If you can see this (i.e. do not have me on Ignore), re-read #49 and #50 and write back.
That change may or may not be significant as both refer to the new cult … one side claims this change invalidates the whole text as fiction … the other side claims it just was a “typo” correction …
Pliny the Younger mentions Christians ca. 112 AD although he doesn’t speak to what Christ did but rather the best way to torture them to death …
These are just shreds of evidence, I understand, and without the dead body of Christ in hand we can’t say with absolute certainty He existed in the flesh … we Christians claim He exists today in the Spirit, and we can resurrect that Spirit in our own hearts … and that’s the important part …
We don’t invalidate evolution because we don’t know why all vital proteins spin one direction and not the other … or where all the missing positrons are … so we have to accept these facts in faith that someday we will be able to explain … B.t. corn works as designed and that’s what’s important …
Are you actually equating the amount of evidence in support of evolution to the amount of evidence in support of the Jesus that is promoted in the New Testament?
Well…you know, you can…read about them both…in books. Since…there is evidence for both in…books, they are…the…same.
Your own words, unfortunately (for you), mark you as unqualified to assess the reliability of historical documents.
I refer, of course, to the two examples in your text above, where you make it clear that you think that the “h” in “historical” is silent.
If you desire further proof that your arguments are invalid, I will, upon request, furnish an image of Nicholas Cage, in which his hair is a bird.
Thank you for admitting there is evidence of Jesus … that’s a good first step … next we need to acknowledge that humans are a social animal … what evidence is there that “love your brother as you love yourself” is a better society? … or do you not understand the lesson in the New Testament? …
Nice … I say “single shred of evidence” and you think I mean “equal amounts of evidence” … you have no Spiritual evidence of Evolution, why are you complaining I have no physical evidence of Creationism? …
“you have no Spiritual evidence of Evolution”
What does this even mean? What qualifies as “spiritual evidence”, and how does it equate to actual evidence?
I didn’t admit to anything, and the rest of your post is a mess.
A nitpick here: the writer of Matthew doesn’t describe them as attending the birth; that’s a modern story-book notion where the conflicting tales in Luke and Matthew are crammed together. The magi showed up sometime after the birth, when Jesus would have been a young toddler. And in Matthew, Joseph and Mary didn’t travel to Bethlehem, but apparently lived there, and then were forced to flee when Herod ordered the slaughter of young boys.
The census was only from Luke. And I agree that the two conflicting tales of how Jesus came to be born in Bethlehem yet didn’t seem to be from there, add some credibility that there was a real person that the stories were based on. The writers of Matthew and Luke each wrote highly implausible stories of how that came to be, and each conflicts with the other.
I’d like to point out for A Odom and others that this isn’t a view promoted by unbelievers. The copy of the Bible that my wife got when she was a girl in the 1960s points out that these verses were almost certainly not in the original. That Bible is a pretty standard RSV that mainstream protestants used.
Maybe it’s just me, but I’d prefer that others believe in loving one’s neighbor as oneself than in a literal resurrection. There are Christians who believe that the resurrection is metaphorical, not a historical event. I count myself among this number.
Are there Christians who believe that Christ being the ‘son of god’ was also metaphorical?
I feel, deep in my heart, complete unwavering faith that evolution is true. In quiet, contemplative moments, I feel that Charles Darwin’s ghost is speaking to me. Especially when I look at waterfalls and forests, and when I do yoga.
Okay, now where’s your physical evidence for Creationism?
According to the Bible, he also taught his followers to address God as father when they prayed. He is also recorded as calling himself “son of man.” I’m guessing that saying that he was the son of God in the sense that we’re all God’s chillun wouldn’t earn any sideways glances at a mainline seminary.
I have to admit, I kind of want to see a service where that’s peppered throughout.
“And he walked on water . . . ah, metaphorically. And he turned water into wine: also metaphorically. And he brought Lazarus back to life; and, actually, that one is literal! Where was I? Oh, right: he made a fig tree go barren . . . metaphorically.”
Not that I have any desire to bring anyone around to my way of thinking (I married someone who isn’t Xian, for Jah’s sake), but I can actually name a rather thin volume that shows where I’m coming from. It’s Jesus Christ and Mythology, by Rudolf Bultmann.
I don’t know this for a fact, but I suspect many Reform Jews don’t take the OT stories literally either. And how many adherents believe that The Buddha actually uttered all the sayings attributed to him?
I’ll try to find a copy. Much obliged for the tip.
I attended a service where the rabbi declared that even Jewish atheists (I count myself among them) were still ‘Jewish’ (Jew-ish?). Now I can see that being due to the cultural rules about who is or is not considered Jewish based most often on accident of birth. So it doesn’t seem too far out of line for there to be Christians who think that much of Christ’s story is metaphorical and still consider themselves to be Christians. I guess religions feeling like they are under siege feel like they have to make certain --concessions.
I don’t feel like I’m making any concessions. To me it’s about how I treat my fellow humans, not believing that the laws of nature were sometimes reversed by a deity back in the old days. I believe what I believe, and I ain’t gonna lie about it. If the God of the fundamentalists existed, do you think he’d be fooled by someone who takes Pascal’s wager?
Maybe. The god of the fundamentalists seems to be a cruel psychopath who desperately requires adulation to validate himself.
I can’t say as to the beliefs of all Christians today, but there’s certainly a scholarly set that believes Mark uses adoptionism, and that Jesus only became the son of God when baptized. You’ll see the article references some ancient Christians with that belief.
“Son of God” (or “son of God,” as there were no upper/lowercase in the language at the time) is also used for various individuals in the Old Testament. Though clearly not meaning literal, biological son.