Is this statement really accurate given our recent discussion about fundamentalism and literalism:

"The best proof is evidence we offer that he works in our lives through the Holy Spirit." - Borge Schantz

People looking on seeing a fundamentalist may say they are "following Christ" better or "the Holy Spirit is more active in their life" because they don't:

1. Smoke
2. Do drugs
3. Have illicit sex

...take your choice.

Again, the statement by Penman:

"Despite more than a decade in Asia and the Middle East, I have yet to meet a Muslim who has been convinced and persuaded by the quality of our arguments or by the extent of our knowledge to follow Jesus of the Gospels. Rather, that transformation has only been born out of the miracle of love transplanted into theology, life, and witness by the power of the Holy Spirit in our lives."

...seems to me that Muslims would be more impressed with Christians that were empathic to Muslim beliefs and issues and not with Christians witnessing with the "the truth".

Example: neither group supposedly eats pork, but in a desparate need situation, dont't you think the Adventist or Christian would be more willing to violate the "no pig" rule, and the Muslim would be quicker to put that issue in terms of "love".

This to me is the falacy of "ONLY LOVE" being the standard. There is no objectivity for the most part. Can you always tell the person doing the most "loving thing"?

As our Pastor was dying of liver cancer over a three year period, and prayers were not answered to "take away the cancer" [the loving thing for a loving God, right?] the Pastor decided the lesson was not about God answering prayer but showing others "how to die". Right or wrong conclusion, would a Muslim see that as the most loving witness?

Does the Lesson actually say "the historical evidence is overwhelming clear" that Jesus existed? I haven't kept up recently. Wow. That's quite a statement, considering there are no contemporary references, etc.

Does Josephus not count as a reliable testimony of the historical Christ?

Josephus comes around the same time as the Gospels, doesn't he? He is reliable to the point that Christ was important to a group of people by his time. I just take issue with "overwhelmingly clear". It's not important.

Josephus only reported about those who worshiped a "Chrestus" but he never saw or spoke with Jesus. If that is a "reliable source" it is only as much as others who wrote "about" Jesus, but never saw or spoke with him. That type of "reliable source" would not be admitted in any court of law.

The idea of Jesus is an abstract concept; based on the attributes people have attributed to him:
miracles, salvation, healing, and more. Those same attributes are bestowed upon Mary, the mother of Jesus; and on others who people have held as performing miracles through the centuries.

Is belief in such miraculous events proof of Jesus, or Mary? We create those ideas in our minds, and they can neither be proved or disproved. Such faith is totally personal and if any individual puts his faith in a handkerchief (as Paul's followers) or something more concrete, it will never be possible to verify.

What if Jesus never existed? I believe he did. But what if I'm wrong? Would this mean that there is no God, no life beyond this present physical life, no absolute ethical standard, and no hope?

I have an answer...but I'm interested to read what others think about this question.

In response to orthodoxy moron: IMO, the nonexistence of Jesus only means that a few sets of beliefs/ethical standards have to be re-evaluated. Certainly that could be traumatic, but it wouldn't necessarily negate other possible systems of belief or schools of thought.

Isn't the miracle of religion that is seems to work without actually being able to 'prove' any of it. In the end it comes down to subjective experience rather than objective fact. Absolute truth seems absolutely unobtainable.

An answer for orthodoxymoron, it almost seems inevitable that you move towards Marcus Borg's stance where it doesn't matter if its true, just how we respond and experience and learn and have a dynamic relationship.

I'm not aware of any credible scholar who disputes the existence of the historical Jesus. There certainly are many disputes among scholars & religious people about what his life & death means. But evidence for his life & death is certainly demonstrable beyond any reasonable doubt.

oxy,

"Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. 15 Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we witnessed against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied." 1 Cor.15:12-19.

Kinda hard for Him to be resurrected if He never lived...but that's the way this ole "literalist,fundamentalist" but I prefer "conservative christian" see's it...but hey, what do mere words mean?

pat

WOW, Pat, 1 Cor.15:12-19, although I had read this before, in the context of this and another thread with Andy from AT, I almost held my breath for those 7 verses!!!!!

Another issue I have with this week's lesson is this passage on Sunday's "Who was Jesus?" part I: "That He did great things while here is fine; that He preached powerful sermons is fine; that He revealed to us the character of God is fine. But none of these things, in the end, really matter if Jesus did not come and die as the Substitute for us, thus giving each of us the promise of eternal life (if we but claim it for ourselves)."

So the identity and significance of Jesus is at essence- what he did to give US immortality? Why do most atonement theories revolve around man and man's preoccupation with eternal life with God as a tool to accomplish such goals? Selfishness is the heart of salvation as described above.

Arlyn,

"So the identity and significance of Jesus is at essence- what he did to give US immortality?"

I suggest it is not selfishness to want to be saved. It IS HOWEVER relying on the promises of God "by faith" which are found in Jesus Christ our savior who came to save sinners.

And yes, Paul seemed concerned..."and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins."

And from that 'ole literalist you know what that means..."For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Rom.6:23.

His example alone just doesn't get it done for us!

PS. Douglas...it's amazing what scripture does to put things in focus isn't it!

regards,

pat

There are very few reasons for ethical behavior: fear/law love/acceptance/gratitude, deceit/greed. Without Chirst, in man, it is generally a mix of all of the above. Adventism at its outreach appears at least to work on fear/law rather than love/acceptance/gratitude. Thus Adventism preaches as if Christ did not exist axecpt as high judge and chief executionar. It works wonders on dark stormy nights. But in daily living playa very small part if any.

Christ exists alright, it is just the kind that the mind pictures that counts.

"I serve a risen Savior, He's in the world today!" Tom

Pat,

I totally agree with you that His example alone doesn't "get it done" for us. It doesn't get us into heaven. It doesn't solve the problem of sin. And I am in no way reducing the significance of Jesus to that only.

And you will never hear me arguing against the scripture that says the "wages of sin is death". That is the truth unadorned. So, no need to be sarcastic.

But do you hear the question I am asking gently and quietly?- Is there any significance to Jesus' identity or work independent of man? Or is Jesus only significant in terms of what He can do to get us into heaven?

Can we worship or love Him for Himself?

( I am not arguing that He doesn't do anything for us, but can we worship God outside of what He does for us- the question that Satan posed to God over Job's loyalty.)

Yeah, Pat!!

Honestly, sometimes I feel like we're like the Athenians. They debated the newest ideas, but when the resurrection was brought to their attention, most of them scoffed.

The gospels literally make no sense if you take away Jesus' death and resurrection for us. God has given the advance notice in the person of his Son, and through the power of his resurrection, that a new creation/world is afoot...and he invites us to be part of it. Our invitation and participation is based upon his achievement...not our moral worthiness.

Yes, Jesus was a great moral teacher. But if that's all we have, then reference 1 Cor. 15. Many other moral or religious paths wouls suffice, that offer a plurality of views of God and his activities in this world. None of which hold out the hope of what Jesus has achieved for us...and why he did what he did for us.

As a result, the one response elicited from all his creation is grateful worship. It's all over the NT. It will be the language of a new heavens and new earth.

I want it to be more my own!

Thanks...

Frank

Arlyn,

Excellent tie in to the question of Job! I see your point.

Thanks...

Frank

At some point in my Christian walk, I realized that my faith in Jesus demonstrating God's grace and forgiveness, is based solely on whtat other, ordinary people have said about him. My faith has to be in the veracity of the report.

Because I've become quite cynical about reports people give, this has become a hang up for me. I had determined to find the original, historic Jesus and react to him, rather than the report about him. THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE. The witness ABOUT Jesus makes up the PERSON of Jesus.

As was alluded in the article, facts never changed any one's belief system while our evangelism is based on our perception of facts, and we expect people to drop their culturally ingrained beliefs and follow us?

Even the Bible touches on this, when it states that "every one has been given a measure of faith". We all want to believe that there is something that will come along and save us from our ultimate universal enemy - death. A belief in GOD is intrinsic to humanity. What we do about it depends on where and when we live. Therefore, all religion is man's reaching out to that GOD in hopes of some sort of salvation. We either flog ourselves bloody or make life totally unpalatable thereby earning passage to life eternal; or we develop complicated systems of worship, again, in hopes of pleasing GOD.

Christianity has done its best to fall into that mode of belief and behavior, each generation finding new ways to react to the old systems but ultimately reverting to the same idea of methodology as a means to gain eternity. And so a pattern emerges where the first generation of a religious movement stands on tippy-toes and works itself into the grave for their new found faith, while the subsequent generations fall asleep at the wheel and finally revert to being the status quo - only to be followed by a "new" awakening and the process repeats itself.

As it turns out, Jesus never began a new "church", separating itself from the status quo. Maybe it's not about separation, but rather, about inclusion. Maybe it's all about recognizing the unity we have with all form of religious hopes and relating to eachother on that basis. This, of course, is impossible on an institutional level, and that is why Jesus reached beneath the faith systems and talked only to individuals, meeting their individual needs - healing, raising dead people - feeding hungry people = FINDING A NEED AND FILLING IT.

Today, we are giving answers no one is asking. This works where people are in such physical need that anything would be an improvement; but in our own culture, where over-abundance makes us pray at gas stations for divine intervention, our education and our culture, in general, keep us from falling for the lines being thrown out there.

Ultimately what I am left with, is a trust in GOD. Since this universe produced me, I have to believe that its MAKER also loves me - period. Since Jesus personalized his MAKER, as Abba, a familiar use of Father, I will only have that to warm me on the cold nights of despair; and I meet Jesus on a human level where we both become GOD'S children, Christ being the first of the fruit.

Tom: But even under the "best" of Christ-related motivations for ethical behavior it does still seem (and I think I see this in your post) that it comes down to some combination of reasons you listed. Maybe gratitude is considered an ideal? I personally have always preferred a kind of Locke-ean social contract thing with a moderate dose of Randian selfishness. I'm not sure I trust whose only reason for not murdering me is either fear of hellfire or gratitude for redemption. Love is nice, but perhaps a little less functional in our world?

Borge,

When was the last time you read the New Testament? We have the testimony of four Gospel writers, the testimony of Paul and Peter, history tells us that all of Jesus' disciples gave their lives rather than deny their Lord, history tells us that millions of Christians preferred to die devoured by beast of prey rather than worship someone else instead of Jesus, the entire Roman Empire eventually believed in the existence, and the claims of Jesus to be the Son of God, yet you, and Adventist pastor have the temerity to doubt the historicity of Jesus existence? You should surrender your SDA credentials as a preacher!

Nic: Didn't most of those Christians die at the hands of other Christians, rather than by the lions, tigers, and bears of the pagans. Besides, belief does not constitute fact (Sunday, would be the relevant Adventist text-book example). And people are often willing to die for an idea. Although I will grant that a 1st century Galilean Rabbi Yeshua probably existed, he wouldn't have had to for the Gospels to have been written, for Paul to have preached, or for any of the other events of the next two millenia to have occurred.

Borge,

Here is some historical evidence from nonbiblical sources for the existence of Jesus:

*********

Author's Background: Mara Bar-Serapion was a Syrian who lived at least 73 years after Jesus Christ. He left a legacy manuscript, a letter, written to his son Serapion. The letter is now in the possession of the British Museum.

Reference To Jesus Christ: What benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as judgment for their crime. Or, the people of Samos for burning Pythagoras? In one moment their country was covered with sand. Or the Jews by murdering their wise king?. . . after that their kingdom was abolished. God rightly avenged these men. . . the wise king. . . lived on in the teachings he enacted. - British Museum, Syriac Manuscript, Additional 14,658
http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/historicalquotesaboutjesus/marabarserapio...

*********
Author's Background: Lucian of Samosata lived during the second century. He was a satirist who was scornful of Christians. He wrote several books: The Passing Peregrinus and Alexander the False Prophet.

Reference To Jesus Christ: The Christians. . . worship a man to this day - the distinguished personage who introduced this new cult, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains their contempt for death and self devotion . . . their lawgiver [taught] they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take on faith . . . - The Passing Peregrinus
http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/historicalquotesaboutjesus/luciansamosata...

*********
Author's Background: Phlegon was a historian who lived in the first century. There are two books credited to his name: Chronicles and the Olympiads. Little is known about Phlegon but he made reference to Christ. The first two quotes are unique to Origen and the last quote below is recorded by Origen and Philopon.

Reference To Jesus Christ: Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events . . . but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions. - Origen Against Celsus

And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place . . . ” - Origen Against Celsus

Phlegon mentioned the eclipse which took place during the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus and no other (eclipse); it is clear that he did not know from his sources about any (similar) eclipse in previous times . . . and this is shown by the historical account of Tiberius Caesar. - De. opif. mund. II21
http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/historicalquotesaboutjesus/phlegon.html

*********
Author's Background: Flavius Josephus (AD 37-97), was born into a priestly Jewish family. He was a Pharisee and a historian for the Roman empire. He wrote several famous works: Antiquities of the Jews and the Wars of the Jews. Historians say Josephus was not a Christian.

Reference To Jesus Christ: Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was a doer of surprising feats - a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day.* - Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/historicalquotesaboutjesus/flaviusjosephu...

*********
Author's Background: The Talmud ("teaching" or "study") is a multi-volume compilation containing the Mishnah (oral legal teachings) and Jewish commentary on the Mishnah (Gemara). It is the basis of Jewish religious life. The accepted version was compiled by Rabbis Akiba (died AD 135) and Meir and completed by Rabbi Judah in AD 200.

Reference To Jesus Christ: On the eve of the Passover Yeshu [Jesus] was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover. - Babylonia Sanhedrin 43A
http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/historicalquotesaboutjesus/talmud.html

*********
Notice that even the Jews, who orchestrated the death of Jesus, testify to his existence, yet you, and Adventist preacher, paid to spread the truth about Jesus, are spreading doubts about his historical existence!

Niemand,

The answer is yes, but that took place much later in history. Those who died at the Coliseum in Rome did not die at the hands of other Christians. They were killed under the rule of pagan Rome, not the papal Rome.

“Can we worship or love Him for Himself?
( I am not arguing that He doesn't do anything for us, but can we worship God outside of what He does for us- the question that Satan posed to God over Job's loyalty.)”

If I seemed sarcastic didn't me to be to you...I was playing on the "literalist" label assigned to me.

So Arlyn,
How can I love Him if He didn’t live and He wasn’t resurrected? I would be loving a “myth” not the Savior described in scripture. I love Him because He first loved me! “In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another .”1 Jn.4;10,11.

How does that go down with the Jesus Seminar geniuses?

Arlyn, and what was the source of Job’s love?

“And as for me, I know that my Redeemer lives, And at the last He will take His stand on the earth. 26 “Even after my skin is destroyed, Yet from my flesh I shall see God;27 Whom I myself shall behold, And whom my eyes shall see and not another. My heart faints within me. Job 19:25-27.

Isn’t that what we are talking about? Eternal life in our resurrected Creator Redeemer Savior?

There is no dearth of mention of Jesus by the NT writers and many in the first and second centuries. This is not in dispute.

However, there is no first-person eyewitness of Jesus that can be completely verified; all were reports about him as relayed from others, not from their own experiences. Even the Gospel writers differ in so much that they cannot be validated as all being true when so contradictory. Those who search for the "historical Jesus" do so in an effort to determine whether there were any first-person sightings or non-biblical writers who had seen or heard him. Paul, was the greatest exponent for Jesus, and yet he never saw or spoke with him. Ditto for the other NT writers. Can anyone give definitive evidence that any writer, either biblical or secular, spoke with Jesus?
If so, you have a best-seller awaiting the anxious public.

Even our much more recent personages: George Washington, and even Churchill, have myths created about them, enabling them to become larger-than-life by the constant repetition of such stories. The last verses of Mark's Gospel (16:9-20) cannot be shown to be Mark's, but were a later addition, confirming the risen Jesus. The Gospels also differ on Jesus' appearance after the Resurrection: Matthew records Jesus telling the disciples to leave for Galilee: "they will see me there;" Mark has him "showing himself under another form" to two of them, and lastly, to the Eleven while they were at table;, and after speaking to them he "was taken up into heaven." Luke has Jesus suddenly standing among them prior to ascending on the outskirts of Bethany.

The story of his virgin birth is ignored by the earliest writers, Paul and Mark,who evidently thought it of no importance. While later, it became one of first doctrines of the church. All this demonstrates that Christian belief evolved over the first centuries of the church, and is still evolving today.l

Elaine, so with your new studies [degree yet?] we introduce doubt about SALVATION and how or if it can even be attained. Real helpful, eh? I have no problem with someone studying to become more intellectual but what is it that Psalms say:

Psalm 139
1 O LORD, you have searched me
and you know me.
2 You know when I sit and when I rise;
you perceive my thoughts from afar.

3 You discern my going out and my lying down;
you are familiar with all my ways.

4 Before a word is on my tongue
you know it completely, O LORD.

5 You hem me in—behind and before;
you have laid your hand upon me.

6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me,
too lofty for me to attain.

Don't think your degree will help you with this lofty attempt at knowledge. There are some things transcendant,eh?

FYI my graduate degree is now more than two years old! Although I still am pursuing studies for both interest and credit, the latest being Cultural Perspectives--a lifelong student.

I don't recall that the writers' of Psalms had any mention of a salvation obtained by Jesus and I fail to see how the quotation from Psalms is pertinent to a belief in the Resurrection, which is a profound statement of belief in God, with nothing about either Jesus or his life. But, perhaps later readers interpret it in their own context.

Here is a fantastic debate between Greg Boyd and Robert Price on this subject:

http://blip.tv/file/638698/

Also, Greg Boyd's book, "The Jesus Legend" is an excellent book and convinces as to the historical evidence of Jesus.

Brad

As I have been reading the comments(including my own) on this site during the past couple of weeks...I have wondered what an 'outsider' might think about all of the conflicting points of view. Would they be inspired? Would they want to join in? Would they be amused? We seem to do a pretty good job of eating each other alive. And it's kinda fun, isn't it?! I frankly enjoy it...but I wonder if the 'perishing' world out there really give a rat's patootie about what we debate...

So oxy,

What is your name so that we might know you. Many of us are not fearful of saying who we are in front of others on the positions and issues we take because we feel they are important. I call it integrity and courage.

Some even care enough to let our full name be known.

When I know who you are I may respond to you in the future, for what that's worth... for you may have actually risked something.

regards,

pat

Pat,

I'm shy, paranoid, and spineless...that's why I use the pseudonym...orthodoxymoron. I have no integrity or courage. By the way...I like parties where people wear masks...and everyone tries to figure out who everyone is. I like to keep people guessing. My hat(mask) goes off to people who care enough to reveal their true identities. I don't like risks. I'm a better safe than sorry kind of person. I guess I'll have to derive your views from the responses you give to real people with real names. Actually I'm a ficticious person with a ficticious name. I'm the blogger who never was. The blogs are fake. They're holograms...

oxy,

"I have no integrity or courage."

You said it...I had only questioned it. Are you denominationally employed and fearful?

Oxy: thx for spreading lulz. Let's hear it for masquerades. Actually, I feel no need to share ident with many folks on the internet. Ja. I also assume most people don't have the energy to administer a Turing test.

there is no doubiousness about being jesus alive in this world
there is no doubiousness about being jesus risen up for his father.whom was there when jesus was born?whom was waiting for?whom was waiting for jesus when jesus was risen up?
no one was there,when jesus was born people of another country
had gone look for him,some sheperds talking about his coming.
and in the resurrection no body was there waiting for.
where was peter,james and anothers followers.tree years half
every day jesus spoke,i will die and tree days after i will
rise up again,but no body trusted him.today is the same as
has gone in the past time ;few people hoping for him.
jesus is real,he shall come again,and jesus changed the world
before jesus and after jesus,jesus is fantastic,he changed my life,i have not afraid anything,jesus gotten every one under
the same room,black man,china man,brazilian man,american man,
no matter whom are you,all of us have the same hoping under
the same room ,jesus coming again.i have not prejudice anymore
because christ has put down the wall which aparted each nation
or people.i believe it i live it,i do not need evidence,i believe all of us who believes jesus do not need evidence ,
because christ live at us.
if you believe jesus came here good, if you do not believe jesus was here.do not depend on you,jesus was yesterday, he is today and he shall be tomorrow,you believing or not .
i am the evidence because jesus lives at me.
laercio

Oxy:

You remin me of a story that took place at the Milwaukee Seventh-day Adventist Church in 1954. It was bwtween Sabbath School and Church. Three young boys were on the loose. One, the ring leader was a scaredy cat. He got the other two to stuff fall leaves, dead branches, top soil in the gas tank of one of the decons's van which he drove to church. After church the deacon got two block down the street and the car choked to stop. He had it towed to a near by garage. They discovered that the tank, the fuel line, the carborator were all solid with junk. The decon brought the issue to the church board. The board was divided--the two boys who had placed the junk should pay but the look-out should not. I prevailed. Satan shared with Eve's sin. The look out was the prime mover he should get the stiffer sentence. The final vote was all three would pay full damages including towing.

Wear all the masks you want, you are still accountable. Choose your works wisely for eternity. Spectrum can be fun, it it should not be a joke. Some bee must have stung you badly years ago, but it is time to get over it. Loma Linda is going to get a Childrren's Hospital not another health food store. Try the farmer's market down in good old L.A. They have great stuff--edible also. Tom

Tom, the rules hear allow a "mask", and rightfully so. You and I and people we know closely, went through the devastating Brinsmead 60's era. Careers were ruined, prejudices set up that effected church relationships. My dad a physician who was just looking in to what he was saying lost patients to his practice.

I have an immense amount of respect for this rule, and for you. Hang in there Oxy, just don't get on the wrong side of Daneen, Johnny, and Alex all at the same time, you'll have to forfeit that moniker. ;-}

Unless..... you're really one of them in disguise or "drag".

Dear Pat,

I apologize for misunderstanding your tone as sarcastic in your side comment to douglas. I am not ashamed of being a literalist. A true literalist takes ALL scripture very seriously and at face value- which leads to understanding some scripture beyond their concrete meaning as well.

Thanks for the reminder that Job's resurrection hope underlines his love for his God. You have just helped underscore my point with that reference- for Job, eternal life was a comfort because it revolved the God he loved.

So, everything comes back to the character of God. What makes eternal life wonderful? Who He is- righteous, self-sacrificing, infinitely gracious, eternally pure.

Eternal life with Satan is hell. (luckily, that's an oxymoron)

So, is it not right to bristle when the SS lesson seems to put the character of God as less important than our obtaining eternal life through Jesus' sacrifice? It's like saying the character of your mate (who they are) doesn't really matter, it's getting married and staying married that does. That's pretty shortsighted. and insulting to the spouse.

I meant it revolved around the God he loved.

Elaine, I would like to respond to the following comment you made:

"However, there is no first-person eyewitness of Jesus that can be completely verified; all were reports about him as relayed from others, not from their own experiences."

*********

Evidently you are rejecting the testimony of Peter, James, Matthew and John, who were personal witnesses of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. James was in fact his close relative, and close relatives tend to know family members quite well. Here is what John stated about Jesus:

"21:24-25 - Now it is this same disciple who is hereby giving his testimony to these things and has written them down. We know that his witness is reliable. Of course, there are many other things which Jesus did, and I suppose that if each one were written down in detail, there would not be room in the whole world for all the books that would have to be written."

Note also the following comments about the Gospel of John, and pay close attention to the testimony of Tacitus, a Roman historian, who made a specific reference to Christ:

"Gospel of John: John also wrote a big chunk of the New Testament, including the Gospel of John, letters, and the Book of Revelation, so that's where I went next... Again, I wasn't focusing on the "theological stuff" yet -- I just wanted to test the "historical" elements first...

Well, I soon discovered that John's accuracy is also supported by recent discoveries.

In the Gospel of John, Jesus heals a man at the Pool of Bethesda. John describes the pool as having five porticoes. 1 Until recently, this site was a point of scholarly skepticism. Then, 40 feet underground, archaeologists discovered a pool with five porticoes, and a surrounding area that perfectly matches John's description. 2 Later in the text, John describes the Pool of Siloam, 3 another site of contention for hundreds of years. Well, archaeologists discovered this pool in 1897. 4

Further in John's Gospel, John describes Pontius Pilate speaking to Jesus from the judgment seat in a place called "the Pavement" ("Gabbatha" in Hebrew). 5 For hundreds of years, scholars used this "myth" to reject John's record of Jesus and the trial by Pilate, because there was no historical record of a court called Gabbatha or "The Pavement" in Jerusalem. However, famous archaeologist William Albright revealed that this place was in fact the court of the Tower of Antonia, which was destroyed by the Romans in 66-70 AD. It was left buried when Jerusalem was rebuilt in the time of Hadrian, but it was recently uncovered during excavations there. 6

OK, that's great stuff for "site support," but what about some of these "larger-than-life" characters such as Pontius Pilate, the procurator of Rome who presided over the trial of Jesus?

Well, in 1961, archaeologists discovered a plaque fragment in Caesarea, a Roman city along the Mediterranean coast of Israel. The plaque was written in Latin and imbedded in a section of steps leading to Caesarea's Amphitheatre. The inscription includes the following: "Pontius Pilatus, Prefect of Judea has dedicated to the people of Caesarea a temple in honor of Tiberius." Emperor Tiberius reigned from 14 to 37 AD, perfectly meshing with the New Testament account that records Pontius Pilate ruling as governor from 26 to 36 AD. 7

Tacitus, a well-known first century Roman historian, also mentioned Pontius Pilate:

Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus... 8
Wait. Did I read this right? A Roman historian not only mentions a Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, but he also mentions Christus -- Christ -- and his suffering at the hands of Pilate! For me, this was huge! I was always taught that Jesus Christ and the events of the New Testament were solely contained in the Bible." [http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/gospel-of-john.htm ]

*********

You also seem to doubt the authenticity of Matthew's Gospel. Here is what the Catholic Encyclopaedia has to say about this:

"The earliest Christian communities looked upon the books of the Old Testament as Sacred Scripture, and read them at their religious assemblies. That the Gospels, which contained the words of Christ and the narrative of His life, soon enjoyed the same authority as the Old Testament, is made clear by Hegesippus (Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", IV, xxii, 3), who tells us that in every city the Christians were faithful to the teachings of the law, the prophets, and the Lord.

A book was acknowledged as canonical when the Church regarded it as Apostolic, and had it read at her assemblies. Hence, to establish the canonicity of the Gospel according to St. Matthew, we must investigate primitive Christian tradition for the use that was made of this document, and for indications proving that it was regarded as Scripture in the same manner as the Books of the Old Testament.

Testimony of Tradition. According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., 111, xxxix, 16), Papias said that Matthew collected (synetaxato; or, according to two manuscripts, synegraphato, composed) ta logia (the oracles or maxims of Jesus) in the Hebrew (Aramaic) language, and that each one translated them as best he could.

There is much more about this issue. Please, check the rest of the material included in the original source I clipped the above information from: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm .

*********

If the New Testament did not bear the apostolic seal, it would not have been considered canonical. This was the requirement for canonicity. No other historical books had ever been subjected to such strict and rigorous tests before being accepted by the community. It was on the strength of this tough requirement that historians eventually felt justified in dating everything that had taken place since then with the AD designation--Anno Dominus.

The life and teachings of Jesus Christ was so important, so pregnant with historical consequences, that it divided world history into two separate segments: Before Christ, and After Christ--BC and AD.

If you are a Christian, you should not demand more than has been provided. If you are not, then no amount of additional evidence will suffice.

Elaine, my point about the first few verses of Psalms 139 is about knowledge, which you are seeking further in your Jesuit education. Just realize that God knows all about us. Our motives for our posts, what we believe, what we don't believe, how we interpret His Word and why?

"Such knowledge is too wonderful for me,
too lofty for me to attain." Psalms 139:6

You might not even understand what your motivations are, but He does. Some of your "disturbing" posts, I have had to go to that verse to make sense of the incongrity of the comments.

Hi,
While we are busy arguing about historical evidence of Jesus, there is a world out there dying in sin!! It's time we learn to walk by faith not by sight. If you need evidence - accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour, be baptized in the Holy Spirit and go out there and share the Good News. You will be amazed by what God can do through you!! I share the Gospel and lay hands on those who are sick, and as He has promised, they are healed!! So I encourage you to get busy with the Lord's business instead of this merry-go-round arguments!!

It's time that we wake up from this spiritual sleep and start working for the Lord. He is coming soon.

Hi Arlyn,

I looked up the comment that you mentioned on p.31 of the regular SS and I didn't read the SS comment that way.

I read it to mean that as far as Christ effects us it really only matters if also He did not first die as a "substitute for us" giving the promise of eternal life if we believe and claim it. To me, it certainly wasn't pejorative against what He did, His sermons or His character. I would add that it WAS His perfect life that fulfilled covenant and all righteousness that made His substitutionary life acceptable in our behalf.

I find that refreshing for the SS quart... Something that would have only emphasized Christ example back in the 70's and 80's as a rule.

Perhaps Paul says the same in 1 Cor.15:1-4 as regards “first importance.”
“NOW I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of FIRST IMPORTANCE what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.”

Regards,

pat

PS. Mbuzeli...perhaps we should each do what we feel we are led of the Spirit to do at any given time? I think so.

Nic: Even assuming that the gospels were, in fact, written by the apostles Matthew and John, by the good doctor Luke, and by young Mark, they were still written a good long time after the events they purport to describe, and, as has been pointed out, they often seem to contradict or disagree with each other. As regarding such characters as Pilate, the Gospels to a remarkable job of white-washing his character, apparently so as not to offend the good gentiles. Certainly there must be at least elements of truth (for, even thought they are written late, it still isn't exactly centuries late), so we hope that they do get some facts straight. Again, the non-Xtians who mention Christ only show that Christ was an important character to a group of people and do nothing (or else very little) to substantiate existence, much less any details of existence.

As to the persuasive power of the evidences sited, if no amount of evidence will sway someone who does not already believe, then what does that say about the quality of the evidence? Anyone can believe what they grew up believing, but it takes a great deal more (and it should) to convince an outsider. And, maybe it ought to take more to convince the faithful. Thomas is a positive example, IMO.

I know I'm not Elaine, but just couldn't resist.

Cheers :)

Douglas

Of course masks are permited on thise blogs. But not to attack. In American, one has the opportunity to face one's accusor. Oxy has an aggressive approach and then hides.

Poor sense of fair play.

Tom

Niemand,

The only Gospel that was written towards the end of the first century was John. The others were written a few decades after Jesus death and resurrection. Matthew was written before the destruction of Jerusalen. Were his Gospel written after that event he would have made a reference to it instead of alluding to it as a future event.

Two or three decades is rather a short time, and the memory of what happened is still fresh, especially if the history has been peppered with great drama. President Kennedy was assasinated over four decades ago, yet I could tell exactly the circumstances surrounding my life when I learned of the terrible tragedy.

The discrepancy between witnesses is the natural result of the innacuracy of our perception, and it should not negate central elements like the existence of major players in a story. I may disagree with other witnesses about some minor details connected with the death of John Kennedy, but this would never negate the fact of his tragic death. We are not arguing about the number of animals Jesus rode on, but rather about the fact of his existence.

The quality of the evidence surrounding Jesus existence, passion, and death is not the problem. The problem is the persistent determination to sow doubts about the veracity of Scripture, inspired by the one who is deceiving even the elect. For those resisting the influence of the Holy Spirit, there is no amount of evidence that will do the trick.

Consider how the enemies of Jesus reacted to the evidence he provided for his identity as their Mesiah. When he fed the five thousand, they said: Thas is no big deal. Moses fed the Israelites for forty years with manna, while you provided merely one meal. When he raised the daughter of Jairus, Jesus enemies argued: He himself did say that the girl was sleeping. Waking someone who is asleep is no big deal. Anybody can do that!

When he raised Lazarus, the evidence was undeniable, so did Jesus enemies believe in him? No way! They now declared that he was able to perform this kind of miracles through the power of Beelzebub. They were determined to deny the most powerful evidence rather than admit that he was the Son of God. They finally concluded that killing him was the only way out of the dilemma.

As you can see. The problem is not with the quality of the evidence, but rather the unwillingness to admit that one has been wrong all along. Under those circumstances, there is no power on earth capable of forcing someone to change his mind. Only the Holy Spirit can produce a change of attitude under those circumstances, but the Spirit of God is a gentleman and will never force the will. Such is the mystery of redemption and the mystery of iniquity!

Contradictions amidst the different gospel accounts are largely of the type that show Jesus healing ten lepers as opposed to one. Or the different order of Jesus' desert temptations in Matthew vs. Luke. The point is, Jesus healed and Jesus was tempted. Variations amongst accounts is simply part and parcel of differences in human perspective, not of conspiracy or blatant falsehood.

The comparison of eyewitness testimony of a crime scene often reveals differences of recollection and detail. This does not necessarily negate the veracity of the testimony. In fact, if witnesses come into court trumpeting the exact same detail of account, it often raises the spectre of collusion.

The gospel accounts are like people taking pictures from varying angles. The subject and surroundings may look somewhat different in each photo, but it is still the same subject. Each writer (three of the four being eye-witnesses,)though apparently writing out of the same oral material (with the exception of John), had differing practical theological and pastoral concerns, wrote to different audiences, and thus shaped their accounts accordingly.

Thus, the gospels are not simply a biography or history of Jesus as we understand such in the contemporary sense. But this simply does not negate that they are grounded in actual history. Nic presented plenty of textual and archaelogical evidence above to support as much. Additionally, to deny any historicity of Jesus, is to totally discount the NT itself as a valid historical document...a document with more textual attestation than any other document of antiquity, by a long shot!

Niemand stated, "Any one can grow up believing what they believed." This is true. However, I didn't grow up believing this. I looked at all of this through the eyes of a skeptic. It was all myth. But the combination of the Holy Spirit working upon me, especially in my hour of need, and the weight of the evidence over time, was enough to convince this "outsider" that Jesus was the God and Savior that I needed, and to believe that his Word is true.

In the end, this is the x factor...the response of faith to the conviction of God's Spirit. And the question he poses that all of us must answer is, "What shall we do with this Man?"

Thanks...

Frank

Comments about me: Wear all the masks you want, you are still accountable. Choose your works wisely for eternity. Spectrum can be fun, it it should not be a joke. Some bee must have stung you badly years ago, but it is time to get over it. Loma Linda is going to get a Childrren's Hospital not another health food store. Try the farmer's market down in good old L.A. They have great stuff--edible also. Tom

Response: Get over it? I'm just getting warmed-up! My father worked next to the Farmer's Market, at CBS. He used to speak with George Vandeman when he taped It Is Written at CBS. George liked the stage to be kept quite cold. Every Friday my father would bring me cashews from the Farmer's Market.

Regarding accountability: Have I written anything which lacks responsibility or accountability? Have I been mean to anyone? You seem to not like me. You are telling me to change. You are not simply disagreeing with me. You seem to be making it personal.

Should I follow your example and say things such as:

The Loma Linda expansion may become the greatest fiscal mistake the Church has made since they made Neal Wislon President of the General Conference.

Mr Straight Contradiction: Soory you are in a mid life crisis. I hope you handle it manly. But I do detect a hint of hot flashes also--check you library on preventive care--help must be on the way. Tom

Oxy,

To say that you enjoy "eating each other alive" as you did above, doesn't actually come across as too endearing.

Frank

Frank,

I am one depraved human being who enjoys heated debate, which to some, may appear to be 'eating each other alive'. This is only one of my many non-endearing traits. The upside is that other people tend to feel better about themselves after coming in contact with me.

Oxy,

I do appreciate your self deprecation!:)

Thanks...

Frank

Oxy

I went to School with Vandemann so I can drop names with the best of them. Can't understnad why you can't drop yours. You are so other wise so ego centric.

But this is my last response to your brand of enlightenment.
Its not worth the effort. Tom

Where is Daneen when we need a cautioning statement, unless Oxy is just a provocateur supported by the Editorial staff?;-{

Why such a sudden backlash against pseudonyms? Maybe I'm just young but among my friends a consistently used internet alias is pretty much universal, usually something unique that can be used anywhere from livejournal to discussion boards to forums. We can be as protective of the 'reputation' of our online name as our non-internet name.

Why is this suddenly termed "cowardice"? For at least my generation... we were given many directives to be "safe" on the internet, to not give out our real name, address, age, financial information, etc. unless one can vouch for the identity and security of a given site and the uses to which your data may be put. That is nothing more than pure common sense. Maybe you older generations should also live by the advice you gave us, or at least not demonize those who do?

Douglas, FYI, my Jesuit education was completed more than 20 years ago. My private Bible reading and many other biblical scholars have influenced me. If one does not read, then he is his only mentor and teacher; a not too highly recommended education.

John 21:24-25 contains a note: "Added either by the evangelist or by a disciple of his."

Some folk, when given new evidence, consider their previous opinions; others when presented with new facts, continue to cling to their original concepts. Such is life. Closed minds cannot be open to any new information that does not agree with the previously held beliefs.

Jemand... I feel no need to use an alias on the internet. I really don't see our point or the need.

some one has tested jesus teachings?
some one has put into practice the gospel of jesus?
because if you do not put into pratice the gospel of
jesus you shall not know him.did you study about some
attitude of jesus?why did jesus send the blind man to wash
his eyes in the pool of siloam?jesus did that man
walking almost 10 kilometers until to reach that pool.
by any chance jesus liked to see people sufferings?
why did jesus do that?to test his faith,or maybe to do it
suffer?many pools close there and jesus sent him far away,jesus was not a god person,should it be jesus a crazy man?this story is at john chapter nine,why did jesus do that
man walking too long time thru the city until to reach his
healing?some one did think about this happening?jesus spat
on the ground ,and made clay of the spittle,and he anointed
the eyes of the blind man with the clay,ten kilometers with
that spit on his eyes,jesus was not a good boy,someone would be able to tell why did jesus do that?
laercio

I would like to ask why it seems that the ultra-conservative posters are the ones most ready to attack and denigrate others?

laercio,

I do not know the answer to your question, but it did remind me of many other similiar miracles that involved effort...

a. Cripple by the pool of Bethesaida- why did Jesus tell him to pick up his bed and set him up to "break the Sabbath" right after he was healed?
b. Naaman- why did he have to wash seven times?
c. Elijah- why did he have to ask for rain seven times?
d. Elisha- why did he have to lie upon the dead son of the Shunan lady three times to resurrect him?
e. Since Jesus was able to heal from a distance- the centurian's slave and the nobleman's son- why didn't He do that more widely and save time and effort since He had such a short ministry of three years and seemed very cognizant of it's brevity.

Pat,

It just goes to show how one passage can be read differently by different people. I react against those who pretend to love God when ultimately they only care for their own skins. You react against those who use Jesus as an example but neglect the saving power of what Jesus did for and in us. You use a lot of scriptural quotes, some hit the mark, others miss. I appeal to logic, which is limited in encapsulating spiritual realities. But I do thank you for sharing what you see and explaining your perspective on it.

To general,

What is your definition of hypocrite? The SS lesson fills up two days on this.

Where is the difference between- trying and falling short of one's ideals (which we all do)and hypocrites that deserve censure in love?

Carrol,
surely you must have forgotten how this website loves to castigate Cliff! Wolves come in all sorts of clothing- and those who claim to be the most inclusive are the most adamant and self-righteous about controlling the agenda while calling others horrible names and questioning their christianity. The prophets did have a clear calling, but not all who like to think they are prophetically gifted have it from God.

I disagree with this statement :

"I would like to ask why it seems that the ultra-conservative posters are the ones most ready to attack and denigrate others?"

Since Daneen has cautioned me about attacking individuals, I have left off the author, [look for yourself] ;-}.

I have participated with one of the posters in this thread in other forums, who is one of the ones who is the most liberal yet most intractable about his/her opinions and what he/she is learning/learnt.

Daneen, now, I probably confused everyone, because I didn't personally identify individuals, is that what you want, no one "attacked".

Personally, I feel if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. Defend your position and let the other accept or not. Strong feels will be expressed, look at some of Chuck's,or David's, Chairman of the Board of Spectrum and Religion teacher at Loma Linda respectively, where are the cautionary statements????

It wasn't too long ago that Alex ran off a poster claiming sources quoted were antisemitic, yet he uses Crossan and no one challenges his "fouled source" except Oxy, and others using Pseudonyms, who we don't know who they are and are protected except from the editorial staff. [Tom Zwemer may be an exception, he seems to be pretty consistent with his position.]

By the way, I haven't revealed this, but my physician father who lost patients due to his investigating Brinsmead's teachings in the 60's, apparently committed suicide in the early 60's related to the treatment of Brinsmeadites, when I was only 12, so back off on the pseudos, y'all. I sure feel more comfortable. Thanks Editorial Staff for giving this tiny bit of cover.

Elaine said:

"FYI my graduate degree is now more than two years old!"

I assumed the Jesuit education was 2 years old not 20. You see I do read your posts, [most] so be careful.

Daneen, whether you believe it or not, I respect you alot. I just don't feel you apply your cautionary statements consistently, and don't tell me that is an attack, because it wasn't meant that way. I have just observed posts over a period of time only to see you jump on me, more than other posters that deserve it to keep this civil.

Regards, Daneen, in your important role,

Douglas

Douglas: I really don't understand why it is important to use a real name. What does putting down a reasonably sounding name do to bolster ones credibility? If I used my name, it wouldn't matter, because hardly anyone on spectrum knows me at all. Even a real sounding name can be a pseudonym. I think jemand's post is quite relevant here. One can develop a reputation under a pseudonym just as easily as under a "real" name. Take Mark Twain, or George Eliot, Isak Dinesen, or Jesus Christ, whose name was never Jesus, nor would it have been anything like had he been an English speaker, etc. What's in a name? Like Christ, the importance is in the substance, not the title. What a person writes is more important to me than their pen name.

Happy Tuesday

Daneen, is Oxy one of your staff, is that why you don't rein hime in?:

"Mr Straight Contradiction: Soory you are in a mid life crisis. I hope you handle it manly. But I do detect a hint of hot flashes also--check you library on preventive care--help must be on the way. Tom

Posted by: orthodoxymoron | 24 July 2008 at 8:04 "

I respect your role, exercise it. ;-0

Regards,

Bob

Jemand, you misunderstand me, I'm for the "masks" for those wishing to use them. I agree that a reputation, like Oxy is getting, can be gotten with a pseudo, IF the Editorial Staff is vigilant, they can make sure things are consistent and cautionary statements are consistent.

Oops!! sorry Jemand, I meant that for Niemand!! Your names are so close, sorry. I really am supportive of pseudos, even with that error.

Story, I recently talked to someone I respect a lot who has a relative who was very active in examining Brinsmead, maybe even supporting his position, but he is harrassed now to the point he has to have an unlisted phone number. How sad!!! I agree it is what you say that is important, let Daneen look at the E-mail addresses to make sure the Pseudos are consistent and they are "playing" fair.

Arlyn,

Sorry you feel the way you do about me. You see, I firmly believe the basic principles of the Protestant Reformers and I had the wonderful opportunity to formally study their thoughts for three years in seminary. They well understand that of first importance was our need to understand what Christ has done for us by His atoning sacrifice.

They also well understand that when that is comprehended by sinners... the importance of what Christ also does in us by his Spirit.

Until the former is understood and appreciated the latter is not really possible because it springs from the wrong motivation.

Regards,

pat

Elaine,

You stated the following: "John 21:24-25 contains a note: "Added either by the evangelist or by a disciple of his."

The note in my Bible affirms that John 21:24 was either written by John himself or else by an assitant of his, and there is a reference to John 19:22, where we find the affirmation that Pilate wrote the inscription on the cross.

Well, do you think that Pilate did the writing himself? He most likely gave the order, and someone under his command did the actual writing. John's Gospel was written when this apostle was rather old. I wouln't be surprised if the entire Gospel might have been written by an assistant of his. He probably merely dictated the content to his secretary. We have evidence that Paul used an assistance for some of his writings as well.

Many years ago, when I arrived at my mission appointment in South America, I was assigned an assistant who did the typing for me, and I was not old then like either John or Paul. Many professionals today rely on the services of an assistant who do the clerical work for them. This should not diminish the credibility of the content of this religious document.

A special thanks to Brad Cole for the link to the debate between Price and Boyd. You all must view it!!! Elaine, if you haven't, please, I have great respect for you, even though we spar at times, but I am concerned the direction your education has taken you, and the direction of some of your posts. I would encourage you to have a mutual acquaintance, Neal W. , view it also.

Regards, Elaine,

Douglas

Here is the link again, I was so moved by the debate:

http://blip.tv/file/638698/

Pat,

Now, I understand why you love the reformer's stance so. I also have three years in the seminary even though those guys were not the focus of my studies. In person, with more time, I have little doubt that we would enjoy long conversations with each other- so I am looking forward for this acquaintance made on Spectrum to continue into eternity with increasing spirit and respect. Your love for God and scripture and your zeal- is admirable and genuine. We just have complementary views of Him. And that's good.

regards,
arlyn

With interest I have read the many and varied comments that were caused by my few words on the July 26 Sabbath School lesson.
In regard to the reactions to my first statement where I questioned that there were no "overwhelming clear” historical evidences proving that Jesus lived on earth, let me briefly state. In my (too) many years of ministry both in public lectures and classrooms on various continents, I have never attempted to prove that Jesus lived on earth. I took that for granted. And interestingly, no-one in my audiences ever requested that proof. They also took that for granted.
Most of the comments were not directly related to my words. Still, they gave me some insights into people's reactions. The journeys on both 'high-ways and by-ways' resulting from the commentary vouch for interesting dialogues in some Sabbath School classes tomorrow. In all discussions let the focus be on Christ as a reality that can bring people peace by the belief that sins are forgiven.

Having just viewed and listened to the debate between Boyd and Price, I felt that they both did their best to prove their points.

However, Boyd, the Christian apologist, tried using the "James ossuary" as evidence for a man named Jesus; a box that has been shown to be a forgery and the perpetrator is well known in Jewish antiquities circles.

Also, while Boyd demonstrated that there was someone named Jesus, and that a lot of tradition, beginning with the earliest writer, Paul, had already begun to form, but he gave no substantiation of any of Jesus' purported miracles. He also stated that the Jews of that time did not accept paganism; however, there is no mention of Christian Jews following the destruction of the Temple and from that date onward, it is only the Gentile Christians that are written about. The Gentile Christians were much more receptive to Hellenization.

Boyd also implied that the Jews were some how immune to trumped up miracles; forgetting or not mentioning that their Scriptures are replete with miraculous events from its inception, and so should have been very accepting of the miracles written about Jesus. In fact, several of the Gospel writers referred back to their earlier history to authenticate Jesus as fulfilling their earlier prophecies. And yet, I didn't hear Boyd ever mention the miracles but his emphasis was on Jesus as an historical figure.

He also cited other contemporary and earlier historians as proof the the truth of the Gospels, and yet most of them, beginning with Herodotus have been villified for the hyperbole and are viewed more as "glorified history" rather than accurate. History, at that time, is not judged the same as our history today is judged, and was written not as accurate historically but more to promote a particular view, and when the stories are given to shore up a religious belief and tradition, that is what the writers use.

The Jews accepted, unquestioningly, all the miraculous events found in their writings: Moses, Elijah and Elisha, Jonah, and many more, so why would they have not helped to create the same tradition with Jesus? However, it was the majority of Jews who rejected him while only a handful accepted him. Palestine had the smallest number of Jews in the early first century, the largest number had been scattered in the diaspora and were Greek-speaking--which is why the Septuagint was written in Greek to accomodate them.

i am waiting some one answer why jesus has sent that blind man
to wash him self at the pool of siloam,because noone has doubt
about jesus come to this world.this lesson was to talk about
jesus,looking you talking about jesus i have remembered when
jesus had done this question,whom do you think am i,anothers
say what about me.whom is jesus to you,i think if jesus are
come here again,whom should kill him,maybe you arlyn would do that.whom would kill jesus in our time,whom are the pharisees and the scribes in our time,jesus ate with publicans and sinners,whom are the publicans today,whom are the harlots today,would somebody have courage to define or to take a stance about every question,should you arlyn,or maybe you elaine,perhaps you borge,or who knows you tom,whom would have this courage to define,hoping for reply
laercio
or maybe you nic my friend

I have been a little disappointed with the calls for moderator intevention... and saddened too. One thing I admire here is the openness of bloggers - freedom of speech should always be valued!
In Aus we are not awed by the "dropping" of names - and we probably rarely recognise the named, anyway.
Rarely in blogs do I use my own name - like 'Oxy' I am wary of the potential for abuse. (and surely I can asume that any (not verified) name - including my own - is a pseudonym...)
I do appreciate the ideas and concerns expressed in these pages, and I hope others like me will continue to benefit from the broadchurch we belong to. And now, children, a last word: "Lets not be caught up in defining who we are, when it is all about who Jesus is"

Laercio: In response. Sorry for the length of the quote, but I love this one. Happy Tuesday.

"Where has God gone?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God's decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us - for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto. . . It has been further related that on that same day the madman entered divers churches and there sang a requiem. Led out and quietened, he is said to have retorted each time: 'what are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchres of God?'"
Nietzsche, The Gay Science

Warren, all "un-verified" means here is that you didn't go through the registration process with a password. Your moniker is unprotected unless you register and change that password at least once. I know it just happened to me. Notice I am now fully verified [doesn't that have a sort of theological ring to it]???

Douglas

As a long time registrant here, I don't know why I'm not "verified."

On this subject: William James explains how some of us view abstract concepts:

"...in the metaphysical and religious sphere articulate reasons are cogent for us only when our inarticulate feelings of reality have already been impressed in favor of the same conclusion." As Philip Yancey comments on this, he says: "In other words, we rarely accept a logical argument unless it fits an intuitive sense of reality."

Which seems to address the fact that different people, when confronted with the same idea, they will either respond or not depending on our own personality.

"Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it?"

Gee...sounds a bit like an offer I've read about elsewhere. From what I can gather, it's acceptance hasn't been working out too well.

With that said...I sometimes feel that discussions like this morph into intellectual jousting, when at the root of all this, we are confronting life and death spiritual reality.

Paul stated to the Corinthian church, "No one can say Jesus is Lord, except by the Holy Spirit." He also said, "For if someone comes to you and preaches another Jesus than the one we preached, or if you recieve a different spirit than the one you recieved, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough."

IOW, there are different spirits behind the preaching and reception of different messages about Jesus. This dynamic goes beyond our personality traits, our intellectual cultivation, or our educational achievements. We are all in touch with spiritual realities that can lead to our eternal salvation or our destruction. Paul was implying as much here, and elsewhere states so explicitly.

This is why he was so passionate about the preaching of the gospel of Christ, and so strident in his defense of it and against those he called "false apostles," "deceitful workers," and those who "masqueraded as apostles of Christ." It is why he called for anyone who preached a different gospel to be "cursed," or, in dramatic hyperbole, for those who kept preaching circumcision in his churches to "go the whole way and emasculate themselves." He responded so strongly because he knew what was at stake.

Today, with the supreme value we place upon openess and inclusiveness, we would probably call him judgemental.

Thanks...

Frank

Laercio,

You have raised quite a few probing and penetrating questions. I will try to suggest some possible answers. It seems to me that Jesus had a special recipe for each individual who sought his help. To the paralitic, he said: "Your sins are forgiven." To the adulteress woman he said: "Neither do I condemn thee. Go and sin no more." To Nicodemus he said: "You must be born again." To the rich ruler he said: "Go, sell your possessions and give it to the poor, and follow me." And to the blind man he asked him to go and wash in the pool of Siloam.

Jesus was the master physician and an accomplished psychiatrist. He could determine the exact diagnosis for each case, and the remedy was specifically prescribed for the particular needs of each individual seeking help from him. I can't recall him ever prescribing the same remedy for more than one individual.

Did Jesus ask anybody else to wash in the pool of Siloan? Did Jesus ask enybody else besides the rich ruler to sell all his possessions? For me this means that I can trust Jesus to have the perfect diagnosis for my spiritual and physical needs, and he never makes a mistake.

Now, regarding your other question: Who are the pharisees today? My answer would be: Look at what the pharisees did. They pretended to care for religion and God. Yet they used their power to kill the most innocent being in the universe. I conclude that the pharisees of today would also pretend to be very particular about religion and God, yet they would use their influence in support of the destruction of the innocent.

Can you think of any group of human beings being targeted for destruction today? In Germany, Hitler persecuted and killed six million innocent Jews. In Russia, Stalin exterminated 20 million of his own countrymen. In Uganda, Idi Amin killed thousands of his own race. In Afghanistan, Bin Laden orchestrated the killing of 3,000 innocent U.S. civilians. And in the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court legalized the killing of 50 million innocent babies before they had a chance to see the light of day.

Jesus said: "Inasmuch as you have done this to the little ones, you have done it unto me." Who are the pharisees today? Those who care about religion, but at the same time justify the killing of the innocent. The Catholic church condemns abortion, but many Catholics think that the killing of the unborn is no big deal. The same can be said about many protestants.

These people go to church, they preach about the love of God, but they look the other way while our future generation is being decimated inside the abortion clinics. I wish I could exempt the Adventist Church from this sin, but I would be lying. Our SDA pioneers, including Ellen and James White condemned abortion in the strongest terms, and called it "murder" and a violation of the Sixth Commandment.

This is no longer true. We justify the killing of the unborn under many circumstances like rape, incest, malformation, when the pregnant female is a minor, and even when the pregnancy is affecting the mental health of the woman. Our official "Guidelines on Abortion" claim in fine print that Jesus died to restore our "freedom of choice."

If this is true, then perhaps Jesus also died to grant us freedom to steal, rape, and abuse little children. We call the killing of the unborn: "pregnancy interruption," and "therapeutic abortion." If abortion is a therapy, then perhaps we should prescribe such therapy for those who defend the killing of the innocent. Abortion has never been a therapy for the baby, and neither for the mother.

It loads the woman with a weight of guilt that only God's mercy can remove. But, how can a SDA girl or woman seek forgiveness, if our church says that abortion is morally acceptable? Our siding with the purveyors of abortion, leads women away from the one who can grant forgiveness. If a woman feels she has done nothing wrong, how can she seek forgiveness for killing her own child?

Did I answer your question?

Why such a sudden backlash against pseudonyms? Maybe I'm just young but among my friends a consistently used internet alias is pretty much universal, usually something unique that can be used anywhere from livejournal to discussion boards to forums. We can be as protective of the 'reputation' of our online name as our non-internet name.

Why is this suddenly termed "cowardice"? For at least my generation... we were given many directives to be "safe" on the internet, to not give out our real name, address, age, financial information, etc. unless one can vouch for the identity and security of a given site and the uses to which your data may be put. That is nothing more than pure common sense. Maybe you older generations should also live by the advice you gave us, or at least not demonize those who do?
Posted by: jemand (not verified) | 24 July 2008 at 10:13
--------------------------------------------------------

Correct. It is generational.

If you spend much time on other forums that are youth-dominated (cars, teens, sports etc.); you will find so most readily.
Most people are represented--and most immediately recognized--by an "avatar", and it can be years until you know someone's real name; or even what they look like in person.
I belong to a sailing and an automotive forum, and I can tell you that by far, the older members of the forum are more likely to use their real names online than are the younger ones.

Also, many people seem baffled by Elaine. The biggest hurdle would be your assumptions about her. I used to be stumped until I realized one day that she never claimed to be Adventist.
I said as much, and she replied--to my memory--to the effect of: "Exactly."

I further understand from later revelations that she is not a Christian, but rather considers herself to be an agnostic (who finds herself in an SDA church every Sabbath; provided that she is not off to Europe, cruising in the Greek Isles).

Frank,

You say, "Today, with the supreme value we place upon openess and inclusiveness, we would probably call him (Paul) judgemental."

I hear you!

He would likely be considered a "raving exclusive Christian fundamentalist" by secular powers and pluralistic/inclusive religionist...I suggest. Christ and the cross the "only way"...an outrage, scandal and ridiculous!

He certainly wasn't martyred in Rome for his "inclusivity/pluralistic efforts for a shared world religious spirituality!"

Likewise...Mt.24:4-14.

regards,

pat

PS. Oxy, This is still true 2000 yrs.later also.

Anoonymous, unlike you, I am happy to give my name and other information which you post above.
There can be a reason for those who are denominationally employed, but we older folks say: "What you see is what you get," and do not hide behind pseudonyms. Because most young people do so, does not justify others who do. If you are denominationally employed, or fear being recognized, unless, of course, they are posting to questionable blogs.

Elaine on this issue as I mentioned to "oxy" I am in agreement. Those that reveal their real name have "skin" in the game.

Your attitude towards others,accuracy, sincerity, courage and integrity are on the line for all to see...at least on "reputable" blogs.

"oxy" was complaining that we "ate each other up" and in ways belittled the conversations importance. That's what it means when your real name is not posted. It does not mean that to me. I say what I believe and that is a part of my character.

regards,

pat

hi nic
thank you for your answer,i remaining thinking about many
things here in my coutry brazil,then i look many people
wanting to reach healing immediately,worse many people inside
our churchs doing this.they use many drugs what too many people calling medicine to heal the sickness,looking for
jesus taking that attitude to that blind man i did think;
many cristians depend more on medicine than god's advice.
jesus has taught through healing that blind man and sending him 10 kilometers to pool of siloam who,too many christians are looking for healing in wrongs places.do not you agree my friend nic?close that blind man there were many pools,but christ sent him toward to the pool of siloam,here in brazil
there is a medicine named rivotril,i was reading the printed
directions for taking medicine and i stood astonished because
this medicine healing more sickness than jesus christ.
if there was this medicine in jesus age people would choose
this medicine.people sleep very late in the night,people
working too much ,pe