostles wrote it down doesn't mean it's true. I don't share your belief that the Bible is the Word of God (yet). I'd like to, but it seems too disjointed (as my O.P. said, though I suppose that's been answered) the further I go in. It is wise, yes, but what should make me jump to that final leap of faith in it, above all else? Why should God need any word, when His creation speaks so loudly?

Forgive me for my two-bit addition to this thread -- cfmonkey45 has covered all the scholarly angles I ever could have, and probably much better -- but I think that the willingness of nearly all the apostles, and even their own disciples after them, to die rather gruesome deaths rather than deny the validity of the message they carried says something rather significant as well.

Many people have died for every single religion. I'm sure the Romans killed any last holdouts of the Hittite, Luwian, and other Indo-European mythologies that they found. Human beings die for things all the time; I'd die to save a young child's life, but I don't revere the child himself. Life is so glorious and joyful as to bring me there. As Donald Francis Tovey said about musicology: "you can relate anything to anything else, but it isn't really relevant". Of course, Jesus said that people must be willing to fall for Him, but death does not signify righteousness, does it?

But, when things took on the turn they did, nothing could stop some hundreds from telling what had been hidden on command so much so that the word spread quickly well beyond the borders of the Palestine. Yes it was history in the making but then not seen as such, the reason being that it was still primarily a Jewish affair. That not many historians record the events is because there weren't that many historians about.

I'm not too sure about that. Historians were rather numerous in Rome after Augustus' time, though they likely were not interested in such a Jewish affair. Still, it seems likely that such a powerfully true and transforming moment for all humankind would have gone beyond just being a Jewish matter in a very short period of time. It took three hundred years for Constantine's successors to declare Christianity the religion of Rome. Why shouldn't it have taken just a few years, considering the immensity of the declaration and events which occurred in Judaea around A.D. 32? Even without modern news media, a true and real resurrection of a man (let alone the resurrection of a man whose tomb became observably empty, even with a huge rock covering its entrance) should have sparked a huge outrage.

"Doubting" Thomas the Apostle himself saw the wounds of crucifixion and declared Christ "my Lord!" If that was so easily done, why not just go to the Temple, show Pilate and Judas that He had come back, and was the True Lord? As Christianity has taught, God saves those who wilfully repent - so, why is Judas in the depths of Hell, when Christ could easily have come back, shown Judas the wounds, and given the traitor a chance to repent? It seems rather cheap to the poor Romans. Stigmata on the man who observably died on a cross would be a greater persuasive, than anything else, of His divinity. Something about this simply rings untrue.

I have no contempt for Christianity, but interested and loving skepticism. There still is, has been, and will be a joyous God in the Heavens, King of all the Cosmos, in my mind. All the violins and horns sound out His glory, lighting up the stars and our eyes. If this is Christ, in the end, surely He wouldn't mind my honest questions.

[SigniferOne]

I'd like to, but it seems too disjointed (as my O.P. said, though I suppose that's been answered) the further I go in.

And what is precisely the problem with being disjointed? I just don't get it. It's accounts of eyewitnesses.

Why should God need any word, when His creation speaks so loudly?

Because humans communicate in conceptual terms. We don't understand things visually that well. And that's the problem -- people don't understand, they don't grasp very well, what was supposed to have been obvious in the original constitution of the world. It's the concept of "gradual revelation".

Just because the apostles wrote it down doesn't mean it's true. I don't share your belief that the Bible is the Word of God (yet).

You've got it completely backwards.

You don't get to have extra evidence about the book from the external world, merely because it claims to be from God. The same requirements of evidence apply to it as to other books, and from that perspective it's a historical book just as any other. The way you cross that bound, that chasm, between it being just like any other book and it being something more; is by asking yourself if it is holy, if appeals to the purest, greatest, most sanctified part of you. If it doesn't, then that's fine! You can completely walk away! No one can be expected to read something that they just don't feel an attachment to. Secondly, you have to ponder hard about the character of Jesus. And here you have to have a wide knowledge of mankind and history, because no man such as this ever walked the earth. You just have to ask yourself if he appeals to you, his life, character, and demeanor; and try to imagine yourself a more perfect kind of human being. Really, give this a shot and try it! If his character simply doesn't appeal to you then you don't have to think long about Christianity (but then you'd be inhuman). These are the sorts of questions and answers that you'd be able to deal with after you've read the book and had what its written in it open to your understanding.

"Doubting" Thomas the Apostle himself saw the wounds of crucifixion and declared Christ "my Lord!" If that was so easily done, why not just go to the Temple, show Pilate and Judas that He had come back, and was the True Lord? As Christianity has taught, God saves those who wilfully repent - so, why is Judas in the depths of Hell, when Christ could easily have come back, shown Judas the wounds, and given the traitor a chance to repent?

Because at some point you have to judge the skeptic himself. He is not above and beyond criticism. It's exactly the same situation with some guy today (such as several on this forum!) who demands: why can't I get the same vision as the people on the Mount did, why can't time be stopped on my behalf, the whole of humanity be transported to some other planet, made witness to some supernatural things, be transported back to earth to resume in the same exact instant of time. Why can't I! Why can't I!

Such is the loud blather of idiots. Why not? Because if you deserve it, then if a guy somewhere else will have a doubt then humanity will also have to be transported and be made present to some magical hocus pocus on another planet. And pretty soon all we'll be doing is get transported every single second, because some guy, somewhere, has had a shred of doubt and so that means! We must stop! We must hold all the presses! Some guy has had a doubt, oh no! *Run around wailing hysterically.*

Can you imagine how nonsensical that sounds? In fact the work of God is natural, not miraculous and constantly baffling. And I couldn't care less if some guy somewhere else has had a doubt. I have doubts too every now and then, so what? The presence of a doubt means nothing. As was said profoundly once, doubt is not an opponent of faith, but a component of faith. Because the fact is, what is needed has already been said. It's already been written. Like I said, it is not possible to imagine a more holy book than what was written in the Bible; and I mean that in a secular way: try to take a pen and imagine something that's even more holy, and more sanctified. You can't. Likewise try to sit down and write up a more noble and more sanctified literary character than Christ. Again, in a very secular way, just try to do it yourself; you won't be able to, and greatest writers in world history have also not been able to, people like Tolkien, Shakespeare, Milton, Tennyson, Chateaubriand, Byron, Dryden, Corneille, and many others. You need to have a experience with the literature of the world, after which you can say, no nobler personality has been penned than on the pages of the new testament. That is what I meant to say that everything that's needed for you, has already been given. If a person doesn't respond to that, they are morally bankrupt. Where you go from here is up to you.

I have no contempt for Christianity, but interested and loving skepticism.

Yeah and why is this intended as a contrast to those of us who've replied to you? I'm not exactly a superstitious person looking for signs everywhere am I? Come on. I know several other Christians here who used to be atheists. Once you've read the book, all it takes to go from one to the other is a holy heart, as well as a very long time of deep, heartfelt, quiet thinking. If it doesn't ring true for somebody then that person has a heart of stone, maybe of malice.

To someone with a heart of stone and of malice, do you think they would be able to read and purview the Scripture without vitriol? No, they would be laughing at every other line!

But whose problem is that? Its, or theirs?

[Monarchist]

And what is precisely the problem with being disjointed? I just don't get it. It's accounts of eyewitnesses.

Because humans communicate in conceptual terms. We don't understand things visually that well. And that's the problem -- people don't understand, they don't grasp very well, what was supposed to have been obvious in the original constitution of the world. It's the concept of "gradual revelation".

Well, I have to agree with you. Before I read C.S. Lewis' apologist works, I had not been convinced of God's existence... despite the beauty of creation.

You don't get to have extra evidence about the book from the external world, merely because it claims to be from God. The same requirements of evidence apply to it as to other books, and from that perspective it's a historical book just as any other. The way you cross that bound, that chasm, between it being just like any other book and it being something more; is by asking yourself if it is holy, if appeals to the purest, greatest, most sanctified part of you. If it doesn't, then that's fine! You can completely walk away! No one can be expected to read something that they just don't feel an attachment to. Secondly, you have to ponder hard about the character of Jesus. And here you have to have a wide knowledge of mankind and history, because no man such as this ever walked the earth. You just have to ask yourself if he appeals to you, his life, character, and demeanor; and try to imagine yourself a more perfect kind of human being. Really, give this a shot and try it! If his character simply doesn't appeal to you then you don't have to think long about Christianity (but then you'd be inhuman). These are the sorts of questions and answers that you'd be able to deal with after you've read the book and had what its written in it open to your understanding.

Are you saying that every character in human history but Jesus has been totally subservient to a specific archetype or stereotype? I can't think of any other people like him, but then again I can't think of any characters like Shakespeare's Othello, on the spot. If Jesus was a fictional entity, that doesn't mean He was unique in His character. Just because some archetype hadn't been created before a certain point doesn't make that archetype suddenly divine and inspired by God.

Also, how can you say "if it doesn't, that's fine" in terms of accepting the Bible, when I'm literally going to Hell if I do not accept it? We either accept the truth in its pages, or we do not. Choosing not to is apparently Hellfire and darkness for eternity. That's rather a harsh sentence for judging the book improperly.

Because at some point you have to judge the skeptic himself. He is not above and beyond criticism. It's exactly the same situation with some guy today (such as several on this forum!) who demands: why can't I get the same vision as the people on the Mount did, why can't time be stopped on my behalf, the whole of humanity be transported to some other planet, made witness to some supernatural things, be transported back to earth to resume in the same exact instant of time. Why can't I! Why can't I!

I just believe that this seems a little inconsistent of God. After all, in the Old Covenant miracles and speeches from God were a "dime a dozen", as you Americans say. Moses casually parted the waters in front of the entire nation of Israel, something even the heathen Egyptians saw. The sun stood still for Joshua, and surely the entire world must have seen this. Why, then, are the majority of human beings denied such gigantic visions? They were quite common, it seems, until Jesus. I suppose the entire world is simply not worthy any longer, even though there have been murderers and thieves since time immemorial?

try to take a pen and imagine something that's even more holy, and more sanctified. You can't. Likewise try to sit down and write up a more noble and more sanctified literary character than Christ. Again, in a very secular way, just try to do it yourself; you won't be able to, and greatest writers in world history have also not been able to, people like Tolkien, Shakespeare, Milton, Tennyson, Chateaubriand, Byron, Dryden, Corneille, and many others. You need to have a experience with the literature of the world, after which you can say, no nobler personality has been penned than on the pages of the new testament.

Aslan.

I appreciate your input, but could you cite for me a passage in the Bible which says "This (scripture) is the word of God"? Also (just because I love bothering Protestants), could you point to a passage in the Bible that says "sola scriptura" (in Greek, anyway) is the way to salvation? From what I can tell, the Bible itself does not lay claim to be the word of God in any part of it. Secondly, sola scriptura is the strongest problem I have with Protestantism; it means "scripture alone", and yet nowhere in the scripture does it say "you must use scripture alone". How can you believe in a sola that demands "the Bible only", when the Bible only doesn't say "the Bible only"? It is a minor point compared to Christianity as a whole, though.

To everybody: curiously, I must admit that I see no truth in Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Islam, or the polytheistic religions. Isn't it interesting that I find it hard to accept Christianity as is, yet there are no serious contenders? My own belief in the abstract God-King-Monarch-Creator is the only other one that comes close to equaling the feeling I get when I think and read about Christianity. Perhaps I've answered my own questions, despite not actually having read much of the Bible yet.

[SigniferOne]

Are you saying that every character in human history but Jesus has been totally subservient to a specific archetype or stereotype?

No I didn't mean he was a new archetype or something; you misunderstood my saying that he was unlike anybody else. His uniqueness is not some new measure of goodness, but the height to which he brought all of our existing measures of goodness. From that perspective there wasn't anyone like him. The only even close personality from human history, someone even in the same ballpark in terms of transcendence, is Buddha. But then again Buddha taught only transcendence, not morality. Other people taught morality but not transcendence, and usually they were petty, insignificant people in their character and day-to-day behaviors. Christ seemed to unite all that is good, in all of the people that had ever lived.

Also, how can you say "if it doesn't, that's fine" in terms of accepting the Bible, when I'm literally going to Hell if I do not accept it?

Yes, but you can't exactly go against your conscience, just because you feel you 'have to', can you? It is your job to dig deep in your conscience, to understand what you mean by it, what you find the holiest in life, and if the Scripture appeals directly to that.

I just believe that this seems a little inconsistent of God. After all, in the Old Covenant miracles and speeches from God were a "dime a dozen", as you Americans say. Moses casually parted the waters in front of the entire nation of Israel, something even the heathen Egyptians saw. The sun stood still for Joshua, and surely the entire world must have seen this.

That's if you accept the Old Testament as directly true.

Did Jonah literally spend some time inside a whale? I doubt it. Did Noah build an actual Ark to collect two of each species, which only thus were preserved for the whole future? There is evidence for catastrophic floods, maybe even (hypothetically) a worldwide flood, I'd go so far as that. Do we trace the existence of all animal species to Noah, though? I don't think so. The Jews were a very superstitious people, they saw signs from God everywhere, and wrote it down as precisely from God every single time. I think that's ludicrous, especially as some of their stories contradict plain common sense. I have the same answer toward the world's creation in six literal days, and other things.

Still, does that mean that the OT is to be viewed with scorn, because of the ancient Jewish credulity? No. And here I speak entirely in secular terms: on the contrary, it is an incredibly inspiring and powerful book, once you look aside a few patently credulous things. The great drama of the world, the angels, the anger, the mercy, the virtue of the Jews, their awful, indescribable transgressions; the entire awesome, awful history, of the world plays out upon its pages. It is truly one of the greatest books in the world; perhaps the second most appealing.

Why, then, are the majority of human beings denied such gigantic visions?

You've never felt a pang of moral conscience? Consider that, in the material brutal world.

Aslan.

And who was that based on?

I appreciate your input, but could you cite for me a passage in the Bible which says "This (scripture) is the word of God"? Also (just because I love bothering Protestants), could you point to a passage in the Bible that says "sola scriptura" (in Greek, anyway) is the way to salvation?

Sure, I could; but this is not a thread about Protestantism but about Christianity at large. I wouldn't claim something if I didn't have an answer for it, but this isn't the thread to go deeply into that.

despite not actually having read much of the Bible yet.

And that is perhaps the biggest problem with all this; not having read the book, or having read it filled with bile and vitriol. In order to read it you have to first sanctify yourself, and free yourself of all the vicious and cynical thoughts you've ever felt, and ever made to be felt upon others; not before then.

[basics]

" Now, why is it that major, distinguishing, gigantic, and intensely important events for all mankind that are mentioned in the Bible are not mentioned elsewhere?"

Monarchist,

In the days when there was no news media that shouldn't surprise you. But, the most important reason of all is because of the nature of the people to whom He came. They hated us Gentiles and we perhaps had no great liking for them so why would they tell us anything, or us report anything about them with their odd ways?

What was transpiring was seen by some outside of being Jewish and Scripture tells of that. Whether they told or wrote of it is unknown. But for sure at the time of Jesus what He did was purely for Jewish consumption. To the Sanhedrin He was not just a nuisance probably an embarrassment into the bargain something that they would not want spread around.

But, when things took on the turn they did, nothing could stop some hundreds from telling what had been hidden on command so much so that the word spread quickly well beyond the borders of the Palestine. Yes it was history in the making but then not seen as such, the reason being that it was still primarily a Jewish affair. That not many historians record the events is because there weren't that many historians about.

However as the word spread and people were being saved others took on the mantle of being church historians and perhaps it is unfortunate that many of them being not saved never fully grasped what they wrote of, but write they did. But if any one of us had been to where Paul set foot as an example we would have had plenty to write about because of the things that he did.