The K M Links Game - April 2024 Week 4
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Am I a Christian?
71 Answers
Following the Women in Church thread, it occurred to me that, although I'm not a Christian, and I don't believe that Jesus was anything other than a man, I've been fighting in his corner far more than the Christians here ever do. The Women in Church thread dealt mainly with the teachings of St Paul, to which all Christians appear to adhere, but one thing that Jesus warned against was false prophets - and I believe St Paul was the first of thousands - and not only the first, but clearly the most influential. Jesus message was simple - 'love one another - and therefore my question is would he really have wanted the opulence of St Peter's in Rome, and other churches - or the pope and the priests setting themselves above the rest of mankind and parading in their wonderful garb? Would he really have wanted the ceremony and dogma? Wasn't Jesus' message simple, and is Christianity, as we know it, really what he intended? Personally, I think not. In fact, as a devout Jew, I think Jesus would have been appalled by what has grown up in his name.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The religious leaders that profess their allegiance to God, Jesus and the faith seem to be the biggest perpetrators of lies, disinformation and greed to reap the benefits.
Naomi; You are whatever you want to be but in terms of your own beliefs regarding Jesus and the true meaning of his teachings then his life as a man/philosopher with a message of love is closer I think than the fairy tale everyone has been given.
Naomi; You are whatever you want to be but in terms of your own beliefs regarding Jesus and the true meaning of his teachings then his life as a man/philosopher with a message of love is closer I think than the fairy tale everyone has been given.
I think your first sentence says a lot - you believe Jesus existed, but was no more than a good man. The absolute sine qua non of undiluted Christianity is surely the resurrection ?
As Paul wrote
'If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.' (I Cor 15: 13-14, NIV)
I have wondered about this and studied around it for years, and conclude that the resurrection is a fact. It hasn't made any lights or whizzbangs go off inside me, but the evidence is compelling. Was Luke a reliable historian - there is no reason to doubt it is there ? How do you explain the behaviour of the disciples and other martyrs a few days after the crucifixion ? Men will not die for a dead body, nor for a known fabrication. They caused a lot of trouble in Jerusalem, so why didn't the authorities just go to the tomb, open it up and debunk them. If Jesus didn't die but ' swooned ' and was revived, it still doesn't make sense. Just a few days earlier he had been well flogged by the Romans and crucified so would hardly have been a pretty sight and again certainly not enough to inspire men to go out and die in his name.
Google 'evidence for the resurrection' or similar and read around. If it is bunkum then Luke and others made it all up, but why should they ? And if you refute the resurrection then surely shouldn't you refute all the rest of it ?
As Paul wrote
'If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.' (I Cor 15: 13-14, NIV)
I have wondered about this and studied around it for years, and conclude that the resurrection is a fact. It hasn't made any lights or whizzbangs go off inside me, but the evidence is compelling. Was Luke a reliable historian - there is no reason to doubt it is there ? How do you explain the behaviour of the disciples and other martyrs a few days after the crucifixion ? Men will not die for a dead body, nor for a known fabrication. They caused a lot of trouble in Jerusalem, so why didn't the authorities just go to the tomb, open it up and debunk them. If Jesus didn't die but ' swooned ' and was revived, it still doesn't make sense. Just a few days earlier he had been well flogged by the Romans and crucified so would hardly have been a pretty sight and again certainly not enough to inspire men to go out and die in his name.
Google 'evidence for the resurrection' or similar and read around. If it is bunkum then Luke and others made it all up, but why should they ? And if you refute the resurrection then surely shouldn't you refute all the rest of it ?
Jesus was a peasant and believed that the temple was a place to pray and converse with God. What he disliked was the propensity for the traders of the time to use such places as a noisy livestock market and for Greek/Roman money exchange. Although both were for the purpose of animal sacrifice and financial donations to the temples and priests, to him this was sacrilegious to the sanctity of the temple. In one instance he gets a whip, drives out the livestock and overturns the money tables scattering the coins. One might say he had a little tantrum. But was he right?
As regards the modern day church built up in his name - who is to say what he would think? Undoubtedly he might not be too pleased at seeing lots of crucifixes everywhere as a reminder! But equally he may be very perturbed at seeing the possessions, wealth and opulence of the Vatican and many churches all over the world. For him, and for many of us, spirituality was a simple affair that has no financial requirement only a private commitment with God. But institutions such as the Church et al, need money to survive as praying alone to God doesn�t provide enough funds to run the churches and keep the Pope-mobile running.
Whilst Jesus would have probably baulked at the sheer scale of what his �movement� has become, I should think he would likewise be relieved that conversing with God, wherever it may be, is still encouraged in some quarters.
Whether you are Christian or not is really for you to alone to consider.
As regards the modern day church built up in his name - who is to say what he would think? Undoubtedly he might not be too pleased at seeing lots of crucifixes everywhere as a reminder! But equally he may be very perturbed at seeing the possessions, wealth and opulence of the Vatican and many churches all over the world. For him, and for many of us, spirituality was a simple affair that has no financial requirement only a private commitment with God. But institutions such as the Church et al, need money to survive as praying alone to God doesn�t provide enough funds to run the churches and keep the Pope-mobile running.
Whilst Jesus would have probably baulked at the sheer scale of what his �movement� has become, I should think he would likewise be relieved that conversing with God, wherever it may be, is still encouraged in some quarters.
Whether you are Christian or not is really for you to alone to consider.
Whiffey, what is this "evidence" that is "compelling"? And how do you know that "Luke" was a historian?
We don't know who wrote any of the gospels, which were given their present names arbitrarily, late in the 2nd century. So we don't know whether they were truth-tellers or liars, historians or fantasists.
And there is nothing that we would normally call evidence, just four stories, that of "Luke" and "Matthew" largely copied from the earlier "Mark".
Written many years after the alleged events by people who weren't there, and with no eye-witness accounts to work from, the last thing we have is evidence!
Believing the Jesus story is purely a matter of faith. It has no more historical status than that of Cinderella.
We don't know who wrote any of the gospels, which were given their present names arbitrarily, late in the 2nd century. So we don't know whether they were truth-tellers or liars, historians or fantasists.
And there is nothing that we would normally call evidence, just four stories, that of "Luke" and "Matthew" largely copied from the earlier "Mark".
Written many years after the alleged events by people who weren't there, and with no eye-witness accounts to work from, the last thing we have is evidence!
Believing the Jesus story is purely a matter of faith. It has no more historical status than that of Cinderella.
I often wondered about the resurrection.
then one day I saw on old palestinian man on television, his son had recently been killed but he was absolutely convinced that he was alive and had come back to him.
It pressed home to me how powerful sef-deception can be and that we look back at the first century AD and imagine the characters then to have been imbued with the sort of ideas and values that we have.
Like the idea of being a "good historian" - few people at that time would have had the first idea of what that would mean. The historians of the day would mix hearsay with uncorroborated sources with facts and think nothing of it.
To call Luke a "good historian" when most modern scholars would question his very authorship is frankly absurd.
then one day I saw on old palestinian man on television, his son had recently been killed but he was absolutely convinced that he was alive and had come back to him.
It pressed home to me how powerful sef-deception can be and that we look back at the first century AD and imagine the characters then to have been imbued with the sort of ideas and values that we have.
Like the idea of being a "good historian" - few people at that time would have had the first idea of what that would mean. The historians of the day would mix hearsay with uncorroborated sources with facts and think nothing of it.
To call Luke a "good historian" when most modern scholars would question his very authorship is frankly absurd.
chakka, jake,
This is something we are never going to even approach agreement on. ' Modern scholars ' (why then are they automatically so good for being modern ?) think it's absurd etc etc.
Well, I don't, and I am ever amused by the intellectual outrage I generate by believing such twaddle.
I take it you accept that Julius Caesar wrote the Gallic Wars, for which incidentally there is far less documentary evidence. No, the real reason you get fluffled up is because of the content which is rather challenging.
When I read ancient documents, I take it prima facie that they are truthful, until someone ' proves ' that they are not, and that has not yet happened.
This is something we are never going to even approach agreement on. ' Modern scholars ' (why then are they automatically so good for being modern ?) think it's absurd etc etc.
Well, I don't, and I am ever amused by the intellectual outrage I generate by believing such twaddle.
I take it you accept that Julius Caesar wrote the Gallic Wars, for which incidentally there is far less documentary evidence. No, the real reason you get fluffled up is because of the content which is rather challenging.
When I read ancient documents, I take it prima facie that they are truthful, until someone ' proves ' that they are not, and that has not yet happened.
Gosh you two! You are not DJs are you! Even Father Ted managed to change the record in one episode. In your usual, ritualistic diatribe of the Christian faith and further asserting your libido for fairies and other such things, you seem to have managed to continue with your hackneyed tirade and not answered the question. Is Naomi a Christian?
Whiffey, you immediately quote St Paul, which confirms the point I am making in that rather than place their faith in the message of Jesus, Christians follow St Paul, who never met Jesus, never heard him speak, and moreover, we have only his own word for it that this miraculous revelation actually occurred. Consider. If someone stood on a soapbox today proclaiming he'd received a similar divine revelation, and wrote letters to heads of governments and to newspapers, telling them the same, we'd be convinced that he was a lunatic and a few sentences short of a sermon, wouldn't we? However, Christians willingly hang on to every word of someone who did precisely that 2000 years ago. By building enormous churches, by adding to their wealth, by venerating other men, and by expounding a creed that is far removed from the message that I believe Jesus wanted to convey, Christians, it seems, not only completely undermine him, they do him an enormous injustice. Jesus was a devout Jew, and I'm convinced, he had every intention of remaining a devout Jew, and none whatsoever of founding a new religion. That was St Paul's idea.
I don't understand why you say that if I refute the resurrection, surely I refute the rest of it? Why should I? Like anything we read, we have to decide what we can believe and what we can't - anyone on AB who bangs on about Daily Mail readers will tell you that. I believe there's a degree of history in most ancient texts, and therefore I do think it likely that Jesus existed - but, as I said, I believe he was a man - and men don't come back from the dead despite what their superstitious followers may be taught to believe.
I don't need to google 'evidence for the resurrection' - I too have studied the subject for years - at least since I gave up Christianity and began to separate the wheat from the chaff.
I don't understand why you say that if I refute the resurrection, surely I refute the rest of it? Why should I? Like anything we read, we have to decide what we can believe and what we can't - anyone on AB who bangs on about Daily Mail readers will tell you that. I believe there's a degree of history in most ancient texts, and therefore I do think it likely that Jesus existed - but, as I said, I believe he was a man - and men don't come back from the dead despite what their superstitious followers may be taught to believe.
I don't need to google 'evidence for the resurrection' - I too have studied the subject for years - at least since I gave up Christianity and began to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Octavius I'm not sure you realise it, but you've confirmed my point about churches precisely - which makes me wonder why you go along with it? My question "Am I a Christian", was an irony. I am not a Christian - I don't believe Christianity should even exist - but I would say I'm more 'Christian' than Christians, since I would far sooner give credence to the simple message that Jesus brought than to the greatest lie ever told - the one that came from St Paul.
Whiffey Going of my point just a little for a moment, you say, in effect, that when you read ancient documents you take them at face value until someone proves differently. You clearly believe then, that God is indeed the jealous, cruel and malicious creature portrayed in the Bible - in which case why do you hold him in such high esteem? His nature is hardly something to aspire to.
Naomi, yes I realised. As I alluded to in my answer, spirituality and prayer is a personal thing for ones own contemplation. Or as Jesus said, conversing privately with God. Some call it meditation.
I can appreciate the beauty, brilliance and imagination of the great Cathedrals and churches � and I have been to quite a few across the world � as well as I can appreciate the pyramids, Abu Simbel, Machu Pitchu, Petra and Stonehenge et al. As you say, in many respects I do �go along with it�. These iconic monuments are dedications to the gods or God and can be revered as such for their splendour. I cannot say I agree with the opulence in itself, but its just a fact of life, stemming from the primary desire to physically demonstrate dedication and worship (and power). Similarly my aunt who is a nun lives in near abject poverty.
Personally I can pray anywhere I choose, church, garden shed at an Arsenal match. Whilst I am Christian and my faith is church orientated, I can even find solace and spirituality at Stonehenge and those other places mentioned. It is something within, hence my answer � with no irony � to your topline Q.
I can appreciate the beauty, brilliance and imagination of the great Cathedrals and churches � and I have been to quite a few across the world � as well as I can appreciate the pyramids, Abu Simbel, Machu Pitchu, Petra and Stonehenge et al. As you say, in many respects I do �go along with it�. These iconic monuments are dedications to the gods or God and can be revered as such for their splendour. I cannot say I agree with the opulence in itself, but its just a fact of life, stemming from the primary desire to physically demonstrate dedication and worship (and power). Similarly my aunt who is a nun lives in near abject poverty.
Personally I can pray anywhere I choose, church, garden shed at an Arsenal match. Whilst I am Christian and my faith is church orientated, I can even find solace and spirituality at Stonehenge and those other places mentioned. It is something within, hence my answer � with no irony � to your topline Q.
naomi24, Jesus claimed a lot of things for a mere human being, he claimed to be the Son of God, he foresaw his own death and resurrection, forgave sins (a huge blasphemy), cured illness, made the blind see, raised the dead. Unless it is some sort of weird symbolism, he was far more than a very nice man.
Paul says he had a personal encounter with Jesus, and the change in behaviour between the Christian-eating Saul of Tarsus and Paul is quite astonishing. It is I think accepted as at least highly probable that he was executed in Rome for his beliefs - again madmen or liars don't martyr themselves unless they are utterly convinced of their cause.
I still have many puzzles over the NT, for example when Jesus went off by himself in Gethsemane to pray, how did we get to know the eloquence and agony of the words as written by John ? However, the claims made by Jesus himself about himself are so outrageous as to label him either not quite right in the head, or exactly what he claimed for himself.
You ask if you are a Christian, as I ask myself. My own answer to me is No, but I'd like to be. I have 90% of the belief but (as yet) the faith element eludes me. It may come, I have to be patient. I hope you are in the same position.
Paul says he had a personal encounter with Jesus, and the change in behaviour between the Christian-eating Saul of Tarsus and Paul is quite astonishing. It is I think accepted as at least highly probable that he was executed in Rome for his beliefs - again madmen or liars don't martyr themselves unless they are utterly convinced of their cause.
I still have many puzzles over the NT, for example when Jesus went off by himself in Gethsemane to pray, how did we get to know the eloquence and agony of the words as written by John ? However, the claims made by Jesus himself about himself are so outrageous as to label him either not quite right in the head, or exactly what he claimed for himself.
You ask if you are a Christian, as I ask myself. My own answer to me is No, but I'd like to be. I have 90% of the belief but (as yet) the faith element eludes me. It may come, I have to be patient. I hope you are in the same position.
Octavius I can appreciate what you're saying - I too find these monuments and ancient sites breathtaking. However, despite that, bearing in mind my thoughts on St Paul, I cannot reconcile myself to the hypocrisy of organised Christianity, and I cannot excuse what is in my opinion, its blatant dishonesty.
Whiffey Yet again, you're telling me what St Paul said even though we only have his word for what happened - and that's my point exactly. Christians don't follow Jesus - they follow St Paul. If faith eludes you, then it seems there is something niggling at the back of your mind that you cannot quite reconcile, and therefore, as you appear to be an intelligent, well-read, person, it doesn't surprise me. No, I am not in the same position as you. I am no longer a Christian and haven't been for years - although I do try to follow Jesus' teaching and do my best to love my fellow human beings. I can't find fault with that, and it's enough for me. I am convinced in my belief, and very content with it, so I don't need anything else - and, in my opinion, if the rest of mankind really thought about it and forgot all the hocus-pocus, neither would they.
Incidentally, you didn't answer my question about God.
Whiffey Yet again, you're telling me what St Paul said even though we only have his word for what happened - and that's my point exactly. Christians don't follow Jesus - they follow St Paul. If faith eludes you, then it seems there is something niggling at the back of your mind that you cannot quite reconcile, and therefore, as you appear to be an intelligent, well-read, person, it doesn't surprise me. No, I am not in the same position as you. I am no longer a Christian and haven't been for years - although I do try to follow Jesus' teaching and do my best to love my fellow human beings. I can't find fault with that, and it's enough for me. I am convinced in my belief, and very content with it, so I don't need anything else - and, in my opinion, if the rest of mankind really thought about it and forgot all the hocus-pocus, neither would they.
Incidentally, you didn't answer my question about God.
Whiffey, yes of course I accept Julius Caesar within the normal reservations of history, because:
Caesar wrote a lot about himself and his campaigns.
There are contemporaneous eye-witness reports of the things that he said and did, from people who have identities.
There is objective incidental evidence.
There physical evidence on the ground of the places he went to and the things he built/destroyed.
None of this applies to the Jesus story.
So let�s look at this �historian� of yours called �Luke�:
1. He claims that Jesus was conceived during the reign of Herod and born during the census of Cyrenius (Quirinius) The historical facts are that Herod died in 4BC and the census was in AD6. So this �historian� is so careless with simple facts that he gives Mary a ten-year pregnancy.
2. Unlike �Matthew� who places Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem from the beginning, �Luke� places them in Nazareth and claims that they have to go to Bethlehem for the census. But the independent historical fact is that that particular census was a local one and did not apply to Galilee where Joseph lived according to �Luke�. In any case, women didn�t count in censuses so Joseph had no need to drag her that far in her condition.
3. The idea that people had to go back to the town of their ancestors for the census (David preceded Joseph by a thousand years!) is nonsense. The census was to tell the Roman authorities how many men lived in each town and village so that they would know how much to expect in taxes. What on earth would be the point in scatterng everyone around the place and then counting them? It honestly didn�t happen that way.
There are lots of other things but that will do for now.
Now aren�t you just a tiny bit suspicious that wherever �Luke�s� narrative can be checked against the historical facts it turns out
Caesar wrote a lot about himself and his campaigns.
There are contemporaneous eye-witness reports of the things that he said and did, from people who have identities.
There is objective incidental evidence.
There physical evidence on the ground of the places he went to and the things he built/destroyed.
None of this applies to the Jesus story.
So let�s look at this �historian� of yours called �Luke�:
1. He claims that Jesus was conceived during the reign of Herod and born during the census of Cyrenius (Quirinius) The historical facts are that Herod died in 4BC and the census was in AD6. So this �historian� is so careless with simple facts that he gives Mary a ten-year pregnancy.
2. Unlike �Matthew� who places Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem from the beginning, �Luke� places them in Nazareth and claims that they have to go to Bethlehem for the census. But the independent historical fact is that that particular census was a local one and did not apply to Galilee where Joseph lived according to �Luke�. In any case, women didn�t count in censuses so Joseph had no need to drag her that far in her condition.
3. The idea that people had to go back to the town of their ancestors for the census (David preceded Joseph by a thousand years!) is nonsense. The census was to tell the Roman authorities how many men lived in each town and village so that they would know how much to expect in taxes. What on earth would be the point in scatterng everyone around the place and then counting them? It honestly didn�t happen that way.
There are lots of other things but that will do for now.
Now aren�t you just a tiny bit suspicious that wherever �Luke�s� narrative can be checked against the historical facts it turns out
It really depends upon your view of how Jesus lived. If we are to go by the NT then we might assume that he was a peace loving nomad. So what we see today, and what we know was carried out under his banner throughout the course of history might surprise, upset or offend him.
On the other hand some might view him as an ambitious political radical pain in the Roman proverbial. In which case he may look upon it with pleasure and satisfaction.
Some might say that he never existed at all. And what we have today is irrelevant to a non-existent entity.
My view is more akin to the first in that as much as there are scars of the past, he would see that in the minds and hearts of the majority of his adherents today, his core ideology and teachings are recognised and practiced pretty much as they were the first time he was around.
On the other hand some might view him as an ambitious political radical pain in the Roman proverbial. In which case he may look upon it with pleasure and satisfaction.
Some might say that he never existed at all. And what we have today is irrelevant to a non-existent entity.
My view is more akin to the first in that as much as there are scars of the past, he would see that in the minds and hearts of the majority of his adherents today, his core ideology and teachings are recognised and practiced pretty much as they were the first time he was around.
Latest Posts
Crosswords5 mins ago
News9 mins ago
Connections 321 - Sat 27 April
Quizzes & Puzzles65 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles73 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles75 mins ago