The Credibility of Christianity

[Manji2012]

There is a complex out there attacking Christianity as being credible. I have it that they're just saying that Christianity or who Jesus was, was diverse. Many scriptures in circulation. Then Paul came onto the scene and the romans at nicene creed, and basically decided what was Christianity. Jesus was made God, the trinity came out, Jesus being born of a virgin, who died for our sins, and resurrected into heaven, all ideas borrowed from paganism.

All the other Gospels that did not support their objectives to create a universal religion catholicism were destroyed. We found some but I guess their just Gnosticism

The Jews rejected Jesus and said the quotes the Christians try to use is just mistranslations of Hebrew and the Muslims hold the position that Christianity was corrupted by man.

My Question is:

If you use the argument that the Gospel were written by people who did not know Jesus, and were cannonized by people in power without God's authority, how can any scripture ever be justified?

The books of the old testament, who are we to say that God wrote it? How Islam, why should we take their word for it?

Can scripture ever be considered legitemate.

From my understanding, Buddhism is one that seems to not have this problem because it emphasizes wisdom and philosophy over beliefs and religious dogma.

You can always deny those, dabate those, and experience them personally so you can decide yourself if it is legitamate. That it works.

A spiritual live is a journey. Wisdom. Dying from an old way of being and being born again to a new way of being. This is done by spiritual practice. We can try many teachings, use them, and ascertain personally which ones did not work, and which ones do. Rather than take someone's words for it.

I think Buddha taught us how to think, not what to think. Others teach what to think, not how to think.

People approached Buddha about what religion is the correct one. Buddha gave them something to use which was, "Practice their teachings and through direct experience, discern yourself if it is true or untrue." So, in the end, it does not matter which religion, it is about being, not being Buddhist or Christian.

I got something I can use, I do not have to believe Buddha was enlightened to figure this out, and I do not need to take someone's word for hearing Buddha say that.

I can use this myself. Belief versus practice and experience.

What do you think? This argument that the Council of Nicea is suspect is weak because all religious texts our automatically suspect.

However, I agree, the Nicea creed was just power and uniting an empire. I think maybe a lot of things said about the nature of jesus is just paganism.

[Manji2012]

While we are at it, are there gospels that are not Gnostic? Or, are all the competing Gospels that did not make into the canonized Bible just from Gnostics?

[Thomas]

Hi Manji —

Originally Posted by Manji2012

There is a complex out there attacking Christianity as being credible. I have it that they're just saying that Christianity or who Jesus was, was diverse. Many scriptures in circulation. Then Paul came onto the scene and the romans at nicene creed, and basically decided what was Christianity. Jesus was made God, the trinity came out, Jesus being born of a virgin, who died for our sins, and resurrected into heaven, all ideas borrowed from paganism.

Yes many do ... but the weight of informed and scholarly opinion is otherwise. That's not to say that all scholars accept Christ, far from it, but most scholars don't accept the kind of arguments you raise. They proliferate on the internet, and in popular print, but really the arguments are full of holes.

For one thing, we can trace the basic data of the creed, the divinity of the Son, the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, etc., as far back as the first century.

The point is, and it is one often missed, the Christian community was there before the Scriptures were there. The Scriptures are the product of the Christian community, not the other way round.

It's a very deep and involved argument, and takes a lifetime of study.

+++

That all the ideas were taken from paganism falls on the basis that the first generation Christians were Jews, not pagans, and would not have propagated pagan practice.

The second is that pagan traditions contain hints, vestiges, foreshadowings, etc., of the truthy, so it should come as no surprise there are correspondences.

What I as a Christian, and a philospher, believe, is that pagan thought does not 'penetrate the veil' anywhere near the illumination of the Great Traditions.

The third is that pagan religion was on its last legs, philosophy was undermining it daily. As someone said, Plato signalled the death of the myth.

+++

Originally Posted by Manji2012

All the other Gospels that did not support their objectives to create a universal religion catholicism were destroyed. We found some but I guess their just Gnosticism

Not quite. Most of the gnostic texts we have come from the Christian philosophers who argued against them — so we can deduce their content from the argument.

Not all the non-canonical and apocryphal texts are gnostic. Many scholars argue that the Gospel of Thomas is not a 'gnostic' text in the technical sense.

The point is, for example, if we take all the textual accounts of the crucifixion:
1 - Jesus died on the Cross;
2 - Jesus was taken alive from the Cross;
3 - Someone else was crucified, not Jesus;
4 - Jesus was an angel who only 'appeared' to be a man, and didn't suffer at all;
5 - Jesus' human nature was subsumed by a Cosmic Principle which abandoned him to his fate;
6 - and the permutations go on.

Each one excludes every other. So which one are you going to believe, and why? I'm not asking for an answwer, I'm suggesting these are the questions we have to ask ourselves.

+++

Originally Posted by Manji2012

The Jews rejected Jesus and said the quotes the Christians try to use is just mistranslations of Hebrew and the Muslims hold the position that Christianity was corrupted by man.

Yes they do. Can't prove it, it's what they choose to believe.

Originally Posted by Manji2012

If you use the argument that the Gospel were written by people who did not know Jesus, and were cannonized by people in power without God's authority, how can any scripture ever be justified?

It can't.

Originally Posted by Manji2012

The books of the old testament, who are we to say that God wrote it? How Islam, why should we take their word for it?

Why indeed?

Originally Posted by Manji2012

Can scripture ever be considered legitemate.

It is legitimately the texts of what the community believed. It's more legitimate to say that, than to suggest they believed some Confuscian or Tibetan or Native American text.

Originally Posted by Manji2012

From my understanding, Buddhism is one that seems to not have this problem because it emphasizes wisdom and philosophy over beliefs and religious dogma.

Not quite. Buddhism just accepts the text. The Buddhist Scriptures were written some 400 years after Buddha's death, so any argument against Biblical veracity can be applied to any sacred text.

Many would argue we have more reliable data about Jesus than any other spiritual leader. We know more about Him than we do some of the great names of history. What we know is not the problem, what we choose to believe is.

The text is not the problem — it's the mindset of the critic.

Originally Posted by Manji2012

You can always deny those, dabate those, and experience them personally so you can decide yourself if it is legitamate. That it works.

Yes.

Originally Posted by Manji2012

A spiritual live is a journey. Wisdom. Dying from an old way of being and being born again to a new way of being. This is done by spiritual practice. We can try many teachings, use them, and ascertain personally which ones did not work, and which ones do. Rather than take someone's words for it.

Yes ... with the proviso of asking how long does it take to test a practice? A Christian, a Buddhist, and I'm sure every other ... would say a lifetime is not enough. Here in the West, we give it a go for a couple of weeks, and if there's no immediate material benefit, then forget it.

Originally Posted by Manji2012

I think Buddha taught us how to think, not what to think. Others teach what to think, not how to think.

Not sure I'd agree. I think he taught a reality, not how to think a reality.

Originally Posted by Manji2012

What do you think? This argument that the Council of Nicea is suspect is weak because all religious texts our automatically suspect.

Most arguments against Nicea are weak because they haven't done enough research — the anachronisms are usually immediately evident.

Originally Posted by Manji2012

However, I agree, the Nicea creed was just power and uniting an empire. I think maybe a lot of things said about the nature of jesus is just paganism.

OK. Your choice ... but you're wrong abbout Nicea.

Constantine did not tell the bishops what to write, he asked that they write something. When they did, he wanted a phrase added, to clarify and 'nail down' the argument. They told him it would not work. He insisted. They put it in, it didn't last a week.

Subsequent councils, at the will of the emperors, were declared 'valid' or otherwise according to the will of the Church. It is an error to assume the emperors told the councils what to think or say. They tried, and sometimes they were successful — Pope Martin I was martyred for refusing to accede to an empresses' wishes — but it never lasted.

What is incredible to me is not that politicians sought to meddle in affairs, but that the Church surviuved all their meddling.

Thomas

[Manji2012]

Was anybody executed after the Bible was authorized? Were people still allowed to practice different religion without being persecuted? If I wanted to stick with Gospels that did not make it into the Bible back then, would I be in trouble of getting killed?

What was the Spanish inquisition about? Was it really about killing people for saying they did not believe in Jesus or the Bible?

It seems that, after Jesus, there were many scriptures about him circulating. Nothing was standered. So, really no one should be evangelizing. Power greed hungry Pagan Constantine wanted to make his empire work by making a universal religion which is what Catholicism means. Bishops that did not agree were killed. The Pagan Constantine killed his own wife and kid the same year the Bible was authorized.

Pagan Constantine, not Christian Constantine, and his Bishops forcefully decided this new religion which had many views to begin with, made Catholicism, Jesus Christ, as pagan as possible. That whole, Jesus born of virgin, Son of God in the flesh, dying for our sins for salvation is just borrowed from paganism and has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus Christ cause other Gospels disagree with that.

After this Pagan Jesus thing was decided, anything that was different from that was ordered to be destroyed. And it was. Some good guys hid the other texts. If you wanted to practice the other versions and thoughts about Jesus you would be killed if caught doing it.

The Bishops had zero rights or authority to canonize anything in the first place. But, if they want to, fine, just don't go and killing people for not agreeing with it. That makes you a tyrant and hypocrit cause you did not follow what Jesus taught to begin with even within your already decided pagan influenced Gospels.

Ever since then the Catholics were horridly corrupt as heck and ruled with an iron fist that, the people were considering going back to their native pagan religions.

The Catholics devised a plan to prevent this by conspiring a fake movement of the protestants. Martin Luther was someone who conspired within the Catholic church cause he was not killed by them.

You see, back then, if you went against the Orthodoxy Catholic church you would get tortured and killed. That is what happened to that Italian guy, gallileo, who said the world was round. The Catholic church declared that to be unacceptable. I have no idea on what grounds they can say that but they did and tortured the innocent scientist who was right. The world is round. The Catholic Church is wrong. Just a bunch of mind control power hungry pieces of scum underneath my boot. All those guys can lick my boots and I would raise an army to erradicate their existence if I lived back then.

Okay, we know factually and truthfully that paganism has been including into Christianity. We know this by considering Christmas. Jesus was never the reason for the season. Christmas is absolutely pagan and Jesus' birth date is unknown and most likely was not in December anyways. All the Pagan Romans loved their holidays and festivals and the Church fathers wanted Christianity to get adopted but they could not get these people to adopt the new religion and reject the pagan holidays so the Church fathers adopted the pagan holidays but put Christianity's face on it. Jesus birth date was declared. Such heresy on their behalf.

Easter is Pagan too. Not Jesus or Christian.

So, that is a tiny example how Christianity has been blended with the paganism.

So who knows, perhaps the virgin birth, son of God, crucified, dying for our sins, and bodily resurrecting into heaven really is just a pagan myth told over and over. Jesus was never such a sun deity.

I think Jesus just taught wisdom to attain salvation and not this silly pagan myth. Like the other Gospels that didn't make it into the so called, "Canonized Bible".

As for scholars, so what, they just biased. I mean, John Marco Allegro wasn't. He thought Jesus was just a magic mushroom after the Dead sea scrolls came out.

Basically powerful people police the dead sea scrolls and delay knowledge of them and refuse to allow people to academically decipher for themselves what those texts our really about. SUSPECT! Dem guys. What the heck are they trying to hide?

I smell fishy stuff. Basically they are hiding the truth that the orthodoxy church has zero credibility and should not exist and if people knew that, their existence would cease. Christianity would all be mysticism.

True religion.

Well, what do you have to say my man?

Not to say I know all there is to know and that I am right, I wanna here ya pown my argument so I can research and get stronger. Thank You.

[John_672]

There is a problem with placing the weight of your credibility squarely on events in the past; history tends to be distorted depending on who is retelling it. Christians will say that those who question the historical claims of Christianity are bias or ignoring supporting factors. Those who question the credibility of Christianity will say that it is the Christians who are distorting the truth and ignoring evidence.

Who is right? I don't know... I can tell you only one way to be sure of the truth; read the Bible, study the principles of Christianity, and weigh the evidence for yourself. After coming to understand Christianity to the best of your ability, you will either feel in your heart that it is true or you will not. That is how you judge.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Manji2012

Not to say I know all there is to know and that I am right, I wanna here ya pown my argument so I can research and get stronger. Thank You.

I would suggest you check out reliable and reputable historical sources first, in making your arguments. Otherwise, I am led to assume this is all a matter of your opinion?

If you really want a serious discussion, pick just one point, make your argument referencing sources, and we can take it from there.

Thomas

[Manji2012]

I am attempting to make sense of things in a way I find reasonable by examination.

I want get a very basic understanding of the the three Abrahamic traditions , Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, about the nature of God, How to attain salvation, and Jesus.

Beginning:

So far I understand your basic Orthodox Judaism being one that is Monotheistic. One God, No body, no image. It is automatically not possible for God to take a form of a human. God communicates his will, word, or whatever the right thing to call it, through people. Those people are called prophets.

So, what is the deal with the Burning Bush where it seems to me, God is taking a the form of a burning bush?

We are born into this world free of Sin. The Hebrew interpretation of the Adam&Eve story is different from the Christian one. It is not about original sin. Or humans being tainted with sin thus needing a savior to die for their sins. The original sin doctrine was the interpretation of Paul who never met Jesus. It was later expanded on by Saint Augustine.

Question:

What is the Hebrew word for sin and what does mean in Hebrew?

Forgiveness of sins and getting back to God is done by Repentance, asking forgiveness, prayer, and making amends through deeds of loving kindness. You do not need Jesus.

To be in Good grace with God you do not have to be Jews, Christian, or Muslim. There are multiple paths. Just follow the basic laws of civilization.

I am not sure I fully understand salvation from a Jewish perspective.

Jews consider Jesus to just be a Rabbi who taught rabbinic ideas and beliefs. There are a lot of faith healers and miracles in the Jewish Bible. I guess Jesus can not be a prophet of God because Judaism has it that the prophetic period is done.

The idea that Jesus was God, born of virgin is just Paganism apparently. The Jewish word for Virgin is Betulah not Almah. Although I think Almah can still mean Virgin. Jesus is not the decendent of King David because Joseph lineage is of that and Jesus' father was biologically Joseph. I guess it means that Jesus still is cause the father that raised Jesus was Joseph.

Apparently Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, are waiting for the coming of great spiritual teacher that will usher in a golden age of peace. I think in Hinduism they understand this concept of ages.

Apparently, God will announce the coming of this particular Messiah through Elijah.

Thought:

Now, I get confused and start thinking reincarnation cause it seems John the Baptist was Elijah that said so when we consider the new testament but I guess that is just too far out there.

Question:

Do the Jews have the prophecy of a Messiah? Who is the Messiah? How come Jesus is not the Messiah? How come Christians quote the Jewish Bible to support the idea of a prophecy of the coming of Jesus?

This Messiah, Jewish messiah, Christian Messiah, is confusing. Please help clear this one out for me.

Islam:

I don't really know what is the Nature of Allah to Muslims and how to get good Grace with Allah. I guess we are born free of sin. I wonder what is the Arabic word for sin and what does it mean. I don't know the salvation concept.

I don't know why Allah sent Muhhamed.

I just know the Muslims hold the argument that Issah was a true prophet of God, he was not God, and his teachings and everything about Him was corrupted by man. Peace be upon him. We really do not know for sure what Jesus said. Apparently, the Council of Nicea is very suspect of corruption.

My personal view:

I think it is all about Wisdom to attain salvation not belief. I think Jesus was a real person who taught wisdom to attain peace and salvation. His teachings were destroyed by the Catholic church and Paganism was attached to Him.

It does not matter what you identify it is your mind and heart. If it is transformed then the law of cause and effect will be that you go to where mind suits the nature there of.

Ending:

I understand I am making everything so basic and simple and it is not all that simple but, I have to start somewhere and I guess kindergarten would be the best place to start. I am just trying to get the basics and then grow from there.

[Thomas]

For Christianity, I suggest:

Theology and Sanity
Frank Sheed, published by Sheed and Ward
(out of print, but available second hand)

This is an ordered and clearly explained progressive approach.

I think asking for full explanations of three religions on a discussion forum is asking too much.

Thomas