The Lord Is Calling Us To The Table

[thplinth]

From a quick read it seems like most of the books of the New Testament have been dated to within the first 100 years AD. These methods are pretty reliable apparently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible#Table_IV:_New_Testament

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#Dating_the_New_Testament_manuscripts

I would very much like to see what the earliest form of Christianity were like as I bet they are strikingly different to what we see now. Which is why of course all of these very early records were systematically destroyed. Also seeing what has been excluded...

It seems to me that there had to have been someone who actually lived and around whom all of this is based. IMHO I don't believe this is all appeared out of effectively nothing and no one.

Edited April 17, 2017 by thplinth

[DonnyTJS]

7 hours ago, thplinth said:

From a quick read it seems like most of the books of the New Testament have been dated to within the first 100 years AD. These methods are pretty reliable apparently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible#Table_IV:_New_Testament

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#Dating_the_New_Testament_manuscripts

I would very much like to see what the earliest form of Christianity were like as I bet they are strikingly different to what we see now. Which is why of course all of these very early records were systematically destroyed. Also seeing what has been excluded...

It seems to me that there had to have been someone who actually lived and around whom all of this is based. IMHO I don't believe this is all appeared out of effectively nothing and no one.

To get as close as you can to 'the earliest form of Christianity' read The Acts of the Apostles and the various letters of Paul. I don't subscribe to Scotty's literal interpretation of the Bible, but there are elements of those NT books that clearly show the development of a sect within Judaism into a wider and very dynamic movement, including debates and disagreements among its earliest adherents about the course it should be taking.

And, yes, I don't see how the existence of a 'historical Jesus' can seriously be doubted. The notion that a phenomenon like early Christianity could simply erupt from nothing is ridiculous. The majority of academics agree that the reference in Suetonius' Lives of the Twelve Caesars to a 'Chrestus' being behind Jewish disturbances in Rome during the reign of Claudius (41 - 54AD) is not a later interpolation and so the most obvious interpretation is that it's a reference to the upheaval in Jewish communities caused by what was happening.

Edited April 17, 2017 by DonnyTJS

[Ally Bongo]

54 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

And, yes, I don't see how the existence of a 'historical Jesus' can seriously be doubted. The notion that a phenomenon like early Christianity could simply erupt from nothing is ridiculous. The majority of academics agree that the reference in Suetonius' Lives of the Twelve Caesars to a 'Chrestus' being behind Jewish disturbances in Rome during the reign of Claudius (41 - 54AD) is not a later interpolation and so the most obvious interpretation is that it's a reference to the upheaval in Jewish communities caused by what was happening.

In the Atheist experience 10 minute video on the previous page The Twelve Caesars was mentioned

There are three types of doubt

The first is obviously the miracles and Son of God part

The second is that the "historical Jesus" was an ordinary Jewish rabbi that has been mytholigised

The third is that the "historical Jesus" wasnt actually one person - it was a combination of several characters 

 

[The White Ceelo]

8 hours ago, thplinth said:

 

It seems to me that there had to have been someone who actually lived and around whom all of this is based. IMHO I don't believe this is all appeared out of effectively nothing and no one.

Maybe JK Rowling is a reincarnation of herself...

[DonnyTJS]

1 hour ago, Ally Bongo said:

In the Atheist experience 10 minute video on the previous page The Twelve Caesars was mentioned

 

 

I've just watched that. Nothing I disagree with fundamentally, but it's interesting that they mention Suetonius in order to illustrate the obvious fact that 'histories' from the period are riven with accounts of practices that we would now view as ritualized superstition, and yet they fail to tell the poor sap on the line that Suetonius also mentions a 'Chrestus', not in the context of augury or the reading of goats' entrails but in a passing piece of reportage about Jewish disturbances in Rome.

[Ally Bongo]

21 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

I've just watched that. Nothing I disagree with fundamentally, but it's interesting that they mention Suetonius in order to illustrate the obvious fact that 'histories' from the period are riven with accounts of practices that we would now view as ritualized superstition, and yet they fail to tell the poor sap on the line that Suetonius also mentions a 'Chrestus', not in the context of augury or the reading of goats' entrails but in a passing piece of reportage about Jewish disturbances in Rome.

Yes but they also did specify right near the start that they have never said that a Jesus figure did not exist only that there is no verifiable evidence that he did

I think it's a side issue anyway

 

[DonnyTJS]

4 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

Yes but they also did specify right near the start that they have never said that a Jesus figure did not exist only that there is no verifiable evidence that he did

I think it's a side issue anyway

 

Er ... what it shows is that they were withholding information that ran counter to their argument. Worth pointing out, I'd've thought. 

[Ally Bongo]

3 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

Er ... what it shows is that they were withholding information that ran counter to their argument. Worth pointing out, I'd've thought. 

Only if it was positive that Suetonius was talking about "the" Jesus of Nazareth - which it isnt

[Scotty CTA]

11 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

I can 

There is as much evidence for the Jesus of the Bible as there is the Loch Ness Monster 

You really should know this

Thats why you call it "faith"

Belief without evidence  seeing

[Scotty CTA]

3 hours ago, DonnyTJS said:

To get as close as you can to 'the earliest form of Christianity' read The Acts of the Apostles and the various letters of Paul. I don't subscribe to Scotty's literal interpretation of the Bible, but there are elements of those NT books that clearly show the development of a sect within Judaism into a wider and very dynamic movement, including debates and disagreements among its earliest adherents about the course it should be taking.

And, yes, I don't see how the existence of a 'historical Jesus' can seriously be doubted. The notion that a phenomenon like early Christianity could simply erupt from nothing is ridiculous. The majority of academics agree that the reference in Suetonius' Lives of the Twelve Caesars to a 'Chrestus' being behind Jewish disturbances in Rome during the reign of Claudius (41 - 54AD) is not a later interpolation and so the most obvious interpretation is that it's a reference to the upheaval in Jewish communities caused by what was happening.

The literal parts are literal, then there's symbolism, metaphor, poetry, song, prophecy, parables, etc.

 

[Scotty CTA]

On 4/16/2017 at 5:10 PM, Eisegerwind said:

This also shows a massive committment to Jesus and the outfits are marvellous.

Obviously they'll need a bit of cream on that, but time well spent I think.

Everybody happy now?

The KKK is pathetically exclusive while Bible-believing Christianity is totally inclusive.

My church congregation of over 4,000 people looks wonderfully like a united nations.

(I don't get the self-flagellation. It's certainly not something that Christians are called to do.)

[DonnyTJS]

56 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

Only if it was positive that Suetonius was talking about "the" Jesus of Nazareth - which it isnt

It's still withholding relevant information - they could've added the caveat  - instead they chose not to mention it. It's why I tend not to get my information from the net.

[The White Ceelo]

39 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

The KKK is pathetically exclusive while Bible-believing Christianity is totally inclusive.

My church congregation of over 4,000 people looks wonderfully like a united nations.

(I don't get the self-flagellation. It's certainly not something that Christians are called to do.)

That seems a personal opinion rather than fact. The KKK claim to be Christian and are also bible believing people. Not very tolerant are you when other not so popular Christians are shown or mentioned. KKK, Orange order, Nazis, Celtic and Rangers fans all have Christians within their unpopular ranks. Is it fair for me to call you pathetic for being so opinionated?

 

[Scotty CTA]

59 minutes ago, The White Ceelo said:

That seems a personal opinion rather than fact. 

It would be a fact.

The KKK has a closed membership, while Bible-believing Christianity turns no one away.

59 minutes ago, The White Ceelo said:

The KKK claim to be Christian and are also bible believing people. 

They can claim what they want, but the truth is that they interpret selectively to suit their white supremacist agenda.

Jesus was a Jew. The Klan say He wasn't. (So much for being inclusive or 'Bible-believing'.)

1 hour ago, The White Ceelo said:

 Not very tolerant are you when other not so popular so-called Christians are shown or mentioned. 

I'm very tolerant, but Truth is paramount.

1 hour ago, The White Ceelo said:

KKK, Orange order, Nazis, Celtic and Rangers fans all have Christians within their unpopular ranks.

Only Celtic and Rangers would have some Bible-believers within their ranks.

The other 'groups' (by their very nature) exclude themselves.

1 hour ago, The White Ceelo said:

 Is it fair for me to call you pathetic for being so opinionated?

 Truth isn't an opinion.

[Eisegerwind]

3 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

It would be a fact.

The KKK has a closed membership, while Bible-believing Christianity turns no one away.

They can claim what they want, but the truth is that they interpret selectively to suit their white supremacist agenda.

Jesus was a Jew. The Klan say He wasn't. (So much for being inclusive or 'Bible-believing'.)

I'm very tolerant, but Truth is paramount.

Only Celtic and Rangers would have some Bible-believers within their ranks.

The other 'groups' (by their very nature) exclude themselves.

 Truth isn't an opinion.

Careful now. You wouldn't want to ridicule someone's beliefs. We might have to get out the GG_W_Ometer again.

[Ally Bongo]

5 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

It would be a fact.

The KKK has a closed membership, while Bible-believing Christianity turns no one away.

 

*Cough*

[Scotty CTA]

9 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

The KKK has a closed membership, while Bible-believing Christianity turns no one away.

I attend 2 churches (a large non-denominational one, and a smaller Baptist one).

Gays (and everyone else) are welcome at both.

If there was a policy of turning away sinners, then both churches would be empty.

5 hours ago, Eisegerwind said:

Careful now. You wouldn't want to ridicule someone's beliefs.

I'll definitely challenge a person's beliefs (as they are welcome to challenge mine).

[Flure]

Rice and Lloyd Webber's "Jesus Christ Superstar" tells a good story.

A political agitator exalted to the position of a reluctant god by his mad, mental followers.

Good songs as well.

[The White Ceelo]

On ‎18‎/‎04‎/‎2017 at 4:37 AM, Scotty CTA said:

 

The other 'groups' (by their very nature) exclude themselves.

 

Would that be in your opinion or in the eyes of your lord?

 

[Scotty CTA]

It would again be fact.

Bible-believing Christians don't hate their enemies, let alone practice things like segregation, racism, sectarianism, genocide, etc.

[Ally Bongo]

18 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

It would again be fact.

Bible-believing Christians don't hate their enemies, let alone practice things like segregation, racism, sectarianism, genocide, etc.

Shhh - Dont mention the Inquisition .....

[Scotty CTA]

Roman Catholic doctrine is hardly Bible-believing Christianity.

[Ally Bongo]

8 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

Roman Catholic doctrine is hardly Bible-believing Christianity.

You are sects of the same faith

Each sect adds/leaves out/ revises the original doctrine and ends up with what it is comfortable with  

[Scotty CTA]

2 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

You are sects of the same faith

Nope. Roman Catholicism is full-on man-made RELIGION compromised with paganism, with only a thin veneer of 'christianity' for the purpose of a deceptive appearance. 

2 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

Each sect adds/leaves out/ revises the original doctrine and ends up with what it is comfortable with  

You continue to just post off the top of your head.

Bible-believing Christianity (by definition) can neither 'add' to nor 'omit' from God's Word.

The 3rd and 4th last verses of the Bible from Revelation 22 are...

18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

You can't get past 'Bible-believing' so you go off to 'non-Bible-believing' to get weak points wide of the mark which you then try to pass off as somehow being valid.

(You are out of your depth.)

[Ally Bongo]

4 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

Bible-believing Christianity (by definition) can neither 'add' to nor 'omit' from God's Word.

 

Oh dear

What was that about painting yourself into a corner ?