2 of 2
2
Do Christians follow the Ten Commandments?
Posted: 13 September 2013 02:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  266
Joined  2012-09-14
Lausten - 10 September 2013 06:29 PM
CuthbertJ - 10 September 2013 10:03 AM
I.J. Abdul Hakeem - 06 September 2013 01:06 PM

...With such diversity, it would be interesting to know what Christianity itself teaches.

I think what you mean is, it’d be interesting to see what Jesus himself taught. I have a feeling most Christians would be very surprised!  They’d also be surprised to see him in person. 

My understanding of the latest historical research is that there was no one version of Christianity to start with. This seems to be leading to stronger proof that there was no one person named Jesus. It was either stories adapted from other legends and told by a group of people then jelled into the early gospels, or a story that kept getting retold and modified. Either of these fit better with how stories were told at the time, as opposed to any kind of historical documentation that could have gone on. There is ample evidence for a variety of small Christian cults with differing beliefs during the first and second century.

I’ve never quite understood how the theories are supported of exactly when the original works were written down. I know the earliest manuscripts we still have are mid 3rd century, but somehow they can date the originals. For me, this early history became less and less important as I learned more about it. The Christianity we know today is based on Byzantine versions and strengthened later by the crusades. This is the opposite of what peaceful Christians today want you to believe, but to me, if it wasn’t for the militaristic, King supported version of Christianity it would be a footnote in history like zorastrianism.

Most historian have accepted Jesus as a historical person.
Prof Bart Ehrman has discussed this here
http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/

 Signature 

Say: He is God, the Unique.
God, the Self-Sufficient.
He does not give birth, nor was He born.
And there is none equal to Him.

Quran (112: 1-4)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 September 2013 02:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  266
Joined  2012-09-14
PLaClair - 11 September 2013 01:49 PM

As the neurosciences advance, we are coming to recognize theology’s fact claims for what they are. We know why people invent stories, and we know the histories behind many fantastic tales, in the classic meaning of the word.

In many cases this is true
The problem lies, however, is when people (be they religious or athiest) start acting like a know-it-all without even basic studying. Regardless
of whether one wants to speak for or against a religion, people should at least know what they are talking about.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3w_v0aEX38

 Signature 

Say: He is God, the Unique.
God, the Self-Sufficient.
He does not give birth, nor was He born.
And there is none equal to Him.

Quran (112: 1-4)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 September 2013 03:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3262
Joined  2011-08-15

In many cases this is true
The problem lies, however, is when people (be they religious or athiest) start acting like a know-it-all without even basic studying. Regardless
of whether one wants to speak for or against a religion, people should at least know what they are talking about.

I.J. You should really read what the mythicists are contending first, e.g. Price and Carrier’s books on the mythical Jesus. I don’t completely buy into their thesis, but it’s worth a look. I’ve read reviews and rebuttals to Ehrman’s books but haven’t carved out the time to get into the books yet. BTW, I’m reading Aslan’s book “No God but God”. Are you familiar with it?


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 September 2013 07:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1484
Joined  2009-10-21
I.J. Abdul Hakeem - 13 September 2013 02:18 PM

Most historian have accepted Jesus as a historical person.
Prof Bart Ehrman has discussed this here
http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/

“Scientific consensus” is a tricky term and even when there is a consensus, it can be difficult to communicate. In this case a simple statement of what “most” historians accept is inadequate. First of all, what exactly do they accept? Not much. They accept a person existed, although the name may be wrong and that person was crucified and about 20 verses from the Bible are attributed to him.

I am following Richard Carrier’s work closely and he has reviewed the consensus and claims that it is weak. That is, the work that has been done is mostly out-dated, from before 1950, and that it was not well done. Obviously that is one person, not a consensus, but I’m looking forward to his work and how it is received.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2