Evidence supporting Jesus did not die on a cross...

[jammindude]

I havn't disappeared....I havn't even read all the responses.   I just got back from a two day trip to Portland (saw Gotye) and I'm exhausted.    Hard to respond when you get *this far* behind.   

But I am happy that it apparently led to some lively discussion.

More to come.

[orcus116]

On the whole Noah's arc business, I see it more of a region was flooded, and the animals in that region were saved if anything.  I've never really believed the whole world was flooded and EVERY species was put on a boat.   It just is extremely illogical.  But a region of a place?  Yeah I could see that possibly.

This is still illogical.  There's no physical process for non-eustatic sea level change on that sort of time-scale.

Besides, you'd still need a big-ass boat (bigger than is feasible) to get all the species of even a comparatively poor region, bio-diversity wise.   Nevermind that for obvious reasons they wouldn't co-operate or get along.

Weeelll, the Mediterranean Sea has seen rise and falls of the sea level because it's modulated by the strait of Gibraltar. If I lived on some Greek island surrounded by water and saw the water level rise steadily over a few years, I would look for an explanation.

rumborak

But not on the scale that the myth suggests.  We're not talking several meters, or dozens.  We're talking at the very least hundreds.  There's no way that could be limited to a single basin.

Besides, we'd know if an event like that happened.

grandcanyontheory

[rumborak]

Genesis 1-11 is actually considered what is referred to as mythological writing. And by that, I do not mean that it is a myth -- I mean that the writers wanted to convey theological and philosophical truths without much care for obeying historical or scientific laws. They were more concerned with conveying truth than historical or scientific details.

I take a similar stance to Hef's, in that I find it rather nonsensical to talk about whether the writers of Genesis were concerned about "scientific details". The writers were just coming out of the Stone Age. The Stone Age. "History" were stories told, and they were considered as factual as the stories of Ginnungagap for the Norse tribes. I find your particular wording a bit troublesome in that it sounds a lot like a justification for something that can no longer be maintained. Kinda in a "attack is the best defense way": It can't be considered factual, so clearly the writers didn't mean to!

rumborak

[Vivace]

The idea of crucifixion for a Roman was a penalty only for a serious offense and it almost always was served on traitors. It was used between 6BC and 4AD when Constantine put a stop to it. Also there are Roman documents, again one of Tacitus that does explicitly mention a man by the name of Christus who was executed through crucifixion.

I would argue that organized religion is the worst kind. The Catholic Church has kept its members in the dark for millennia.

What exactly are you basing this one? What is your thesis for The RCC keeping members in the dark or do you like throwing statements out there that are about as useless as a Fox News Report?

[Vivace]

I take a similar stance to Hef's, in that I find it rather nonsensical to talk about whether the writers of Genesis were concerned about "scientific details". The writers were just coming out of the Stone Age. The Stone Age. "History" were stories told, and they were considered as factual as the stories of Ginnungagap for the Norse tribes. I find your particular wording a bit troublesome in that it sounds a lot like a justification for something that can no longer be maintained. Kinda in a "attack is the best defense way": It can't be considered factual, so clearly the writers didn't mean to!

I think your idea of history and your idea of Biblical writers is quite limited here. Are you implying that literary writers of the Pentatuch did not employ various literary styles but instead told history in a particular "literalistic" style? I hate to tell you but this is not only wrong but has already been shown by historical research to be as distorted as our views on what we think the Dark Ages were all about.

[rumborak]

I would argue that organized religion is the worst kind. The Catholic Church has kept its members in the dark for millennia.

What exactly are you basing this one? What is your thesis for The RCC keeping members in the dark or do you like throwing statements out there that are about as useless as a Fox News Report?

You might not know this, but I grew up Roman Catholic and was an altar boy for several years. So, I've had Confirmation class and scores of masses under my belt. At no point was it ever pointed out that we're not reading the actual words of Luke and Matthew, but rather documents that were later attributed to those people.
Same with the Spanish Inquisition. The CC tried and killed people left and right in order to maintain their version of things, despite the fact that they well knew those other views were most likely true.

I think your idea of history and your idea of Biblical writers is quite limited here. Are you implying that literary writers of the Pentatuch did not employ various literary styles but instead told history in a particular "literalistic" style? I hate to tell you but this is not only wrong but has already been shown by historical research to be as distorted as our views on what we think the Dark Ages were all about.

And it is a mighty convenient tool to pick out the disproved parts of the Bible and then say "oh, they were meant figuratively". Of course people back in the day were capable of literary devices. But, the most obvious examples (Genesis, The Flood) were not meant figuratively, it's pretty obvious when you read them.
Oh, and BTW, I wasn't talking about the Dark Ages. The OT wasn't written in the Dark Ages, it was written in the Stone Age.

rumborak

[Scheavo]

Ignorance is bliss, as they say.

[hefdaddy42]

Ignorance is bliss, as they say.

Well, it's as close to bliss as we are likely to get.

[eric42434224]

Ignorance is bliss, as they say.

Well, it's as close to bliss as we are likely to get.

Definitions of bliss must differ greatly then.   

[Odysseus]

And how can you not say there isn't evidence in the Gospels that he was crucified? All four Gospels say that he was condemned in front of Roman officials to be crucified according to the will of the people. Unless there's some other meaning for crucify, which I don't believe there is.

The Gospels are oral traditions that were written down many years after the events that they are purported to record, and have been modified to suit different audiences in different countries.  They are evidence of what people believed to be the truth rather than evidence of any events themselves.

Actually, during a time when most humans (and all religions) taught that the earth was flat and riding on the back of a giant sea turtle, the Bible said that the earth was a sphere (English "circle" but the original Hebrew "chugh" meant a spherical circle) and that it was "hanging on nothing"...

Nope.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_astronomy

The universe of the Hebrew Bible was made up of a flat disc-shaped earth floating on water, heaven above, underworld below.[1] Only in Hellenistic times (after c. 330 BCE) was the older three-level cosmology widely replaced by the Greek concept of a spherical earth suspended in space at the centre of a number of concentric heavens.[1]

On the whole Noah's arc business, I see it more of a region was flooded, and the animals in that region were saved if anything.  I've never really believed the whole world was flooded and EVERY species was put on a boat.   It just is extremely illogical.  But a region of a place?  Yeah I could see that possibly.

The Noah story was a direct rip from the Epic Of Gilgamesh with Utnapishtim and a polytheistic religious view being replaced by Noah and a monotheistic view.  In order to attract converts to your new, funky monotheistic faith you need to use familiar themes and stories.

Although most of Genesis is, for obvious reasons, intended by the writers not to be taken literally,

Why would you say that?

Because Genesis is largely a PR exercise using familiar Near Eastern stories, themes and motifs an a monotheistic framework.

[bosk1]

The Gospels are oral traditions that were written down many years after the events that they are purported to record...

Maybe and maybe not.  But that is largely irrelevant.

...and have been modified to suit different audiences in different countries. 

No, there's not really any evidence for that at all.

Actually, during a time when most humans (and all religions) taught that the earth was flat and riding on the back of a giant sea turtle, the Bible said that the earth was a sphere (English "circle" but the original Hebrew "chugh" meant a spherical circle) and that it was "hanging on nothing"...

Nope.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_astronomy

Um...

This article needs attention from an expert on the subject.

Obviously, given that the references in the article are extremely sketchy.  Personally, I'll take the language in a primary source over an article in a tertiary source that can be edited by anyone with a computer.

The Noah story was a direct rip from the Epic Of Gilgamesh

Actually, probably the opposite, given that the flood occurred LONG before the Epic of Gilgamesh was thought up.

Because Genesis is largely a PR exercise using familiar Near Eastern stories, themes and motifs an a monotheistic framework.

See response re Gilgamesh above.

[rumborak]

...and have been modified to suit different audiences in different countries. 

No, there's not really any evidence for that at all.

The gospels are written for specific audiences. You usually claim they just show different aspects of the same thing, but at least Paul and Peter couldn't agree on basic tenets (does one have to be a Jew to be a Christian?), which flies against that. Gospels were tailored and modified to appeal to the target audience.

The Noah story was a direct rip from the Epic Of Gilgamesh

Actually, probably the opposite, given that the flood occurred LONG before the Epic of Gilgamesh was thought up.

There is a difference between when a document was written and the time it plays in.

rumborak

[bosk1]

The gospels are written for specific audiences.

Of course.  But that is not quite the same as:

Gospels were tailored and modified to appeal to the target audience.

...but at least Paul and Peter couldn't agree on basic tenets (does one have to be a Jew to be a Christian?), which flies against that. 

Since neither Peter nor Paul claim to have written any of the gospels, I'm not sure how that is relevant even if it were true (which it isn't--Peter and Paul did in fact agree on not only "basic tenets," but on much deeper doctrine as well).

There is a difference between when a document was written and the time it plays in.

Of course.  But, for example, if aprocryphal tales suddenly began arising right around now about various types of extreme idealists ramming flying machines into large buildings, and then years later, someone undertook to write a factual description on the 9/11 attacks based on eyewitness reports, it would be silly to infer that the later narrative of 9/11 was based on random the apocryphal tales just because they appear to have been written earlier than the 9/11 narrative.  Rather, it makes much more sense to look to the common event that seems to have inspired both and to see which, if any, is the most accurate account of the actual event.

[eric42434224]

When talking about an actual event, your example seems logical.  When talking about a common themed myth, the early bird gets the worm.

[Odysseus]

The Gospels are oral traditions that were written down many years after the events that they are purported to record...

Maybe and maybe not.  But that is largely irrelevant.

That is the view of your very own Christian and Jewish scholars.  Otherwise why would there be large discrepancies in what are purported to be eyewitness accounts?  Changes of focus for changes af audience.

...and have been modified to suit different audiences in different countries. 

No, there's not really any evidence for that at all

Sorry, your very own scholars disagree.  But the irony of a biblical fundamentalist calling for evidence is rather delicious. Thankyou.

Actually, during a time when most humans (and all religions) taught that the earth was flat and riding on the back of a giant sea turtle, the Bible said that the earth was a sphere (English "circle" but the original Hebrew "chugh" meant a spherical circle) and that it was "hanging on nothing"...

Nope.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_astronomy

Um...

This article needs attention from an expert on the subject.

Obviously, given that the references in the article are extremely sketchy.  Personally, I'll take the language in a primary source over an article in a tertiary source that can be edited by anyone with a computer.

Plenty of other sources will tell you exactly the same thing. Maybe you just don't want your boat rocked?
https://ncse.com/image/ancient-hebrew-cosmology

The Noah story was a direct rip from the Epic Of Gilgamesh

Actually, probably the opposite, given that the flood occurred LONG before the Epic of Gilgamesh was thought up.

The Noah story is a direct rip from Gilgamesh.  Google them and compare.  Plate tectonics explain any apparent (ahem!)  'evidence' for a global flood, as you've already been informed.

Because Genesis is largely a PR exercise using familiar Near Eastern stories, themes and motifs an a monotheistic framework.

See response re Gilgamesh above.

Try doing a degree-level theology module on Old Testament biblical literary criticism.  You wouldn't last a semester with your flagrant disregard for objective scholarship.

Only since the 19th century have many people even imagined that Genesis was a factual account of the origins of life.  For centuries, Jews and Christians used highly allegorical exegesis - literal interpretation was neither possible nor desirable.  The oral traditions written down as scripture were supposed to be subjected to an ongoing exegesis - revelation was supposed to be an ongoing process with new meaning being suited to new situations in each generation.  To a genuine believer, exegesis is intended to be a spiritual discipline rather than an academic one.  To miss that point is to miss the intention of these early writings entirely.  I'm surprised that someone as pious as yourself was unaware of this.

[bosk1]

When talking about an actual event, your example seems logical.  When talking about a common themed myth, the early bird gets the worm.

Precisely.

[Lots of unsupported argument]

Not sure who you think "my" Christian and Jewish scholars are, but I have to inform you that I don't have any.

In terms of critical reading and analysis of the source texts and other historical documents, if you want to try to converse about what they and other actual evidence has to say, terrific.  If the best you can do is find some secondary, tertiary, or worse source that argues some slick theory you happen to agree with, sorry, not interested.  I don't really have the time to debunk every silly theory out there or engage everyone who thinks they wrote a cool paper about something somebody cares about.


I do have to confess, however, that every time I look at your avatar, I halfway feel compelled to just say, "yes, my master," and sit quietly in a corner waiting to do your bidding. 

[eric42434224]

When talking about an actual event, your example seems logical.  When talking about a common themed myth, the early bird gets the worm.

Precisely.

  @ Noah & Flood being actual event.

oh well.....Whatever floats your boat.   

[bosk1]

When talking about an actual event, your example seems logical.  When talking about a common themed myth, the early bird gets the worm.

Precisely.

  @ Noah & Flood being actual event.

oh well.....Whatever floats your boat.   

  Nicely done.

[Odysseus]

When talking about an actual event, your example seems logical.  When talking about a common themed myth, the early bird gets the worm.

Precisely.

Indeed - Gilgamesh has been dated by some as being around circa 3000BCE, quite some time before Noah.
The proto Jews had many stories like this handed down through oral tradition that represented eternal truths, not necessarily literal truths. In a subsistence environment your main bugbears are likely to be drought, flood, famine, pestilence, war and the nature of the gods.  Not surprisingly many of the stories involve these themes, with the nature of the gods being the primary difference in this example during the difficult transition form polytheism to monotheism.

As eminent scholar Haym Soloveitchik says: translation from oral tradition to written texts can lead to religious stridency by giving the reader an unrealistic certainty over essentially ineffable matters.  Too true.

In terms of critical reading and analysis of the source texts and other historical documents, if you want to try to converse about what they and other actual evidence has to say, terrific.  If the best you can do is find some secondary, tertiary, or worse source that argues some slick theory you happen to agree with, sorry, not interested.

And what would you call a primary source? The bible? - that copy of a copy of a copy that has been redacted many times over? Heh... why not?

Anyway... let's play:


COMPARISON OF GENESIS AND GILGAMESH

event      Genesis  /  Gilgamesh

Extent of flood   - Global   / Global
Cause -  Man's wickedness / Man's sins
Intended for whom? -  All mankind / One city & all mankind
Sender - Yahweh  / Assembly of "gods"
Name of hero -  Noah / Utnapishtim
Hero's character -  Righteous / Righteous
Means of announcement - Direct from / God In a dream
 Ordered to build boat? - Yes - Yes
Did hero complain? - Yes / Yes
Height of boat - Several stories (3) - Several stories (6)
Compartments inside? - Many / Many
 Doors - One / One
 Windows - At least one / At least one
 Outside coating - Pitch / Pitch
Shape of boat - Rectangular / Square
Human passengers - Family members only / Family & few others
Other passengers - All species of animals / All species of animals
 Means of flood - Ground water & heavy rain / Heavy rain
 Duration of flood Long - (40 days & nights plus) / Short (6 days & nights)
Test to find land - Release of birds / Release of birds
 Types of birds - Raven & three doves / Dove, swallow, raven
 Ark landing spot Mountain -Mt. Ararat Mountain / Mt. Nisir
 Sacrificed after flood? - Yes, by Noah / Yes, by Utnapishtim
 Blessed after flood? Yes / Yes

Still want to argue that Noah isn't based on Gilgamesh? Even some fundie sites have accepted that.

Not sure who you think "my" Christian and Jewish scholars are, but I have to inform you that I don't have any.

Evidently.  Jewish and Christian scholars have been studying the texts you  venerate for centuries trying to get closer to the word of God by establishing who wrote what and when, who were the intended audiences and what the interpretations were as well as how they changed through time.
Your attempts to nail potentially ongoing exegesis to a Bronze Age cosmology with 6 inch nails is intellectually bankrupt as well as missing the point altogether.

  I don't really have the time to debunk every silly theory out there or engage everyone who thinks they wrote a cool paper about something somebody cares about.

..or the ability, per chance?

Physician, heal thyself.  Fundie America is about the only place where anyone will give a literal interpretation of Genesis the time of day.  However, I guess there is little point in trying to reason you out of a position that you didn't reason yourself into.
Whatever it takes to get you through the night and all that... It's a great shame you're not prepared to ask questions - you seem like an otherwise smart dude.

Peace.

[bosk1]

Mostly good post, but the mild ad hominems are unnecessary.  Seriously, vigorous discussion is fine, but tone that stuff down.  Thanks.

Honestly, you raise some good points, but I simply do not have time to address them.  Just a couple of quick shots...

First off, great summary comparison of Gilgamesh vs. the Noah's flood narrative.  And, yes, I am aware.  I have in fact read both.

Jewish and Christian scholars have been studying the texts you  venerate for centuries trying to get closer to the word of God by establishing who wrote what and when, who were the intended audiences and what the interpretations were as well as how they changed through time.
Your attempts to nail potentially ongoing exegesis to a Bronze Age cosmology with 6 inch nails is intellectually bankrupt as well as missing the point altogether.

I do not disagree at all with what you say in the first paragraph.  However, there is a subtle yet large scope shift in your argument.  I do not disagree with vigorous and careful textual analysis and textual exegesis.  However, as is true in any historical/sociological discussion about "what people in time X and place X believed," the answer to what people may have believed is not necessarily the same thing as what a text that may have been authored by someone with a different belief system may have believed.  Specifically, what got us started on this subtopic in the first place was mainly jammindude's summary of two biblical passes (one is in Job, and I believe the other is either in Isaiah or Jeremiah, but I can't remember).  There have been various sects of Judaism that believed various different things.  What they may or may not have believed is not necessarily relevant to textual analysis or exegesis.  For purposes of the original point, it is largely irrelevant what scholars think Jews as a whole thought.  The point is what the author(s) of the texts in question thought.

..or the ability, per chance?

Depends on the issue.  I don't claim to be an expert on all aspects of the much larger topic we are discussing.  But, again, that's beside the point.  Since we've had a P/R forum on various iterations of these forums (which I believe started in...2005 or so?  rumborak, help me out on my dates), we've had tons of such discussions.  Ultimately, I don't claim any special credentials and it really doesn't matter whether you respect where I am coming from or not.  But for the record, I have in fact spent years studying both the texts in question and the historical, anthropological, sociological, archaeological, etcetriological (I just coined that because it sounded cool ) evidence that goes along with it, and have used that in arriving at my conclusions.  But that's for me.  For the most part, I don't really find it very fun or interesting to re-hash those debates.  There was a time when they were interesting and fun, but now I feel like they just mostly miss the point.

Whatever it takes to get you through the night and all that... It's a great shame you're not prepared to ask questions

Again, I've asked a great deal of questions, and continue to do so.  But I really don't have the time or inclination to go back over foundational stuff just for the sake of having a debate with someone who isn't really open to other positions.  That's not meant to be a shot at you personally or a shot at the discussion process.  Just a picking and choosing of where I want to spent the time I have.

[ZBomber]

Again, I've asked a great deal of questions, and continue to do so.  But I really don't have the time or inclination to go back over foundational stuff just for the sake of having a debate with someone who isn't really open to other positions.  That's not meant to be a shot at you personally or a shot at the discussion process.  Just a picking and choosing of where I want to spent the time I have.

In all honesty, who here is actually willing to listen to the other side's opinions when it comes to religion? As a viewer more than a poster on this side of the forum, I notice you all dodge points and questions all of the time. It is then usually written off as "I'm not going to bother explaining so simple that you simply can't seem to understand". More often that not, the other person raises a fair counterpoint and dismissing that seems to be a pretty juvenille approach imo. And I've seen this from both sides on a lot of different issues, and to me it makes this forum more frustrating than interesting to read.

[GuineaPig]

Again, I've asked a great deal of questions, and continue to do so.  But I really don't have the time or inclination to go back over foundational stuff just for the sake of having a debate with someone who isn't really open to other positions.  That's not meant to be a shot at you personally or a shot at the discussion process.  Just a picking and choosing of where I want to spent the time I have.

Denying a literal Genesis isn't not being open to other positions.  The weight of the evidence against it makes it impossible to defend. 

[Odysseus]

Mostly good post, but the mild ad hominems are unnecessary.  Seriously, vigorous discussion is fine, but tone that stuff down.  Thanks.

You're no fun, you do know that, don't you?

I do not disagree with vigorous and careful textual analysis and textual exegesis.  However, as is true in any historical/sociological discussion about "what people in time X and place X believed," the answer to what people may have believed is not necessarily the same thing as what a text that may have been authored by someone with a different belief system may have believed.

You come across as if you believe that the bible was written in isolation from the history and traditions of the peoples who came to be known as the jews.  Is that your position?  I'm not quite sure.

There came a point when religious writings became more than an attempt to explain why things are the way they are, and moved into the realm of being a rather good way to control the peasants.  With the arrival of the city state and 'established' religion, scriptural texts became one of the most powerful social control mechanisms around, and  scripture became even more important when jewish people became exiled from their countries and temples where they believed their deities resided.

As far as OT goes, one of the interesting points for me is that Genesis, particularly, involves the weaving of prior sagas into a common framework to appeal to a broad spectrum of proto-Jews.  We need to bear in mind that it took a fair old time for the transition from polytheism to monotheism to occur and for the religious journey to arrive at something that we today would recognise as Judaism.  Many people were fine with having a tribal war god such as Yahweh supplanting El and his consort Asherah as the head of the pantheon of gods, but many started to drift back towards Baal and the old familiar fertility rituals when crops were tight (much to Hosea's disgust!) - Baal was a fertility God unlike Yahweh, and old traditions run deep.  It's no great surprise that these traditions should be hung onto as stories of value and incorporated into a new theology.

  There have been various sects of Judaism that believed various different things.  What they may or may not have believed is not necessarily relevant to textual analysis or exegesis.

OK. Agreed with the first point as already discussed.  I'd say that a full scriptural study covers trying to ascertain what the authors believed, what they wanted to achieve with their writings, and also how exegesis may or may not apprehend these writings as time went on in terms of their continuing relevance to life (or not), as well as what can be said to be literally true based on supporting evidence, if possible.

I don't know whether I have your position right on this, but it appears that you don't allow any facility for the biblical exegesis to be carried on out of its literalist interpretation, regardless of whether or not the text was initially intended to be apprehended literally.  I was quite surprised by some of your posting in that you seem to rail against the common idea that biblical stories will speak to people in different ways depending on the area and circumstances in which the stories are read.  For me, that beggars the idea of realistic longevity of religious text altogether.  21st century America is a world that would be completely alien to the desert tribes that formulated early biblical texts, and yet we are supposed not to interpret the texts for our own situation?  That seems very very odd.

  For purposes of the original point, it is largely irrelevant what scholars think Jews as a whole thought.  The point is what the author(s) of the texts in question thought..

Indeed.  I'd say 'Jews as a whole' isn't really a relevant concept until well after the pentateuch was written.  Before then the individual tribes were sufficiently disparate to treated more as a loose collection of tribes with both similarities and differences.

..or the ability, per chance?

Depends on the issue.  I don't claim to be an expert on all aspects of the much larger topic we are discussing.  But, again, that's beside the point.  Since we've had a P/R forum on various iterations of these forums (which I believe started in...2005 or so?  rumborak, help me out on my dates), we've had tons of such discussions.  Ultimately, I don't claim any special credentials and it really doesn't matter whether you respect where I am coming from or not.  But for the record, I have in fact spent years studying both the texts in question and the historical, anthropological, sociological, archaeological, etcetriological (I just coined that because it sounded cool ) evidence that goes along with it, and have used that in arriving at my conclusions.  But that's for me.  For the most part, I don't really find it very fun or interesting to re-hash those debates.  There was a time when they were interesting and fun, but now I feel like they just mostly miss the point.

Hmm... would it be a fair assessment to say that you will only countenance the 'evidence' and arguments that argue for a literal interpretation of the bible, and any other arguments will be bent to fit your prior conclusions or otherwise jettisoned altogether?  That is the way you come across.
Hell, that's your call, you can believe what you want as far as I'm concerned.

Whatever it takes to get you through the night and all that... It's a great shame you're not prepared to ask questions

Again, I've asked a great deal of questions, and continue to do so.  But I really don't have the time or inclination to go back over foundational stuff just for the sake of having a debate with someone who isn't really open to other positions.  That's not meant to be a shot at you personally or a shot at the discussion process.  Just a picking and choosing of where I want to spent the time I have.

 Take your shot, I'm cool with it. Your point about not being open to other positions is a little rich given your propensity for fundamentalism. As a de facto atheist I was open enough to other positions to study some theology at degree level.  Are you? 
I don't believe in god because there is no good reason to, and because the bible is a human document that reflected certain beliefs during certain times.  That said it does contain 'allegorical truths' which don't require the characters in the stories to be true in order to understand the message intended.  Having been a teacher of small kids for a few years, they seem to get this more easily that adults do.  I think we lose something as we grow up.... in fact I'd say we lose quite a few things!

Personally, I'd say that all knowledge is provisional and subject to review in the light of new evidence and logical reasoning. That is conspicuously absent from a fundamentalist religious belief system.

Again, as far as questions go, you don't appear to ask any questions that may be answered with something that is at odds with a biblical literalist interpretation.  But then... that's your call I guess.

..etcetriological (I just coined that because it sounded cool )

I quite like that. Mind if I steal it?.. 

[senecadawg2]

I have a question!







If we are all god's children, then what is so special about Jesus?

[eric42434224]

I have a question!

If we are all god's children, then what is so special about Jesus?

Jesus is like God's kid with the second, hotter, and cooler wife....not the first wife who wears ill-fitting stretch pants who is our Mom.  And Jesus is the kid who is better than his first kids (us) at everything, like the sports God grew up playing.  And Jesus is a zombie.

[Omega]

I have a question!







If we are all god's children, then what is so special about Jesus?

Something about God Incarnate or something...

[yeshaberto]

Difference between natural born and adopted

[senecadawg2]

Aight, thanks for clearing that up for me guys.

[eric42434224]

Aight, thanks for clearing that up for me guys.

It didnt seem like a serious question.

Serious answer.  There is no difference in that he was a regular human being just like everyone else.  Obvioulsy a more influential person than the average, but a regular human nonetheless.

Unless you believe in christianity, then you likely already have your answer.

[senecadawg2]

Aight, thanks for clearing that up for me guys.

It didnt seem like a serious question.

More of a joke than anything. I probably didn't add too much to the conversation, sorry 

[Odysseus]

I have a question!







If we are all god's children, then what is so special about Jesus?

Very little until Paul came along and decided that belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus was to be the focus of religion rather than the Jewish Law that was taught by Jesus himself.  Were it not for Paul's writings and the later conversion of Roman Emperor to Christianity, followed by Roman Emperor Theodocius making Christianity the official Roman religion, then it is more than likely that Jesus, or should we say Y'shua bin Youssef, would have been just one more defunct apocalyptic prophet amongst many.

[hefdaddy42]

I don't think it's that simple.  Paul was certainly influential, and certainly put the main importance of Jesus as his resurrection rather than his actual teachings, but he wasn't the only one spreading such teachings.  For example, there was an active body of Christians in Rome long before he ever got there.

[Odysseus]

I don't think it's that simple.  Paul was certainly influential, and certainly put the main importance of Jesus as his resurrection rather than his actual teachings, but he wasn't the only one spreading such teachings.  For example, there was an active body of Christians in Rome long before he ever got there.

Oh yes, there's certainly a lot more to it than what I posted there for sure.  I'd say Paul was probably the biggest of the movers and shakers though.

[hefdaddy42]

I don't think it's that simple.  Paul was certainly influential, and certainly put the main importance of Jesus as his resurrection rather than his actual teachings, but he wasn't the only one spreading such teachings.  For example, there was an active body of Christians in Rome long before he ever got there.

Oh yes, there's certainly a lot more to it than what I posted there for sure.  I'd say Paul was probably the biggest of the movers and shakers though.

He's certainly the one that gets the most press, since we still have his writings.  But even those indicate that he had rough dealings with other early Christians, including Peter and James, as well as falling-outs with others.  I'm not sure that his influence during his lifetime was anything near what it became later.

[Odysseus]

He's certainly the one that gets the most press, since we still have his writings.  But even those indicate that he had rough dealings with other early Christians, including Peter and James, as well as falling-outs with others. 

Yes indeed, and not surprising given his proposed change of focus.

I'm not sure that his influence during his lifetime was anything near what it became later.

Of course.  It took Christianity quite a while to attain a decent foothold and Paul's influence would grow commensurately with that.