What if you consider arguments on Christianity and you are left with major doubt?

[PureX]

OK, but he said things like people should follow the pharisees when they sit in Moses' chair. Another time it says he intentionally avoided interacting much closely with gentiles. I am not sure how much I support that, but he was definitely acting within a Judaic religious framework. And so, even if we were within that world and were Jewish, we can ask whether we support him saying this. In the synagogue Jesus read from the Tanakh, so he treated it like a holy religious book. It seems that religion was a big part of his mentality.

It's true that he clashed with the establishment and the teachings, but this was still within his own religion. When he gave the Sermon on the Mount, he was making his own religion in a way, with his own teachings and he had his own disciples. He gave apocalyptic predictions like he was a religious prophet.

Yes. He had his own religious teachings that clashed with them, like suggesting that he was divine and could forgive sins and raise up people himself, despite being not recognized by them as a holy elder or whatever.

It wasn't just their terminology, but real ideas that he quoted from their religious writings like the Psalms.

As I have already stated, he was a Jew preaching to fellow Jews. He was not preaching to us, or even to the non-Jews of the time. Yet his message was not specific to Judaism. It was a new way of understanding mankind's relationship to God that anyone of any religion could have adopted. But that many rejected, including his own religious leaders. So it eventually became a new religion. Yet because the founders of that new religion were mostly Jews, they still understood it through Judaic theology and retained many of their old Judaic beliefs. And thus they labeled Jesus their Messiah.

None of this has anything to do with us. We are not Jews. We do not have to understand Christ through Judaic theology. And Jews then and now do not believe that non-Jews need to convert. So that all this modern day obsession with archaic Jewish mythology and theology is completely unnecessary. We are no more beholding to the ten commandments than Buddhists are. The only commands that we are beholding to as Christians are the commands to love God as we love ourselves and each other. And to show that love through forgiveness, kindness and generosity.

John the Disciple was there and provided the foundation for the Book of John. James and Peter wrote epistles and were close to Jesus.

The person to whom you are referring most likely did not write the text. What you are reading may have been copied from something he wrote, or it may not have been, but was likely to have been written by the followers of "John". It was very common at that time that latter generations of followers of an ideologue would sign their "teacher's" name to the ideological texts they wrote. As they were living in a patriarchal clan culture, and the ideology and authority flowed from the clan patriarch down through the clan's members. Such that the members saw themselves as 'legal and ideological representatives' of their patriarch (or in this case; teacher).

There are plenty of diverse stories. I think they came from more than one witness.

Actually, there aren't. The gnostic gospels only contain snippets of the story, with a focus on some particular aspect or event or character of significance to the authors. And they were written far to long after the events to have been written by eye-witnesses. Again, they carry the name of a supposed eye-witness, because they were written by the followers of that supposed eye-witness. But we don't know any of this to be accurate. As eye-witnesses are notoriously unreliable, especially after many years have passed, and their story has been told and retold for ideological effect.

Or he actually made those claims like the other Messianic claimants from the Messianic era. That is totally expectable based on the time period, and it is reflected in the stories, and there is not really any explicit evidence to think that Jesus didn't imagine that he was the Messiah.

True, there is no evidence one way or another. We don't really know what Jesus believed about himself relative to Judaic theology. But I don't see that it matters to me, as I am not a Jew, and I'm not looking for any proof of miracles. I'm only interested in what he revealed to humanity in terms of this new, spiritually-based relationship with God and each other.

Sure, I can agree with you that these are valuable parts of the message, and I understand your strong skepticism of the claimed extreme miracles. But this does not suggest to me that Jesus never said or proposed the kind of extreme miracles and theologies that you are so skeptical about.

So what if he did? He was a man of his time. Everyone back then believed in "miracles". Many important and powerful people were claimed to have been able to perform miracles back then. Even the Caesars.

It reminds me a bit of proposing that Joseph Smith, Muhammed and Buddha didn't make up or propose the doctrines or miracle claims that we disagree with and that these must instead have just been made up by their followers.

It's impossible to know unless they wrote or recorded their beliefs, themselves. But my guess is that it's commonly a bit of both.

 

[oatmeal]

If you have doubts about some aspects of Christianity?

Well, if you do what Romans 10:9-10 teaches to confess and believe, then you are saved and are a Christian regardless of the other issues.

Being saved does not imply immediate clarity and perfection on all issues. It is salvation, not perfection on all fronts

 

[elohiym]

I found nothing in that paper that claims to "prove" the site is the Biblical Sodom, perhaps you could point out what I may have overlooked that goes beyond theory.

I believe the evidence I've read about proves it's the site of the biblical Sodom. If you are interested in the what the archeologists claim, you can visit the TeHEP website. On the homepage it states:

3. The fact that Tall el-Hammam and other sites on the eastern half of the Jordan Disk are located precisely in the geographical area specified for the biblical "Cities of the Jordan Plain (Disk)" has turned out to be more than a coincidence, thus providing a geographical framework for the story of Abraham's nephew Lot and his escape from Sodom (set in the Middle Bronze Age), recorded in the Bible (Genesis 13-19) and in the Qur'an (VIII.7.84; XII.11.82; XIV.15.61-79; XIX.25.40; XX.29.40).​

And this.

Not a few scholars, including TeHEP Director, Steven Collins, believe that the textual evidence strongly supports a northern location in what is called the "Jordan Disk," the 25-kilometer diameter circle of the Jordan Valley immediately north of the Dead Sea. [For a detailed presentation of the northern view see S. Collins and L.C. Scott, Discovering the City of Sodom (Simon & Schuster/Howard Books, 2013).] The eastern side of the Disk encompasses at least fourteen named archaeological sites (and numerous others), and many of them have Middle Bronze Age occupation (Tall Nimrin, Tall el-Hammam and Tall Kafrayn have confirmed MB2 fortified occupation). Tall el-Hammam is the largest of these. Therefore, it would be unthinkable to ignore the likelihood that Tall el-Hammam (as well as Tall Nimrin, with its MB2 destruction and ensuing 600-year occupational hiatus) may be Sodom and Admah, respectively. Sodom is likely the larger of the two, Tall el-Hammam. Once aware of these connections, one cannot deny the level of interest that is generated in the light of these possibilities.​

 

[rako]

PureX,

It really hobbles the debate if we cannot argue that Jesus taught what the scriptures claimed he did, using the scriptures as key evidence. Unfortunately, outside the scriptures, we are just left with other "holy writings" by other Christians of the time, which actually confirm widespread views that Jesus was teaching these kinds of extreme miracles, Christologies, etc. Even the Talmud seems to portray the Christians as miracle workers like the character "Jacob" from Galilee. (probably James)

So if we can't use the scriptures to show Jesus' thoughts, it becomes very unclear so we can't really argue one way or another.

As I have already stated, he was a Jew preaching to fellow Jews. He was not preaching to us, or even to the non-Jews of the time. Yet his message was not specific to Judaism.

Of course, if Jesus taught "God", then of course it meant he taught Judaism or a version of it. That's because Judaism was practically the only Monotheist religion there. If he did not teach "the gods", he was not teaching paganism (ie the other faiths).

It was a new way of understanding mankind's relationship to God that anyone of any religion could have adopted. But that many rejected, including his own religious leaders. So it eventually became a new religion. Yet because the founders of that new religion were mostly Jews, they still understood it through Judaic theology and retained many of their old Judaic beliefs. And thus they labeled Jesus their Messiah.

None of this has anything to do with us. We are not Jews. We do not have to understand Christ through Judaic theology.

If you don't you miss out a lot, just like if you have no recognition of the labor movement in the 19th century you do not really understand Marx very well.

John the Disciple was there and provided the foundation for the Book of John. James and Peter wrote epistles and were close to Jesus.

The person to whom you are referring most likely did not write the text. What you are reading may have been copied from something he wrote, or it may not have been, but was likely to have been written by the followers of "John".

Yes I think the part in bold is probably true.

Actually, there aren't. The gnostic gospels only contain snippets of the story, with a focus on some particular aspect or event or character of significance to the authors. And they were written far to long after the events to have been written by eye-witnesses. Again, they carry the name of a supposed eye-witness, because they were written by the followers of that supposed eye-witness. But we don't know any of this to be accurate. As eye-witnesses are notoriously unreliable, especially after many years have passed, and their story has been told and retold for ideological effect.

I don't see that as contradicting a multiplicity of witnesses from or by whom the stories were written.

 

[rako]

If you have doubts about some aspects of Christianity?

Well, if you do what Romans 10:9-10 teaches to confess and believe, then you are saved and are a Christian regardless of the other issues.

Confess and believe what? My love of Jesus, that God "anointed"/"christened" Him to bring people to righteousness, and to believe in God? I have that.

Believe that Jesus is uniquely God and resurrected and ascended after being incarnated? But those are the things in question and that look unlikely after a careful review.

 

[annabenedetti]

I believe the evidence I've read about proves it's the site of the biblical Sodom. If you are interested in the what the archeologists claim, you can visit the TeHEP website. On the homepage it states:

3. The fact that Tall el-Hammam and other sites on the eastern half of the Jordan Disk are located precisely in the geographical area specified for the biblical "Cities of the Jordan Plain (Disk)" has turned out to be more than a coincidence, thus providing a geographical framework for the story of Abraham's nephew Lot and his escape from Sodom (set in the Middle Bronze Age), recorded in the Bible (Genesis 13-19) and in the Qur'an (VIII.7.84; XII.11.82; XIV.15.61-79; XIX.25.40; XX.29.40).​

And this.

Not a few scholars, including TeHEP Director, Steven Collins, believe that the textual evidence strongly supports a northern location in what is called the "Jordan Disk," the 25-kilometer diameter circle of the Jordan Valley immediately north of the Dead Sea. [For a detailed presentation of the northern view see S. Collins and L.C. Scott, Discovering the City of Sodom (Simon & Schuster/Howard Books, 2013).] The eastern side of the Disk encompasses at least fourteen named archaeological sites (and numerous others), and many of them have Middle Bronze Age occupation (Tall Nimrin, Tall el-Hammam and Tall Kafrayn have confirmed MB2 fortified occupation). Tall el-Hammam is the largest of these. Therefore, it would be unthinkable to ignore the likelihood that Tall el-Hammam (as well as Tall Nimrin, with its MB2 destruction and ensuing 600-year occupational hiatus) may be Sodom and Admah, respectively. Sodom is likely the larger of the two, Tall el-Hammam. Once aware of these connections, one cannot deny the level of interest that is generated in the light of these possibilities.​

You may believe it is the site, but that's not the same as scientific proof, which isn't found in either of your two above quotes, nor could I find a claim of proof in the paper that you linked to. Possibilities, strongly supports... that's scientific research language.

But you'd said:

Are you making that up? Maybe you are referring to one of the several proposed Sodom sites that lack evidence. Consider reading about the archaeology done at Tall-el-Hammam proving it is the Biblical Sodom, and proving Sodom and surrounding cities were destroyed by a heat event. See page 12 of the linked document:

http://www.tallelhammam.com/uploads/TeHEP-SEASON_SIX_2011_REPORT.pdf

 

[elohiym]

You may believe it is the site...

TeHEP Director, Steven Collins, also believes it's the site.

... but that's not the same as scientific proof, which isn't found in either of your two above quotes, ...

What would you consider scientific proof from TeHEP?

 

[annabenedetti]

TeHEP Director, Steven Collins, also believes it's the site.

What would you consider scientific proof from TeHEP?

He has a hypothesis. He has "possibilities." Has he "proved" his hypothesis?

 

[elohiym]

He has a hypothesis. He has "possibilities." Has he "proved" his hypothesis?

The three foot ash layer mixed with human remains and melted pottery sherds proves the city was destroyed rapidly by intense heat. The dating proves it occurred during the time Sodom allegedly existed and was destroyed. Several cities can be found in the area with similar destruction from the same time period proving Tall el Hammam was destroyed with a group of cities at the same time, like in the biblical account. If the destruction was caused by a natural event, there should be a plausible natural explanation.

 

[Eric h]

Confess and believe what? My love of Jesus, that God "anointed"/"christened" Him to bring people to righteousness, and to believe in God? I have that.

That sounds like a big jump of faith and trust already, what does this inspire you to do?

 

[Eric h]

Believe that Jesus is uniquely God and resurrected and ascended after being incarnated? But those are the things in question and that look unlikely after a careful review.

Belief and faith are two different things, it is easy for me to say, I believe parachuting is safe. The only way to have faith in parachuting, is to put one on, go up in a plane and jump. Faith is a journey always one say at a time, if I jump once, then I had faith once, do I still have it today?

Parachuting is not a hundred present safe, what if I have a close encounter with death after jumping, do I have the faith and trust to jump again?

In a similar way, faith in Jesus, that he performed miracles and he rose from the dead, it should inspire me to do something based first on belief and secondly on trust, I have no final proof.

Like parachuting, you just have to trust you have a good parachute, you have to trust the person who packed it was not having a bad day, you have to trust the pilot will drop you in a safe place, and the wind won't blow you of course. You don't know all these things for sure, until after you have landed safely.

 

[PureX]

PureX,

It really hobbles the debate if we cannot argue that Jesus taught what the scriptures claimed he did, using the scriptures as key evidence. Unfortunately, outside the scriptures, we are just left with other "holy writings" by other Christians of the time, which actually confirm widespread views that Jesus was teaching these kinds of extreme miracles, Christologies, etc. Even the Talmud seems to portray the Christians as miracle workers like the character "Jacob" from Galilee. (probably James)

So if we can't use the scriptures to show Jesus' thoughts, it becomes very unclear so we can't really argue one way or another.

Welcome to reality. We don't actually even have any proof that Jesus of Nazareth ever existed. His character may have been a representation of a conglomeration of itinerant preachers who were traveling around Judea in those days, preaching various ideological variations and criticisms of the Jewish doctrines and leadership of the day (who they saw as being too cozy with the Roman occupiers). The truth is that it's impossible for us to know for sure. And just pretending that we know by pretending that the stories are accurate is not an honest solution to this problem. Nor is it a reasonable one. Not from my perspective, anyway. It's called "make-believe". And make-believe is not faith, as 'eric h' wisely pointed out in the previous post.

I realize this hobbles the discussion, because we can't be sure of anything we're discussing. But we still have the tools of science, and of reason, and some knowledge of history and human behavior to work with. And we still have our intuition, and imagination, and instinct, too. So as with most things, we will have to use these to try and piece together a likely scenario, if it is a likely scenario that we're after. If instead, we just want a fantasy that makes us feel good about about ourselves, and helps us to trust in 'magical solutions' to real life problems, then I suppose we can do that, too. But I don't think our real problem is lack of information so much as it's a lack of honesty. And I see 'make-believing' as dishonest.

But that's just me. Not everyone else, does.

Of course, if Jesus taught "God", then of course it meant he taught Judaism or a version of it. That's because Judaism was practically the only Monotheist religion there. If he did not teach "the gods", he was not teaching paganism (ie the other faiths).

How we humans conceive of "God" varies from place to place and time to time. Jesus was a man in a time and place, and he used the god-concept that was available to him. That's all. Religious conceptions of God are just religious conceptions of God. They don't define the reality of God.

If you don't you miss out a lot, just like if you have no recognition of the labor movement in the 19th century you do not really understand Marx very well.

We understand Marx better than Marx did, in some ways, because we have the benefit of his observations relative to another whole century of experiences.

And anyway, it's not Marx that matters, it's the ideas he was trying to present to the rest of humanity. Those ideas didn't die with Marx, and they are still finding their place, and having their effect within the on-going experience of humanity.

Likewise, it's not what Jesus thought, said, or did that matters; it's how his story has been effecting the experience of humanity, since, and how it will continue to do so in the future. I believe his story represents a number of different fundamental ideals about man's relationship to man, and man's relationship to God, and those ideals are somewhat contradictory. Some are having a healthy effect, and some are not. So my interest in all this is to try and ferret out the healthy ideals from the unhealthy ones. NOT to ferret out the "truth of Jesus' story" from the fiction.

 

[Krsto]

Live with doubt. That is honest and healthy.

I agree. From what I've heard (and I'd appreciate verification of this) our Jewish forefathers, including Jesus and his apostles, did not live in a world that required certainty. They were perfectly fine with the idea that God could speak to man through imperfect channels, such as prophets, and manuscripts of prophets, never giving us any certainty, but enough for us to live our lives by. St. Paul echos this when he says, "We see through a glass dimly." Another said, "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free," but that doesn't mean any one particular source would be without error. That, and "the church is the pillar and ground for the truth" just means that there is truth within such an imperfect vessel. Enough to invest your life in discovering.

Our Catholic and Evangelical ways of thinking presuppose that we need certainty and God gave it to us, while the Eastern Orthodox and Progressives are content to recognize and embrace mystery. I used to be an Evangelical, and am now more Progressive, and believe I look at things the way Jesus looked at things much more than before.

Embrace the mystery Rako - it will set you free, alongside the truths within that will set you free.

 

[elohiym]

God is the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists.

What is the proof for your claim?

 

[PureX]

What is the proof for your claim?

There is no proof of any claim of God's existence but existence, itself.

 

[elohiym]

There is no proof of any claim of God's existence but existence, itself.

I disagree, but thanks for admitting you have no proof.

 

[PureX]

I agree. From what I've heard (and I'd appreciate verification of this) our Jewish forefathers, including Jesus and his apostles, did not live in a world that required certainty. They were perfectly fine with the idea that God could speak to man through imperfect channels, such as prophets, and manuscripts of prophets, never giving us any certainty, but enough for us to live our lives by. St. Paul echos this when he says, "We see through a glass dimly." Another said, "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free," but that doesn't mean any one particular source would be without error. That, and "the church is the pillar and ground for the truth" just means that there is truth within such an imperfect vessel. Enough to invest your life in discovering.

Our Catholic and Evangelical ways of thinking presuppose that we need certainty and God gave it to us, while the Eastern Orthodox and Progressives are content to recognize and embrace mystery. I used to be an Evangelical, and am now more Progressive, and believe I look at things the way Jesus looked at things much more than before.

Embrace the mystery Rako - it will set you free, alongside the truths within that will set you free.

Excellent observations; honest and reasonable.

 

[PureX]

I disagree, but thanks for admitting you have no proof.

You don't have any, either, you just think you do.

 

[elohiym]

You don't have any, either, you just think you do.

If I define God as love and demonstrate that love is a measurable field, and then demonstrate that field has creative powers, I have provided evidence that my God exists and has the power to create. Do you agree?

 

[ClimateSanity]

He has a hypothesis. He has "possibilities." Has he "proved" his hypothesis?

Science doesn't prove anything. It is has supporting evidence.