^ Awesome links, marms. Well worth the ensuing headache. Hopefully someone else will pass some thoughts on them, as my hands are a bit full castigating those naughty atheists tonight.
________________
Virtual said:
Don't forget there were hundreds of gospels knocking around, many of which haven't survived, so it's difficult to ascribe a strategy to the four that ended up making the roman cut for whatever reason. Similarly, i'd agree that the gospels as written in the first and second centuries weren't part of some plan for control (way too confusing and contradictory for that) - but the selection, editing and general mainstreaming of christian ideas that happened under constantine i think could be considered that way (a system of control) as that's how the roman church looks like even today (and it's descendants to a degree).
Considering this, i'd tend to assume that the christianity before that, at least in part (because there were many parts), was not this way - there's plenty of hints that it was anti-establishment in plenty of the sects (particularly gnostics), hence why the romans were killing them at first; and why they felt the need to subsume it later.
"I THINK" being the keyword. Reasoning for the spread of early Christiannity falls into a matter of conjecture and opinion; defeating me, you, rickolasnice and all top modern scholars in terms of presenting real "evidence" either way.
Like Ricko's post, it certainly reads as an interesting perspective, but as a case against the credibility of Christiannity, nothing really here to cause a wobble to it's great foundations.
Kudos however for a very honest and thought out post, reads like you are very genuine in opinion and not some single-minded, anti-Christian whinge.
rickolasnice said:
I admit that my speculative ideas that Jesus was to "serve the government" (Not quite what i said or meant) wasn't based on any concrete evidence.. hence the words speculation. But from studying the bible (especially the writings of Paul) it seems plausible that this was the case. Remember the bit about Titus, what he did at the burning of the temple, and the part about him being around for the collection plate? Hmm..
You just admitted that all 4 gospels were written by people with different agenda's.. Are you denying that Mark was the first written? That the word for word copying from Mark means that.. they are just that.. copies with added bit to suit their agenda? Are you denying that Mark used ancient Jewish scripture to write the life of Jesus? That the virgin birth myth came from a mistranslation of ancient Jewish scripture by Matthew which was then copied by Luke? Are you denying Luke uses parts of Josephus' writings to fill in his version of events, dating the writing of his gospels after 70AD?
Mark appears to be the first written, of course they have different agendas else they would have just printed 4 composite stories. The agendas were to elucidate different spiritual aspects (as expounded upon in my previous post).
rickolasnice said:
You say Mark's gospel was always intended to be seen as historical but I see no evidence of this within his gospel. This was a belief put out by one of the earliest Christian churches. Did you consider the way it is written compared to other historical writing's from the same time period?
Just which part are you refuting?
The Gospel on it's own, could have been percieved as fictional I guess. However, amongst all the other gospels it is clear that these aim to be historical pieces. Yes, marks was written first, but the idea that the other authors were ripping off his work to decieve people into joining the religion is again, nothing more than a surmise that can easily be dismissed.
rickolasnice said:
Are you you refuting that Paul's writings seem to indicate he didn't consider Jesus to have been a human man that walked the earth less than two decades earlier? Or that his writings have a seemingly pro - Roman undertone?
No, i dont at all. However, as Paul never met Jesus when he was alive, it is understandable that he left the story telling role to those who had seen him. Paul's agenda was to encourage the local churches to remain in obedience to the Gospel message found in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
rickolasnice said:
And millions of people claim spiritual experiences involving Jesus or the Devil, but millions of others claim spiritual experiences of Allah and Mohammed
Christianity is not the only religion, and spiritual experiences of others contradicts your God being God.
No. They form no credibility to the Christian faith or those that follow it.
You've hit upon a major point here.
My own religion experiences of having involvement within the church, reading Christian books, talking to preachers, speaking with other Christians, understanding of scripture, has convinced me beyond doubt that the religion is genuine.
Though, in fairness, being born and raised particularly Christian Dense area, I have never spoken to Muslims or Bhuddists about their experiences or read there books. A lot of people must have picked the "wrong religion", and i don't want to be one of them. I always check the authority of the religion... but collating information from other followers of foreign religions has always been a troublesome endeavour.
However, recent times there has emerged a great weapon against this fallback:
The Internet.
While browsing an international religion forum (spiritualforums) I found a Christian ask Muslims questions I always wanted too (Saved me making a thread) I've always wondered if followers of other religions have felt God working in their lives, and have had experiences similar to my own.
http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=36498 said:
Hi guys I thought I might drop in here and ask some friendly question about your faith.
From my understanding our concepts of God are similar but called different things. I think it all originated out of the same ancestors and same place.
In a way that makes us fellow believers. Peace. Questions are asked in love.
One curiosity of mine is suspecting strongly our interaction with the same God, might give us similar experiences.
Do you guys experience supernatural things similar like we do?
Do you have healers that use the power of God prayer and faith to instantly cure illnesses?
Do you experience a filling or leading of the spirit of God or an equivalent description, or have supernatural spiritual things happen or seek them?
The answers from the Islam's were pretty bad, didn't really answer the questions but quoted from the qu'arn. Very Disappointing. And the thread is now inexorably sinking lower and lower until it falls off the bottom of the world.
Best they came out with was this video of a Islam man who was mirculously healed by praying to Allah
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6ikziyCSms
Interesting vid, nonetheless, even the Bhuddists claim to have got on the Spiritual Healing Bandwagon, with various arts of healing (Reiki healing springs to mind being particularly prominent)
In conclusion: This is another grey area, but I feel your response of "Well other religions have experiences also" is far too flippant, some real investigation should be employed to discern which religions experiences appear more consistant and credible.
