Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Just follow the on screen instructions and you'll have an account in no time!

Join our community! (click here)

We hope you enjoy your visit.

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Someone loves you.
Topic Started: Jul 5 2008, 03:30 AM (3,183 Views)
Eirik
Member Avatar
I'm Dishonest To Be Honest
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
How can they be holy, when they are written by guys like you; guys who love God and Jesus a little bit more than the average? If you wrote a book about Jesus, would it then be holy?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Master52
Member Avatar
Elephant :O!
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
The gospels were written by the disciples of Jesus. They lived with Jesus. Jesus is Holy. The gospels tell the life of the holiest man that lived on earth- therefore, they are holy. And no, if I write a story about Jesus Christ it's not holy, because I basically invented it. The disciples were there for Jesus and lived with him.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Eirik
Member Avatar
I'm Dishonest To Be Honest
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Then we're back where we started. I don't believe Jesus was holy. I believe what the facts says; that he was an inspiration to the people and a good man. Not holy though.

EDIT:
Besides, Jesus wasn't holy until the Contantin I meeting (I can't remember the actual name of the meeting). At the meeting, Jesus' "holyness" was voted about. Before that meeting, Jesus was looked on just like I do, a great man, but a men nevertheless. It was not until AFTER the meeting he was holy.

This also strengthens my point that Christianity is not HOLY. It's just a way to live your life, invented by many different people.
Edited by Eirik, Jul 10 2008, 09:13 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Blackt3ars
Member Avatar
Confession and Gfx guardian
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Mr Master52
Jul 9 2008, 09:14 PM
Well, then, what's your point? They decided which gospels to use, which not to, wow, so what? What's wrong about it?
Nothing. Only which books they chose bothered me. They only chose the gospels where Jesus was depicted as godly, and not the ones that showed Jesus as a man.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bunni Killer
Novice DIY'er
[ *  * ]
Erm, on the topic of gospels...They probably weren't written by people who knew Jesus personally, as the earliest (Mark) is estimated to have been written between 65 and 70 AD. The most conservative estimates put that number at 50 AD, which is still a stretch.

The other two synoptics (Matthew, Luke) came later and are extremely similar to Mark not only in the stories they tell but also in their wording, and are believed to have used Mark as a source. John was written even later.

But Eirik, you're also wrong in saying that Jesus only "became" holy later on. The controversy went both ways; while some people believed that Jesus was fully man and not God, others believed he was fully God and not man. The Council of Nicea didn't "make" him anything--obviously he was what he was (whatever that was) from the beginning.

Claiming that experts' (if you will) disagreement makes something untrue is as much a fallacy as Tiger's implications that, because nothing can be proven true, everything that cannot be proven true is.

(Note: My experience in this subject is with a Catholic slant, but I did try to research and include the opinions of other sects, in as much detail as is appropriate.)

Edited for the note, and again to fix a name which I'd slipped up. Am infamous for editing. Done, I promise!
Edited by Bunni Killer, Jul 10 2008, 01:31 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Eirik
Member Avatar
I'm Dishonest To Be Honest
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
No I'm not wrong.

After the voting, it was decided that the -majority- view on Jesus should be that he was immortal. So for many people, he was mortal one day and immortal the next.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bunni Killer
Novice DIY'er
[ *  * ]
Again, the fact that people disagreed didn't make Jesus anything. People online tend to call me "guy irl"; that doesn't give me a penis.

And again, you could just as well say that because some people had believed him to be fully god, he was never fully man.

The Church's position was decided by a vote--just as it would be later on, until it started to be decided by breaking off--but that doesn't change the reality--whatever that reality was.

Edited for excessive aggressiveness on my part (peace, not war!). I'm gonna keep doing this until someone tells me to stop making long and pointless explanations of the edit message.
Edited by Bunni Killer, Jul 10 2008, 01:46 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigerblitz
Member Avatar
Proud to be a Banana Ninja
[ *  *  *  * ]
Eirik
Jul 10 2008, 01:35 PM
No I'm not wrong.

After the voting, it was decided that the -majority- view on Jesus should be that he was immortal. So for many people, he was mortal one day and immortal the next.
You are right on that part sadly eirik.

I have something to say on this tho. Even tho you are right on that part eirik God and Jesus are still 1.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Eirik
Member Avatar
I'm Dishonest To Be Honest
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
So when the bible says that God gave his only son to save mankind, that is actually bull? He didn't give his son, he gave himself?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bunni Killer
Novice DIY'er
[ *  * ]
The Christian belief is that God gave His son AND Himself--because the Son is part of the Trinity (three Persons [they like capitalization] in one God), in much the same way that the Hindu gods are all believed to be different aspects of the same spirit.

Further, Jesus is also (according to their belief) fully human--because through that humanity He raises the dignity of humans and becomes our sacrifice.

It as been believed, by various people, that Jesus was either only man or only God, because they can't reconcile that kind of duality.

(PS, Tiger--I guess this shows whether or not I have questions about Christianity.)

Edit: I meant to be in bed an hour ago. I'd recommend a site for explanations, except that there are more Christian sects, each with their own slant, than I or even Jesus could shake a stick at. Again, what I say is based off Catholic beliefs, which I know more about, though agree no more with, than other sects.
Edited by Bunni Killer, Jul 10 2008, 02:05 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Blackt3ars
Member Avatar
Confession and Gfx guardian
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Cerruh
Jul 10 2008, 01:27 PM
Erm, on the topic of gospels...They probably weren't written by people who knew Jesus personally, as the earliest (Mark) is estimated to have been written between 65 and 70 AD. The most conservative estimates put that number at 50 AD, which is still a stretch.
Correct. It does seem like a long stretch. However, 0 AD was never recorded anywhere to be Jesus' exact birthdate. I believe 0 AD was picked as his birthday like a hundred years after his death.
Edited by Blackt3ars, Jul 10 2008, 02:08 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Eirik
Member Avatar
I'm Dishonest To Be Honest
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
According to Wikipedia, Jesus was born 7 - 2 years before Christ :) .
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Master52
Member Avatar
Elephant :O!
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
He was born 2 years before the year 0 Eirik, and this is due to a problem with the phases of the moon, that I can't explain right now.
When Jesus died, the disciples were about 25-40. That is est. 33 after christ. If the gospels were written 50 after Christ, then they were about 42-57...First Markus wrote it, then another disciple came, looked at it and re-wrote it, the same story for the third one and Jon, being the youngest, wrote his after the others, with like 50 years...so they were written by them. Accept it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jack Sam1
Member Avatar
DIY's Master Runecrafter. 96/99. DIY Editor
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Mr Master52
Jul 10 2008, 05:48 PM
He was born 2 years before the year 0 Eirik, and this is due to a problem with the phases of the moon, that I can't explain right now.
When Jesus died, the disciples were about 25-40. That is est. 33 after christ. If the gospels were written 50 after Christ, then they were about 42-57...First Markus wrote it, then another disciple came, looked at it and re-wrote it, the same story for the third one and Jon, being the youngest, wrote his after the others, with like 50 years...so they were written by them. Accept it.
My maths may be wrong here, but, if the disciples were 25-40 at his death, add 50 years for when they wrote the gospels that takes them to 75-80. a bit more unreasonable.

I don't understand what you're trying to say, otherwise.. ^o)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Eirik
Member Avatar
I'm Dishonest To Be Honest
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Mr Master52
Jul 10 2008, 05:48 PM
He was born 2 years before the year 0 Eirik, and this is due to a problem with the phases of the moon, that I can't explain right now.
When Jesus died, the disciples were about 25-40. That is est. 33 after christ. If the gospels were written 50 after Christ, then they were about 42-57...First Markus wrote it, then another disciple came, looked at it and re-wrote it, the same story for the third one and Jon, being the youngest, wrote his after the others, with like 50 years...so they were written by them. Accept it.
How the hell can you know everything David? When the world's experts are not sure, how can you be?

And it's you who needs to accept that the gospels wasn't necessarily written by people who followed Jesus. The gospel of John was finished about year 110 after Christ. According to the ancient Christian sources, and the bible I think, the gospel was written by John the Baptist. John was on the same age as Jesus, which means that by the time he finsihed his gospel, he was about 112 years old.

I know you'll say that many people lives to be that old, but isn't it too much of a coincidence? And besides, back in that time, people didn't live as long as we do now. They probably lived to they were about 50 - 60 years.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jack Sam1
Member Avatar
DIY's Master Runecrafter. 96/99. DIY Editor
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I think he'd be older than that won't he?

If Jesus died aged 37, I think, that would make John the Baptist nearer to 140+, assuming he was of the same age as Jesus.

Who lives to that long? ^o)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Eirik
Member Avatar
I'm Dishonest To Be Honest
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
If Jesus was born at year 2 B.C and John was born at the same time, that means that in year 110 A.C, John would be 112, seeing that he was born 2 years B.C.

You know, A.C means after Jesus' birth, not after his death.
Edited by Eirik, Jul 10 2008, 06:26 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jack Sam1
Member Avatar
DIY's Master Runecrafter. 96/99. DIY Editor
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I thought that 0 AD (anno domini- after death.) started when Jesus died? :S
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Eddie
Member Avatar
Paranormal DIY'er
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
AD means in the year of our Lord, starting when Jesus was born.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bunni Killer
Novice DIY'er
[ *  * ]
Jesus was born in 6 or 4 BC (most scholars say 6). The mixup was due to an error with Roman calculation. He died when he was 33. That would put his date of death at 29BC, tops.

Assuming his all disciples were only 18 when he died and that all the gospels were written in exactly the same year, 50AD--I'm giving you EXTREMELY liberal estimates here--they would be 39. That's roughly middle aged for us, but in the first century, it was about time to turn in. This isn't even including John, who you claim was younger--because giving you the liberal range that I am, he would have to be a preteen.

Again, very few people believe that any of the gospels were written as early as 50AD, let alone written in the same year. Then there are literary criticism problems; why, for example, would people who had witnessed the events personally write using someone else's text as a source?

Is it that harmful to your faith to consider the possibility (probability, really) that the gospels were inspired writing made by people who didn't know Jesus personally?
Edited by Bunni Killer, Jul 10 2008, 08:00 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Debates · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Theme Created by Chort27 of NGL