Michael,

I don’t think you realize what you are asking of believers. To ask them to consider the possibility that Jesus wasn’t God is to ask them to forfeit their entire belief in the promise of an afterlife. It is this promise of an everlasting life that drew them in to the belief in the first place. After all, any mere mortal man can offer them a philosophy that ends with their death. Only a God can offer eternal life.

So for a believer in Christianity to question the legitimacy of Christ’s divinity is to basically ask them to consider either that Judaism is right (Jesus wasn’t God), or that atheism is correct and there is no God!

They simply aren’t going to consider the pantheistic view that you might embrace. They simply aren’t prepared to think like that. Pantheism may as well be atheism as far are hey are concerned. They neither understand it, nor find it attractive even when they try to understand it.

Finally, they would ask why? Why should they believe in something like a pantheistic view when they have documentation that suggests the existence of a “real” godhead. Something they can sink their teeth into as being a genuine god-like entity with ultimate authority and wisdom. Never mind any technical problem associated with the whole story! At least it has some documentation with it that claims that its real! That’s enough for them. Why question it? Just grab the gift and shut up already!

Seriously though, that’s their view. Why would they want to question it? If they question it and decide that it’s false then what? Where would they need to turn next??? Judaism? Islam? Atheism? Hinduism? Paganism? All of these labels reek of disgusting ideas as far as they are concerned. They simply don’t understand any of them well enough to see any of them as being inviting.

So why should they question their beliefs??? What’s in it for them to question them???

Some people aren’t interested in finding the ultimate truth. They just want the comfort of believing they already have it. It’s by far the easiest solution. In a very real sense religions represent the ultimate sloth of the mind. Just believe in something and there’s no need to think about it anymore.

As to the topic of your thread here. I’m totally convinced that the gospels were exaggerations and best and total fabrication at worst. I’m completely convinced that Jesus was indeed just another mortal man like the rest of us. And it is, in fact, this conclusion that places me in the camp of “non-believers”. (At least in that I don’t believe that Jesus was God). Fortunately for me, this does not represent the end of my potential for belief in a spiritual essence to our existence.

I don’t believe that Christianity, or any other religion for that matter, must be true in order for our essences to be spiritual. On the contrary, the mere fact that all of man’s religions throughout the entire world, have always held the concept of a spiritual existence beyond the physical.

This single notion seems to be quite innately intuitive to us. Therefore there may well be something to it without any need for any specific religion to have any validity at all. In fact, I’m working on starting a thread on this very topic. I hope to have it posted fairly soon.

Creative Soul;

Curious how you consider the Catholic church the authoritative representation of church history. Were you brought up Catholic?

Also - Catholicism claims Peter to be the first Pope. Revisionist history - wouldn't you say?

The premise that the biblical accounts of the Old Testament and New originated as word of mouth and therefore are "Hearsay" is subjective at best. Not fact. What is likely fact is that they were verbal accounts that were transcribed at a later date.
As is with every account we have previous to the electronic age.
To satisfy your premise, that means that the entire History of the world previous to the 20th century is hearsay. Would you like to stick with that statement as fact? Start a thread on it and see how many people agree with you.

My point - you ask? A claim of "hearsay" is subjective. Period. It centers entirely on the credibility one asigns to the author. Even the evidence to disprove something being hearsay is subjective - unless one is an eyewitness themselves.

So - when you state that something is "widely accepted" - your claim is hearsay. Until you are able to demonstrate the exegesis by which you can demonstrate a biblical concept is "edited", your claim of it's validity is without support. It's like a little kid saying there are really flying saucers and starships because he saw it on television.

This is what Spider, Feral, Britty, et al... are pointing out to you. You are claiming a conclusion you have come to, then searching for scripture to support it. Search the scriptures first - then let your conclusion come from exausting the topic on it. If you then determine there's a discrepancy, start a thread o it, and we'll at least the correct exegesis by which we can discuss it intelligently.

Here we go again Lord......Forgive them Father for they know not what they speak.

.

Abra;

We don't question Creative Souls idea's of God - it is his claim of thinking he understands Christianity that rallies us to post. We're not asking him to believe in the God we do, we just request that he not claim that the God he believes in is representative of what he thinks is Christianity. Big difference with what he believes, and what he claims.

I have no trouble following what you believe, for you do not pretend to redefine Chrisitanity for us - you are well aware of what it is, and you disagree with it. You have my respect (at least) for that. At times I've called you on what you claim I believe as a Christian - but we've gotten that clarified over our time here.

I'm curious that you would consider his view of God as Pantheistic, unless he's changed his position, and I missed it.
I've always thought he considered himself a believer in Jesus.
Have I got this wrong?

I guess abra if whatever it is you believe spoke to me....I would surly listen....but until then......I will not.....you are right.....and what nerve you have Mr. Abra....You really need to practice what you preach....You go on and on about it with everyone else's beliefs except Christians....why is that? What bothers you so much that we are so strong in our beliefs? And awful presumptious of you to assume that all Christians just believe what they do because of the afterlife.....

And again I say to Abra as I did Creative.....What gives you any authority of what I find as truth.......honestly sweets you don't. And again I say to you......Why are you all fired up to get us to change our beliefs...and if you don't think you are.....look at your post....

All I can say in concluding is


WE WILL SEE

I thought so to of creative......but now I feel a wolf in sheeps clothing so to speak.

Eljay...

You now question THE source of early Christian history?

Is there another?

No, I am not Catholic...

Like all the gospels, Matthew is not easy to date: suggestions have ranged from A.D. 40 to 140. The expression "to this day" (27:8;28;15 indicates that a substantial period of time has passed since the events described in the book, but they also point to a date prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The Olivet Discourse (24025) also anticipates this event. The strong Jewish flavor of this gospel is another argument for a date prior to A.D. 70. If Matthew depended on Mark's gospel as a source, the date of Mark would determine the earliest date for Matthew. The likely time frame for this book is A.D. 58-68. It may have been written in Palestine or Syrian Antioch.

The Time of Mark.....Many scholars believe that Mark was the first of the four gospels, but there is uncertainty over it date. Because of the prophecy about the destruction of the temple (13:2), it should be dated before A.D. 70, but early traditions disagree as to whether it as written before or after the martyrdom of Peter (c.A.D. 64). The probably range for this book is A.D. 55-65.

Mark was evidently directed to a Roman readership and early tradition indicates that it originated in Rome. This may be why Mark omitted a number of items that would not have been meaningful to the Gentiles, such as geneology of Christ, fulfilled prophecy, references to the law, and certain Jewish customs that are found in other gospels. Mark interpreted Aramaic words (3:17; 5:41; 7:34 15:22 and used a number of Latin terms in place of their Greek equivalents. 4:21; 6:27; 12:14, 42:15: 15, 16, 39).


The Time of Luke....

Luke was not an eyewitness of the events of the gospel, but he relied on the testimony of eyewitnesses and written sources (1:1-4) He carefully investigated and arranged his material and presented it to Theophilus ("Friend of God') the title "most excellent," or "most noble" (see acts 23:26; 24:3; 26:25), indicates that Theophilus was a man of high social standing. He probably assumed responsibility for publishing Luke and Acts so that they would be available to the gentile readers. Luke translates Aramaic terms with Greek words and explains Jewish customs and geography to make his gospel more intelligible to his original Greek readership. During Paul's two year Caesarean imprisonment, Luke may have traveled in Palestine to gather information from eyewitnesses of Jesus ministry. The date of this gospel depends on that of Acts since this was the first volume (see "The Time of Acts"). If Like was written during Paul's first imprisonment in Rome it would be dated in the early 60's. However, it may have been given final form in Greece. In all probability, its publication preceded the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70)

The Time of John.....in spite of the strong internal and external testimony supporting Johanine authorship of this gospel, theological assumptions have motivated a number of critics to deny this claim. Until recently it was popular to propose a second-century date for this book. The discovery of the John Rylands Papyrus 52 containing portions of John 18:31,33,37,38, has overthrown this conjecture. This fragment has been dated at about A.D. 135, an a considerable period of time must have been required to John's gospel o be copied and circulated before it reached Egypt, here this papyrus was found. On the other hand, John was written after the last of the synoptic Gospels (c A.D. 66-68). His familiarity with the topography of Jerusalem (eg., 5:2; 19:13) does not necessarily require a date before A.D. 70. Since John's three epistles and Revelation were written after his gospel, the probably range for this work is A.D. 60-90. By this time, John would have been on of the last surviving eyewitnesses of the Lord. According to tradition, John wrote this gospel in Ephesus.

With all due respect people...

I have not called names... yet have been called names...

I have not told you your belief was wrong... yet I have been told mine is...

I have not done anything other than explain why I believe what I do, after being asked...

If my answers are offensive, I am sorry because they are not intented to be...

For those of you who believe that I believe in Jesus... you are absolutely correct... I do...

Credit whatever it is that you see in me that leads you to such a conclusion to whatever you choose...

'Jesus' shows us... us... if we listen.

There were Christians before there was a Catholic Church as such. Catholic means "universal". Christians used to proclaim themselves members of the "Catholic Church" and that name was adopted by the paganized version of Christianity that was created by Constantine.

Here is an article that explains the history of what happened.

http://www.gotquestions.org/origin-Catholic-church.html

spider,

I agree Christianity was first.

The Catholic church kept all the records.

Abra:

I ask only that one examine WHAT they believe with a little objectivity...

The records are as clear as they will ever be...

Christianity has done wonderful things within people... that part is great...

Is it not possible that a 'reward' be given even though an understanding is not?

I wrote the time of each of the disciples but I think was missed because it took so long to write....giggle.....

The beginning of any, organized, Christian practice began with only ONE Holy and Apostolic church – the early Catholic religion.

Beginning somewhere between 29 and 33 AD. In 49 AD Council at Jerusalem established precedent for addressing Church disputes ‘in council’.

The local church authorities were designated Bishops (ordained)and they presided over ‘districts’. Part of what they did, was to collect all manuscripts regarding the new faith in order to verify the authenticity and it’s ‘accuracy’ in accordance with standard beliefs, which were mostly their own, at that time.

Between 325 & 787 AD (long way from 33 AD) there were 7 Ecumenical Councils. 325 AD saw the establishment of the Nicene Creed.

THIS is major, because of the disputes that lead to its establishment.

Those disputes point EXACTLY in the same direction as Abra and CreativeSoul have been attempting to show you all along. There were many, STILL after nearly 300 years, at that time, proclaiming Christianity as their faith, and yet not believing in the Godhead of Jesus. For them Jesus was a ‘creation’ as every human was. It was the only the creation of the Nicene Creed that set Christianity on the path of believing that Jesus is God.

This alone, people, MUST SHOW YOU, that what is considered Christian belief today, is only your belief, because a majority ruled it to be so.

From that point on, EVERY document that was being created, held, and used ‘as scripture’ for teaching, was accumulated by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic church.

These were taken to the succeeding Ecumenical Councils, where they were compared with each other for the purposes of “creating” a single flowing doctrine. It was not their concern who wrote them, it was only their concern that they would reflect the way in which it was deemed people SHOULD believe.

Of course they were Bishops and they prayed for guidance in the endeavor before them. And of course, those who believe as they do today, MUST also believe they were divinely inspired to choose the ‘correct’ writings.

SO ELJAY – this is what made the Catholic church the most prolific library of canonized and non-canon texts and scripture and all manner of Biblical records, and even today it is not sure if there is any equal.

So those who believe that the Bible is infallable, must do so through faith alone. And your argument can ONLY BE ONE ARGUMENT, that those who choose the scriptures to be used, were divinely inspired and hence picked the most accurate ones.

The problem with this, on a logical and rational level, is that no one knows for sure where the texts came from, who wrote them or even if what they say was an accurate portrayal. It was chosen, only because of divine inspiration.

Do you understand, that it did not have to be accurate to have been chosen? Do you understand that the ‘divinity’ that inspired it, may have done so for lack of any better writings to choose from? Do you understand that only those writings that most reflected a dual continuity were chosen to be considered for final canonization? And that 'continuity' had to uphold the fulfillment of prophecy from the old Testament, AS WELL, as providing the lessons that THE CHURCH decided its congregations should follow?

So your only real recourse in an argument of this nature, can only be one thing. That you believe that God inspired the choosing of those document that would ultimately form the Bible. But also in that belief that you must consider that perhaps the inspiration was given only due to lack of better quality any even for lack of the whole truth.

Uh yeah,

That about sums it up...

Faith in man's ability to determine divinity.

Here is something more to consider. There was only ONE Christian organization, (one church) It was the ‘Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”. This ONE Church existed, as the only Christian authority until 1054 AD. This is often referred to as the great schism.

There were a few issues, between the Eastern and Western Churches, but the major issue seems to have been, what is referred to as the filioque clause, which was an ‘addition’ to the Nicene Creed.

The Eastern regions did not agree with the wording of the additional use of “Holy Spirit” in the creed. (how it was used) Their biggest issue with the wording was that it was not consistent, in a logical way, with the idea of the Trinity.

The Eastern officials also took a great offence at the authority the papacy was taking in allowing such a change to be made, without the benefit of an Ecumenical Council.

In 1054, the (eastern) Orthodox Church separated themselves from the power and authority of the Papal driven Catholic Church.

As a side bar, I thought the following was rather interesting.

In 1439 the Roman Catholic Church invited the Eastern Orthodox Church to consider a reconciliation. Islam was warring its way into the East and the Orthodox Church was not able to negotiate. So, They accepted the offer of the R.C. Church ,with the idea, that as a larger faction they could overcome the warring Islam.

The E.O. Church, under pressure, backed down on every issue, save one. Markos Eugenikos, the titular bishop of Ephesus absolutely refused to accept the Nicene Creed with the illogical error pertaining to the use of the Holy Spirit.

The Pope utterly refused to help the E.O. Church unless Markos signed in agreement. He refused, as he would not compromise the integrity of his belief. In the West he became the force that prevented reconciliation, but in the East he became St. Mark of Ephesus, “the conscience of Orthodoxy.”

Now here is the interesting part. The division between the “original Christian Church”, came just before the crusades. The E.O.C had no part of the R.O.C during that time period.

The fact is this; The Roman Catholic Church, who refused to help the Eastern Orthodox Church, actually succeeded in keeping the PURE line of the Orthodox (or ORIGINAL HOLY Christian & Apostolic) faith in tact.

Here’s how. In 1517 Martin Luther’s Reformation began. The Roman Catholic church from the time of that reformation would continue to divide and separate over disputes in doctrine and Biblical interpretation.

The Splintered affect has seen no less than some 22,000 separate Christian doctrines – including a great deal of different opinions over interprecation of Scripture.

The irony is easy see, the ONE TRUE CHURH that has continued for over 2000 years is NOT the modern Christian Church, but the Easter Orthodox Church. Those Brothers in Christ that the Roman Catholic Church refused to save from the onslaught of Islam.

If I were a Christian, I would be looking at my religion REALLY hard, and comparing it with the doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox faith.

Oh – I have done that too – but still not Christian. There are some very interesting conflicts!

Redy,

That is extremely noble of you in many ways to carefully examine the history of the church as you have. One cannot possibly refuse to acknowledge what history should have taught us... about separating ourselves from others by means of religious doctrine(s)...

If we could only learn from our history not to make the same mistakes again...

If only people would accept that nothing is, in fact, separate.

We all can make a difference by our individual contribution(s), without the individualization of the world's fingerprint which is upon us.

Empathy... innate but long 'forgotten' in most...

I think Michael is searching for truth, just as I did when I was his age.

As you well know, I too was brought up in an atmosphere of the Christian faith. I was brought up around very realistic devoted Christians. They weren’t fanatical about it at all even though quite devout. Even so, their faith still displayed a fair amount of naivety. That just goes with the territory.

I might add also that my family were Free Methodists who focused on the love of Jesus rather than on the fire and brimstone of the old testament. So the moral message to me when growing up was always one of love and encouragement, with little attention paid to the idea of punishment.

In fact, if all of Christianity believed liked the Free Methodists I grew up around I don’t think the religion overall would be as problematic as it can be in some circles.

For one thing my entire family, (I’m talking with respect to the larger family of aunts and uncles, not just my immediate family), believed in evolution and saw no conflicts with this. They simply accepted that evolution was the means by which God created us from the dust of the earth. They were fully open to abstract interpretations of the Bible and were never concerned with strict verbatim issues.

So I was brought up with Jesus “in my life” and because of this I learned of his teachings, and I even agreed with them and saw that they were good.

Later, because of my philosophical mind, and because of a desire to understand the religion better so that I could teach it to others and answer their questions about it, I began to delve into it deeper asking the hard questions.

To me, asking hard questions was not bashing the religion. After all, if the religion is true it should stand up to the hard questions and provide unambiguous answers for them should it not?

Asking hard questions of something that is true should not be a threat to it.

Unfortunately, it didn’t stand up to the hard questions. It failed miserably. At least it failed as far as I’m concerned, and I was the one who was asking the questions so that what counts.

The idea that I was out to bash the religion, or poke holes in it, is as far from the truth as one can imagine. On the contrary, my original intent was to back it! When I was in my 30’s I probably sounded a lot like Spider. Seriously, I would make up the most absurd defensive explanations to defend the religion.

But then one day I realize that to make up lies (or arguments that I genuinely didn't truly buy into myself) just to defend the religion is as wrong as anything. I had to approach it with a completely open mind if I was going to be honest about it. And honesty is paramount with religion is it not?

Once I did that I had no choice but to realize that it’s full of holes. The bottom line is that it really is ambiguous and one really needs to go to extreme limits of absurdity to continue to stand behind it trying to patch it up.

Once I realized that it was a sinking ship my next desperate attempt was to “save Jesus”! Is there anyway I can salvage Jesus from this religion that is full of holes?

I think that’s where Michael is right now.

He’s basically asking, “Ok so Jesus wasn’t God, can he still be salvaged?” Can we bring Jesus through this without having to drag the whole rest of this archaic religion with him?

Many have attempted to do just this. Myself included. And the first idea that most philosophers come up with is the idea that maybe Jesus was indeed a pantheist. That would explain the reason why he said things like “he and the father are one”, and so forth.

Maybe he was trying to explain the basic principles of Eastern enlightenment to the people, and he tired to tie this in with the belief system that they already held dear (i.e. a belief in the God of Abraham).

However, to establish that Jesus was a pantheist the first thing that needs to be established is that the gospels were indeed not the verbatim truth. The idea here is the Jesus was misunderstood in the details, even by those who wrote about him.

I’ve been down that road myself. In fact that are even “Pantheistic Christians” who hold this very view.

However, after many years of futile arguments in this regard with fundamentalists who insist that Jesus was the incarnation of the God of Abraham I’ve given up. Let them believe whatever they want. I can only say that I tried to save Jesus from the dogs and I have failed. I don’t think it’s possible to save him now. Especially in the face of scriptures that are considered to be verbatim truth.

In other words, I would like to support the moral teachings of Jesus, but I cannot condone the idea that he was the incarnation of the God of Abraham and that he came to earth with the sole purpose of dying for the sins of man. I firmly believe that this part of the story grew out of myth and desperation.

In some ways I see it as being quite sad that the only reason some people will “believe” in Jesus is because of the carrot of everlasting life. To me this actually denounces the real mission of Jesus. Even famous Christians such as C. S. Lewis have said that either Jesus was God or he was a lunatic and a liar. This stems from a believe that the gospels are verbatim truth regarding the words Jesus was said to have spoken.

I often wonder. If Jesus were reincarnated today and it was explained to everyone that he was not God anymore than anyone else. How would the Christians receive him? I imagine they would be extremely angry with him and probably be prepared to crucify him all over again. Like C. S. Lewis they would be calling him a fraud and a liar.

Yet people like myself and Michael would greet Jesus with open arms and say, “That’s ok brother, we understand”.

So in the end who are those who truly love Jesus?

Those who’s love for him is conditional only on the idea that he was God and that he will keep his promises of eternal life?

Or those who love him unconditionally as a man with no expectation for any rewards in return?

Is Creativesoul a pantheist or a believer in Jesus? Probably both I would say.

But he probably “believes in Jesus” in a way that’s different from how you’d like to imagine.

He believes in the man named Jesus. Not in the superstitions that surround him. So he’s attempting to “save Jesus” from the superstitions.

Why should he want to do such a thing?

Because fundies use Jesus as an excuse to preach bigotry and hatred toward intellectual investigation (i.e. science) and against personal freedoms (i.e. bigotry toward gay lifestyles), as well as other related issues that are often supported by Christian fundamentalists. Those issues are often supported by the Old Testament not by the teachings of Jesus!

In short, I think Creativesoul, like myself, hates to see Jesus used as an excuse to preach ignorance, and bigotry. So the desire to separate Jesus from those archaic myths is pretty strong.

I think there’s also a desire to get people to realize that living the life that Jesus taught makes sense whether you’ll get a reward for it or not. And that it should be extended to all life, not just to other humans.

Christianity, because of its view that Christ died for the sins of man, tends to focus people's attention on saving their own butts. There is little or no focus at all about being proper stewards toward other living species, and our planet as a whole. It has become an extremely egocentric religion.

I think Creativesoul’s genuine frustration with Christianity is that he would love to jump up on the roof of the world and scream down at everyone,…

“It’s not about saving your individual butts from damnation you fools!!!”

“It’s about living in harmony with each other and with all other life on this planet!!!”

In other words, to view the crucifixion of Christ as a designed plan to die for the sins of man, is to totally miss the point of the teachings of Christ. That wasn’t the point he was trying to make.

I make no appologies for my lengthy post. It's all relavent material.

Here, here Abra...

I consider the accounts of Acts as representative of the history of the early church - not the history of the Vatican.
I am quite familiar with Catholicism - I'm from Boston. It's about 90 per cent Catholic. I spent my entire youth surrounded with it. I will not delve into that particular topic at this time, but suffice it to say that I think you need to expand your research into the authority of historical Christian doctrine beyond that of the Roman Catholic church.