Easter Questions

[thir]

For starters, this is a seriously meant topic, and I really would appreciate any or all answers seriously trying to explain these things to me. For those of you who do not like Chrisitanity, please hold you fire while I try to get some aswers, ok? ;-)

Though living in a country where Christianity is supposedly the state religion I have never understood Christianity very well, and as few people in DK are actually religious, I have never gotten any the wiser.

Now, at Easter, I wonder again.

Jesus died on the cross to appease God, because humans were sinful - is that true?

Q: how could a blood sacrifice solve that?
Q: how could God create a son and sacrifice him, and that appeased his anger??
Q: if people just keep on being sinful, what is achieved?

Q: if Jesus died for our sins, does this mean that we can go on sinning?

I see the person Jesus as a great teacher, who had a lot to give. But I do not understand this other part of it.

[Thorne]

For those of you who do not like Chrisitanity, please hold you fire while I try to get some aswers, ok? ;-)
Ooh, ooh, please, can I answer these? No, wait. You want SERIOUS answers. Okay, I'll hold off. For a while. Not too long, though, please?


I see the person Jesus as a great teacher, who had a lot to give.
This isn't directly related to Easter, so I'll comment about this ONE line:

There are many serious scholars, both religious and secular, who aren't convinced that Jesus, as defined in the gospels, actually existed. Oh, there was probably an itinerant rabbi roaming around preaching some things, and he may have been called Yeshua, and he may have been executed for some reason (or not), but for someone who supposedly went around performing miracles in front of thousands of people, he didn't seem to make any kind of impression on people. Outside of the gospels, which were written many years after he supposedly died, there are no known references to him by contemporaries. Even Pat Robertson can get better press than that, and he hasn't performed a single miracle!

[ksst]

These are good questions for your pastor. I'm sure a smart one could give you some answers there. The best I can do is ask my Master, who knows Christianity pretty much inside and out and doesn't believe a word of it.

Here are my best guesses, since he's not home. Back in the old days, sacrifice solved a lot of problems, at least the people thought so. They were always sacrificing animals to try to make their harvest better/other animals thrive/children live. It is an effort to feel they had some control in a dangerous and unpredictable world. So having God make a sacrifice of his own son to make up for all people's sins should make people feel guilty enough to stop their sinning. No, we're not supposed to go on sinning. We're supposed to feel bad that we made God do such a terrible thing and shape up.

[sub_sequent]

Q: how could a blood sacrifice solve that?

God in the old testament demanded sacrafice as a way to atone for the sins of people. This goes back to Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. When Adam sinned(not by eating the fruit, but by disobeying a direct order from the Creator) the only way this could be atoned, was by a blood sacrifice. The reason for blood? - Exodus tells us the life of a creature is in his blood. Thus the need for blood - one life in the place of another.

After many many years and many many sacrifices God saw that a more permanent sacrifice was needed. A perfect sacrifice, taking the place of all the other offers and sacrifices explained once and for all.

Q: how could God create a son and sacrifice him, and that appeased his anger??

God never created a Son. He is God. He is just as much God as God the Father is God. He has just another function, another job if you will. And remember the sacrifice needed to be perfect? Who is perfect? Without sin? Only God. And that is why only God ( the Son) could be the final sacrifice.

Q: if people just keep on being sinful, what is achieved?

If i bought you a gift, told you about the gift, but you never came to receive it from me...does it make the gift useless? No! It just says YOU dont have the benefit of the gift. God gave His life...(The gift). Atonement was made and proclaimed (told you about the gift) and the only way to have the 'benefit' (thus forgiveness from sins and a living relationship with God) is by accepting it as a undeserved gift.

Q: if Jesus died for our sins, does this mean that we can go on sinning?
In theory yes, we could. But.... If you really grasp the concept of the offer, the sacrifice and the effect on the soul...then sinning would be something that would not be done without thought and then, after realising the sin.. You would not be at peace before you have asked, begged frogiveness from God.

I see the person Jesus as a great teacher, who had a lot to give. But I do not understand this other part of it.[/QUOTE]

I believe Him to be much, much more. And this was just a very short explaination how i believe the sacrifice works. There are many other things that could (and should) be mentioned here. I am certainly no expert but i spent 2 years at a Bible college. :)
if these dont answer your questions, maybe i could point you in the direction of some good books.

[sub_sequent]

After reading through all the threads again, i just wanted to add a disclaimer: i am not English. So, if some things arent grammatically correct, it may be the Afrikaans influence.

Also the following:
Jesus died on the cross to appease God, because humans were sinful - is that true?

Yes, humans are sinful. Not only because they DO sin... But because they are born with the potential to sin.

Think of it as you would a fruit tree. You could say it is an apple tree because its fruit are apples. But it is more than that. It is a apple tree therefore it gives apples.


Q: how could God create a son and sacrifice him, and that appeased his anger??

People have this idea that God is angry. I dont read that in the Bible. I see that God is just. He cannot allow sin to go unpunished.
I see Him as merciful.. God the Son came to BE the offer we would have had to bring over and over. He doesnt forget about us after we deny the gift of forgiveness from sin. But He continues to give us chances to accept it.
In fact, in the Bible i read :He is slow to anger.

Just my 2 cents.

[Thorne]

God in the old testament demanded sacrafice as a way to atone for the sins of people.
Wait! Didn't god MAKE the people? If he made them sinful, why do we need to atone for HIS mistakes? He should be atoning to us!


When Adam sinned ... the only way this could be atoned, was by a blood sacrifice. The reason for blood? - Exodus tells us the life of a creature is in his blood. Thus the need for blood - one life in the place of another.
Why? Why not a scolding, or a mea culpa, or even a good spanking. Why kill an innocent creature (or person!) for your own sins? If I kill my neighbor, can I atone for it by sacrificing his virgin daughter, too?


God never created a Son. He is God. He is just as much God as God the Father is God. He has just another function, another job if you will. And remember the sacrifice needed to be perfect? Who is perfect? Without sin? Only God. And that is why only God ( the Son) could be the final sacrifice.
So God sacrificed himself, to himself, to atone for the mistakes he made during creation? Makes perfects sense, I guess.


God gave His life...(The gift).
So God is dead? No, wait. He isn't dead, is he? Something about a resurrection? So he didn't give his life, he just had a couple of bad days, went into a coma for a day or so, then woke up? And this is supposed to make up for all of the sins of mankind? How?


Atonement was made and proclaimed (told you about the gift) and the only way to have the 'benefit' (thus forgiveness from sins and a living relationship with God) is by accepting it as a undeserved gift.
What of those who happened to be born, and died, in places which DIDN'T hear about this gift? Why didn't God announce this 'gift' to the Inca's, or the Aztecs, or the American Indians? What happened to them before they were so violently 'saved' by missionaries?


In theory yes, we could. But.... If you really grasp the concept of the offer, the sacrifice and the effect on the soul...then sinning would be something that would not be done without thought and then, after realising the sin.. You would not be at peace before you have asked, begged frogiveness from God.
So I can slaughter families, neighborhoods, entire villages even, and get off with a simple prayer of forgiveness? That doesn't seem right.

And what happens if I refuse this 'gift' of God's, but still lead a good, moral life. Am I still 'saved'? Or do I have to suck up to the priests and tithe to their churches in order to attain this 'gift'? The whole thing sounds suspiciously like an ancient version of the Nigerian letter scam!

[rocco]

I done a little theological studies myself!!! yeah I know!!! But it was for more historical reasons than trying to become a vicar or priest etc.

There was an angel, "the covering cherub of Eden" his job was to assist in turning the earth into a paradise. He was beautifully designed and "probably Gods second created son.
Through jealousy and wanting to be worshipped himself, deceived Eve. Making the forbidden fruit appealing. She ate, then later Adam joined her. Then Adam blamed God, and eventually this fuelled a universal challenge of sovereignty!

The covering cherub slandered or devilled God, and opposed or Satan"sed him. Hence becoming Satan the Devil!

I was under the impression, Jesus died for mankind to [a] atone for what Adam and Eve had lost for us all by disobedience. And [b] so we could in fact approach God with a clean conscience. WE ARE sinners, but the need for human sacrifice. Helped atone for them. That is why after he died, or was executed the old mosaic law was abandoned.

I dont for one minute believe God ordered his son to become a sacrifice, rather it was his son who probably offered. Considering its written "all things were created through his son" so therefore if we were created in Gods image, then we were of sentimental value. Otherwise we would all been condemned to death!
Just like when the flood came and destroyed mankind. [that was Gods doing]
I suppose its like me offering to become a hostage, so the other person can be freed!!?? Especially if they were vulnerable. i.e. child, elderly, or someone who was disabled. [if you get my drift].

And Jesus came to the earth, so its written to vindicate his fathers name!

The problem Ive always had is this "Trinity theory"!!!!!! In most old "pagan" religions, a lot of "deities" had three entities. In the bible the actual word Trinity is never mentioned. So thats what confused me!

A question I often brought up. if God came to earth and died, who was running things? that is if life cant exist when Gods not around????
So i hope you dont mind me adding that one on thir?

[Thorne]

i am not English. So, if some things arent grammatically correct, it may be the Afrikaans influence.
Your English is fine. Don't worry about grammar, as long as people can understand, it's all good. It's a hell of a lot better than my Afrikaans!


Yes, humans are sinful. Not only because they DO sin... But because they are born with the potential to sin.
And who's fault is that? Isn't this how God made us? In His image? And why should we be punished for having the POTENTIAL to sin? Everyone has the POTENTIAL to be a mass murderer, too. Doesn't mean we should execute everyone before they reach puberty.


Think of it as you would a fruit tree. You could say it is an apple tree because its fruit are apples. But it is more than that. It is a apple tree therefore it gives apples.
I don't understand this at all. It's a tree, and apples grow on it, hopefully, in good weather, if properly pollinated. What's that got to do with God?


People have this idea that God is angry. I dont read that in the Bible.
Then you aren't reading the GOOD parts (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2594658/posts)! Plenty of anger there to go around.


I see that God is just. He cannot allow sin to go unpunished.
And he will punish umpteen generations for that sin, too! There's justice for you.

[sub_sequent]

Wait! Didn't god MAKE the people? If he made them sinful, why do we need to atone for HIS mistakes? He should be atoning to us!

But You forget. God did not make man sinful. He made him perfect. Without sin. Adam and Eve always had a choice to obey God or not. Otherwise how fair would that be? Adam and Eve made a concious decision to disobey a clear and direct order from God. There is No mistake from God's side there. This rests on man.

Why? Why not a scolding, or a mea culpa, or even a good spanking. Why kill an innocent creature (or person!) for your own sins? If I kill my neighbor, can I atone for it by sacrificing his virgin daughter, too?

I explained why a confession is not good enough. Only a blood offer. And never of another person.( Cause no-one is sinless) Always an animal. And yes, an innocent animal. Because a guilty could never be an offer.


So God sacrificed himself, to himself, to atone for the mistakes he made during creation? Makes perfects sense, I guess.

It actually does. He in fact then gave Himself for something He is innocent of. A perfect sacrifice.

So God is dead? No, wait. He isn't dead, is he? Something about a resurrection? So he didn't give his life, he just had a couple of bad days, went into a coma for a day or so, then woke up? And this is supposed to make up for all of the sins of mankind? How?

The Romans did everything medically known in that time to prove that He was dead. (Sword through His heart.... Not blood coming from the wound but a clear liquid) They proved He was dead and not in a coma. After He rose, He appeared to more than 500 people. They all testified that He was alive. It was THE sacrife needed because He was sinless in all aspects.

What of those who happened to be born, and died, in places which DIDN'T hear about this gift?

This is a question many people ask...and the answer is not difficult. Romans 1 cleary says that they will be judged NOT on their knowledge and acceptance of Christ. (Because they have no knowledge of Him) But on their acknowledgement of a Higher power through nature. And their living their lives with a clear consuance (sp) according to the laws of their times. Again, Your question speaks of an 'angry god' unfair and unjust. This is not true. His plans made that concession -becuase He is just and fair.

Why didn't God announce this 'gift' to the Inca's, or the Aztecs, or the American Indians? What happened to them before they were so violently 'saved' by missionaries?

My answer above applies here too. And i agree... 'Saved' is NOT what those so-called missionaries did at all!

So I can slaughter families, neighborhoods, entire villages even, and get off with a simple prayer of forgiveness? That doesn't seem right.

You are right. It cannot be right. I think it's important to mention that i am not of the Catholic faith. And have my own history horror stories to tell of Protestants being murdered.

And what happens if I refuse this 'gift' of God's, but still lead a good, moral life. Am I still 'saved'? Or do I have to suck up to the priests and tithe to their churches in order to attain this 'gift'? The whole thing sounds suspiciously like an ancient version of the Nigerian letter scam!

No, personally i believe that a good and moral life (with knowledge of God and His offer-So, Romans 1 does not apply) will not save a person. Neither does tithing or confession without sincere repentance and 'turning away' from sin.
Only a personal acceptance of this Offer and the implications in my life will lead to true salvation.

[sub_sequent]

And who's fault is that? Isn't this how God made us? In His image? And why should we be punished for having the POTENTIAL to sin? Everyone has the POTENTIAL to be a mass murderer, too. Doesn't mean we should execute everyone before they reach puberty.

An earlier answer applies here. Yes, everyone has the potential to become a mass murderer. But also has the potential to live a god-pleasing, moral and exemplarary life. It is THIS, in my opinion, the reason why God gives us many opportunities to turn to Him. He sees the potential to be what His plan for a person is. There is always the choice and therefore the potential NOT to be that.

I don't understand this at all. It's a tree, and apples grow on it, hopefully, in good weather, if properly pollinated. What's that got to do with God?

It is simply an illutration. We are sinners not because we DO sin but because it is in our nature to sin. It is THAT nature that God changes when a person becomes saved.

Then you aren't reading the GOOD parts (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2594658/posts)! Plenty of anger there to go around.

I havent read it yet, but i will, the moment im on my laptop and off this cellphone. (On holiday at the moment )

And he will punish umpteen generations for that sin, too! There's justice for you.[/QUOTE]
Yes, agreed, it IS justice....
He keeps punishing because people keep making the same choices. Choices He has given other alternatives for. But read the rest of the verse..... He blesses to the 1000th generation of those that love God.

[IAN 2411]

I don’t know why but every time anyone talks about the unseen guy in the sky, I start asking myself questions. I am not an atheist, but then I am not a true believer. I have days when I sit and ponder religious thoughts, contradictions like the one that has been placed on this thread. One of Gods commandments was thou shall not kill, yet it is good to sacrifice life to God.

It is at times like this that I think the bible is a very good story, but nothing more. It was written with a mind to give moral guidance to a naive and uneducated world by “Whom?” Does it justify being adhered to as it did two thousand years ago? In my opinion “No.” It’s outdated and run its moral course.

This is the space age and technology dictates how we think and feel. Every time that this invisible man that made earth and the universe we live in is spoken about, I cannot help thinking about a link that [Thorne] gave me. I think that in the few weeks that I first saw the link it has changed my way of thinking and placed a lot more questions in my head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HKf56ZVJ4w&feature=related

Be well IAN 2411

[ksst]

Well, Master said I got my interpretations of the doctrine all wrong.



Jesus died on the cross to appease God, because humans were sinful - is that true?

No, Jesus died so we could be freed from our sins.
Our sins were so great that only a blood sacrifice would work, not a spanking or a "naughty people, stop that" lecture.
Even if you are sinful, you can repent and still go to heaven. That is because of Jesus. Without him, you could have repented all day long and still go to hell.
Why try not to sin then? Because Jesus asked us to.

So there you go, one more interpretation.

Just have to add that neither of us believe this stuff. And no, it doesn't have to make sense, it's religion for God's sake.

[ksst]

Oh, and God created us with free will, thus Adam and Eve and the apple and the Fall from Grace and all that.

[Thorne]

But You forget. God did not make man sinful. He made him perfect. Without sin. Adam and Eve always had a choice to obey God or not. Otherwise how fair would that be? Adam and Eve made a concious decision to disobey a clear and direct order from God. There is No mistake from God's side there. This rests on man.
But God created man with the capacity to do sin. Therefore man is imperfect. Therefore God is imperfect.

And just why did God put that tree in the Garden in the first place? To test his creation? Why would he need to do that? Being omniscient he would already know the results of that test.

And finally, the tree in question was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. So why doesn't God want man to have knowledge. He prefers stupid worshipers? For that matter, why would an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being need worshipers in the first place?


No, personally i believe that a good and moral life (with knowledge of God and His offer-So, Romans 1 does not apply) will not save a person. Neither does tithing or confession without sincere repentance and 'turning away' from sin.
Only a personal acceptance of this Offer and the implications in my life will lead to true salvation.
And this is the crux of my problems with religion: Everyone has their own interpretation of what the Bible (or Quran, or Torah, or whatever holy book) says one needs to do for salvation, and such interpretations cause schisms within religions. How can anyone know who is right? And why would God write a book of instructions which was so contradictory and ambiguous that it can be used to justify the beliefs of a (hopefully) moral and decent person such as yourself while at the same time be used to justify the abominations of the Westboro Baptist Church? Why, it's almost as if the Bible were a concoction of ancient mythologies and fairy stories!

[Thorne]

I think that in the few weeks that I first saw the link it has changed my way of thinking and placed a lot more questions in my head.
Questions are good, Ian. Thinking about what you believe, and WHY you believe it, is important if you want to be honest with yourself.

One thing I've noticed repeatedly happening in the current fiasco that is the Republican primary race is the constant harping about "liberal" knowledge, and controlling what we allow our children to learn. It's almost as if these people don't want their children to think too much, because they might actually learn that the Emperor has no clothes!

[Thorne]

No, Jesus died so we could be freed from our sins.
And what if we don't HAVE any sins? Oh, that's right! We are BORN with sin, because a "just" God cursed all of Adam's descendants for Adam's sin! So Jesus (who IS God) had to be sacrificed TO God to save us from a sin which was inflicted upon us BY God?

no, it doesn't have to make sense, it's religion for God's sake.
It's religion, all right. Therefore it DOESN'T make sense! By definition.

[Thorne]

Oh, and God created us with free will, thus Adam and Eve and the apple and the Fall from Grace and all that.
Just how much free will do we have? We can do exactly as God tells us, or we can burn for eternity! Some freedom!

And of course, God doesn't actually TELL us anything. He has priests to do that. So we must depend on sinful humans (by their own definition) to tell us how NOT to be sinful humans? Who makes this stuff up?

[sub_sequent]

[QUOTE=Thorne;966044]But God created man with the capacity to do sin. Therefore man is imperfect. Therefore God is imperfect.

So, following your reasoning: every man has the capacity to be a mass murderer and therefore IS a mass murderer. Just because Adam and Eve had the capacity to sin, it doesnt make them sinners. We know they DID make the choice to sin...THEN and only then they were sinners. So, when they were made in God's image they were sinless, as He is.

[sub_sequent]

Questions are good, Ian. Thinking about what you believe, and WHY you believe it, is important if you want to be honest with yourself.

I want to absolutely agree here with Thorne. I also believe that people should ask questions. Difficult questions. Even questions that might offend some people...... IF your goal is to actually find the answers to these questions. Then i believe, if a person is actually willing to listen and learn, then they will eventually find the answers they are looking for.

One thing I've noticed repeatedly happening in the current fiasco that is the Republican primary race is the constant harping about "liberal" knowledge, and controlling what we allow our children to learn. It's almost as if these people don't want their children to think too much, because they might actually learn that the Emperor has no clothes!

Not being American i don't have the context of the examples you mention here but something i absolutely believe in is that the truth, the real truth, does not need to be defended or cencored . It sometimes needs to be explained or illustrated but never defended. Parts of it doesn't need to be hidden away. I never feel offended by questions people ask about my personal faith. I also never fight about it.
If it needs to be added to, taken away from it or 'held up' it can't be the Real Truth. By definition it needs to be able to stand questioning. i have questioned. And came to the conclusions i have stated. This is not to say i understand it all. I don't. But that is why i continue to ask questions.

[thir]

Ooh, ooh, please, can I answer these? No, wait. You want SERIOUS answers. Okay, I'll hold off. For a while. Not too long, though, please?


Can you hold it a couple of more days? ;-)




This isn't directly related to Easter, so I'll comment about this ONE line:

There are many serious scholars, both religious and secular, who aren't convinced that Jesus, as defined in the gospels, actually existed. Oh, there was probably an itinerant rabbi roaming around preaching some things, and he may have been called Yeshua, and he may have been executed for some reason (or not), but for someone who supposedly went around performing miracles in front of thousands of people, he didn't seem to make any kind of impression on people. Outside of the gospels, which were written many years after he supposedly died, there are no known references to him by contemporaries. Even Pat Robertson can get better press than that, and he hasn't performed a single miracle!

Well, I like to think there was, because I like the idea of a person taking so much interest in other people in a positive way, as opposed to so much worshipping of money, violence, power, greed and what not. I am not a Christian in any way, but I can get behind sound advice like:

You cannot serve two masters - god and mammon, treat others like you want to be treated, if you share there will always be enough, recieve without payment and give without payment, let those without sin throw the first stone! - find the beam in your own eye before you try to cast out the beam in others, and one of my favorites which I wish I could learn: you cannot add as much as an hour to your life by worrying :-)

[thir]

Here are my best guesses, since he's not home. Back in the old days, sacrifice solved a lot of problems, at least the people thought so. They were always sacrificing animals to try to make their harvest better/other animals thrive/children live. It is an effort to feel they had some control in a dangerous and unpredictable world. So having God make a sacrifice of his own son to make up for all people's sins should make people feel guilty enough to stop their sinning. No, we're not supposed to go on sinning. We're supposed to feel bad that we made God do such a terrible thing and shape up.

I think you are right that people in circumstances beyond their control (actually, we all are, people just do not realize it) would try to get on the right side of powers or bribe them, or thank them.

But it is the idea of a sacrifice that does not compute..I mean, if god or the gods are everything or have everything or are omipotent - what does it matter if you give a little of it back - to what they already have - are?
Sorry, I am just trying to think aloud - I have never quite understood it.

[Thorne]

So, following your reasoning: every man has the capacity to be a mass murderer and therefore IS a mass murderer. Just because Adam and Eve had the capacity to sin, it doesnt make them sinners. We know they DID make the choice to sin...THEN and only then they were sinners. So, when they were made in God's image they were sinless, as He is.
No, it's not ME claiming that we are all sinners, or mass-murderers. Listen to a good-old fire and brimstone preacher telling his flock how evil and perverse mankind is, and that will tell you who thinks we are all sinners. And they get it from the Bible.

What I am saying (and it's all hypothetical, since there probably is no God) is that God made man with the CAPACITY to sin, which makes man imperfect. And if we are made in God's image, then God also has the capacity to sin, which makes HIM imperfect.

[thir]

God in the old testament demanded sacrafice as a way to atone for the sins of people. This goes back to Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. When Adam sinned(not by eating the fruit, but by disobeying a direct order from the Creator) the only way this could be atoned, was by a blood sacrifice. The reason for blood? - Exodus tells us the life of a creature is in his blood. Thus the need for blood - one life in the place of another.


I guess this is the hardest thing about sacrife for me to understand: how another's sacrifice can atone someone's sins? I would have thought you'd have to sacrifice something of yourself, to atone for your own sins?



Q: if Jesus died for our sins, does this mean that we can go on sinning?
In theory yes, we could. But.... If you really grasp the concept of the offer, the sacrifice and the effect on the soul...then sinning would be something that would not be done without thought and then, after realising the sin.. You would not be at peace before you have asked, begged frogiveness from God.


I saw a film about this, where the devil materialized in Getsemane garden before the arrest, and showed Jesus how little people would heed his words after his death, and asked him if he really wanted to go through with it. And after a long thought, he said: yes, so people will always know that they have a choice.

I think there is generally too little thinking before action in our lives, not in a Christian way neccesarily, but rather in the sense of how your actions effect other poeple - and the planet.

Thank you for taking the time to explain. Maybe you can take a shot at another question: you mention the old testament, and as I see it, it is so radically different from the new, that I cannot understand how you can have both in the same religion?

[Thorne]

i have questioned. And came to the conclusions i have stated. This is not to say i understand it all. I don't. But that is why i continue to ask questions.
Which puts you several steps ahead of the average American theist. I can respect someone who has actually looked at her faith and questioned it. There are far too many people who can't, or won't, do that.

But have you asked yourself why YOUR religion is right but someone else's is not? Try this out (http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2011/06/its-time-once-again-boys-and-girls-for.html) to see if you have really questioned your faith as deeply as you think you have.

[thir]

After reading through all the threads again, i just wanted to add a disclaimer: i am not English. So, if some things arent grammatically correct, it may be the Afrikaans influence.


No worries, you are perfectly clear. And BTW, neither am I :-)



Yes, humans are sinful. Not only because they DO sin... But because they are born with the potential to sin.


I am not sure I get this: do you meant that the potential is the same as the actual deed? If so, can you say why?

And with potential, do you mean free will?



People have this idea that God is angry. I dont read that in the Bible. I see that God is just. He cannot allow sin to go unpunished.
I see Him as merciful.. God the Son came to BE the offer we would have had to bring over and over. He doesnt forget about us after we deny the gift of forgiveness from sin. But He continues to give us chances to accept it.
In fact, in the Bible i read :He is slow to anger.

Just my 2 cents.

As I read the old testament that is an angry god, while the new testament is a loving, even forgiving god. It is this radical difference which I find confusing.

[Thorne]

Can you hold it a couple of more days? ;-)
LOL! I think I may have fallen off the wagon already.


Well, I like to think there was, because I like the idea of a person taking so much interest in other people in a positive way, as opposed to so much worshipping of money, violence, power, greed and what not.
There have always been such people. There still are such people. It doesn't take an imaginary being to make people good.


I am not a Christian in any way, but I can get behind sound advice like: ...
Yes, these are all laudable statements, and none of them are exclusively Christian. They are all older than God, even. Just because the Christian churches claim to be the harbingers of morality doesn't make them so. You can be good without God.

[thir]

The problem Ive always had is this "Trinity theory"!!!!!! In most old "pagan" religions, a lot of "deities" had three entities. In the bible the actual word Trinity is never mentioned. So thats what confused me!


I always heard of it as 'the holy trinity', the father, the son and the holy ghost. That is why some Islam say that Christianity is polytheist.

Many pagan religions have sacrifice and resurrection in their beliefs, long before Chrisitanity. It is a well established idea.

In my own world, this refers to what dies so we can live, and then grows again or is born next year. Nature's cycle, in other words.



So i hope you dont mind me adding that one on thir?

Not at all. Let's get our thoughts sorted out :-)

[thir]

No, personally i believe that a good and moral life (with knowledge of God and His offer-So, Romans 1 does not apply) will not save a person. Neither does tithing or confession without sincere repentance and 'turning away' from sin.
Only a personal acceptance of this Offer and the implications in my life will lead to true salvation.

But - doesn't that mean that is doesn't matter how we behave?

[thir]

I don’t know why but every time anyone talks about the unseen guy in the sky, I start asking myself questions. I am not an atheist, but then I am not a true believer. I have days when I sit and ponder religious thoughts, contradictions like the one that has been placed on this thread. One of Gods commandments was thou shall not kill, yet it is good to sacrifice life to God.

It is at times like this that I think the bible is a very good story, but nothing more. It was written with a mind to give moral guidance to a naive and uneducated world by “Whom?” Does it justify being adhered to as it did two thousand years ago? In my opinion “No.” It’s outdated and run its moral course.


Naive and uneducated? Somehow this implies that peole of our times are less naive and more educated. The latter perhaps, but I do not see good behaviour by people of our times. Does this then mean that we need religion to behave? Or is it simply because greed and violence is now our religion, in place of some sort of code of honour? In other words, we do nost seem to have a code of honour that fits the 21th century.



This is the space age and technology dictates how we think and feel. Every time that this invisible man that made earth and the universe we live in is spoken about, I cannot help thinking about a link that [Thorne] gave me. I think that in the few weeks that I first saw the link it has changed my way of thinking and placed a lot more questions in my head.


I think that there is a good point here. Technology is changing our ways of thinking, mostly in terms of not thinking, because we do not need to, to survive. In fact, few of us would be able to do what the smallest fielld mouse can: find food and shelter. This way a lot of meaning has fallen out of our mental Universe, and nothing new has come back in. Or so I speculate.

[Thorne]

I always heard of it as 'the holy trinity', the father, the son and the holy ghost. That is why some Islam say that Christianity is polytheist.
Technically, these are considered three "aspects" of the one God. When the early Christians decided that Jesus had to be divine, they had to find a way to make him so without actually devolving into polytheism, so they developed this Trinity idea. Yeah, it sounds silly. You have to take it on faith!


Many pagan religions have sacrifice and resurrection in their beliefs, long before Chrisitanity. It is a well established idea.
Many other things which supposedly made Jesus unique were also relatively common among pagan religions at the time or before Christianity, including the virgin birth. This is one of the reasons why religious scholars are questioning the existence of Jesus as a real person.


In my own world, this refers to what dies so we can live, and then grows again or is born next year. Nature's cycle, in other words.
The resurrection stories of the pagans were very common before the time of Jesus, too. They all derive from the rebirth of spring after the death of winter.

[thir]

Well, here goes:

Assuming that Jesus existed, how did a mulitute of people get fed by 2 fish and 5 loaves? Was it because coming from afar, those who could brought food, and they shared it?

Why did the crowd cry 'hosiana' on the entrance to Jerusalem, and 'crucify him' a few days later? Was it two different crowds, that of Barabas's followers, assuming he was a freedom fighter, and those of Jesus?

Why did Judas betray him? Was he disappointed as some explanations would have it, that Jesus could not save them from the Romans? And why the kiss? There must have been many people who knew him by sight.

Why did he get crucified? Did he get caught in an uprising at the same time?

How did he resurrect? Was he never crucified? Or did he not die?

What did the Romans want with Palestine anyway? There cannot have been a lot to tax??

[Thorne]

Assuming that Jesus existed, how did a mulitute of people get fed by 2 fish and 5 loaves? Was it because coming from afar, those who could brought food, and they shared it?
Even if he DID exist, why are there no reports of his so-called miracles from people other than his followers? There were thousands who supposedly saw them, but no one bothered to write them down?


Why did the crowd cry 'hosiana' on the entrance to Jerusalem, and 'crucify him' a few days later? Was it two different crowds, that of Barabas's followers, assuming he was a freedom fighter, and those of Jesus?
Again, you are assuming that the reports in the gospels are true. And they don't even agree with each other!


Why did Judas betray him? Was he disappointed as some explanations would have it, that Jesus could not save them from the Romans? And why the kiss? There must have been many people who knew him by sight.
If I recall (and I'm too lazy to look it up right now) the gospel of Judas claims that he was selected by Jesus to betray him, to fulfill prophecy. And the kiss is a major problem. If Jesus was so famous, why did one of his own have to identify him? Hell, if some of the Christians around here are to be believed, he would have been the only white guy in the whole damned country!


Why did he get crucified? Did he get caught in an uprising at the same time?
WAS he crucified? The descriptions of his crucifixion in the gospels are very different from standard Roman practice. Crucifixion was intended to be a humiliating, slow, painful death by suffocation, followed by an ignominious disposal of the body. He should have been on the cross for days, struggling for each breath, not allowed to die in mere hours. His followers and/or family would NOT have been permitted to take his body for burial.


How did he resurrect? Was he never crucified? Or did he not die?
Again, the only evidence for his resurrection comes from his followers. Not exactly uninvolved witnesses. There are no extant accounts from the Romans or the Jewish temple of his existence, much less his execution. The ONLY evidence we have for his existence are texts written at least 30 to 50 years after his death (Matthew), or even longer (Luke, John, Mark). And remember these are the four texts which the RCC decided, hundreds of years later, were good enough to include in their dogma. Other texts were tossed aside and ordered destroyed! How many of those would contradict the gospels as we know them?


What did the Romans want with Palestine anyway? There cannot have been a lot to tax??
The Middle East has always been a major crossroads between the riches of India and the Mediterranean. And the Romans taxed EVERYTHING! I just saw a program the other day about an outpost on the Red Sea that handled shipments of spices and goods from India. People traveling TO the fort had to pay a tax! The equivalent of $25 for the wife of a soldier, hundreds for merchants, taxes on donkeys hauling goods, and if memory serves, the equivalent of $2500 for a prostitute! The Romans got plenty of money out of Palestine, believe me!

[IAN 2411]

Naive and uneducated? Somehow this implies that people of our times are less naive and more educated. The latter perhaps, but I do not see good behaviour by people of our times. Does this then mean that we need religion to behave?
No, I never meant that. Two thousand years ago and more all governing bodies used religion as a Mark to adhere to. They used the laws of their religion to punish, hence the [eye for an eye] etc. If you were caught thieving you lost your hand, and this was not just isolated to the Middle East and their barbaric laws, it was here in Old England before and during and after the holy wars.

Religion guided the Kings, Queens Governments etc that guided the people. The common uneducated man “Was” naive, he believed in Trolls, Goblins and Fairies. He believed that the wicked burnt in hell. He believed in monsters, curses, chants and witches.

Do we need religion now to behave? No, it should be after all this time installed in us to abide by the same moral code. However because we are all born with equal amounts of good and evil, it depends on how strong our minds and abilities are to make one of these senses dominant and push aside the other. Most people get it right, but there will always be a small percentage that are weak and travel the wrong path.


Or is it simply because greed and violence is now our religion, in place of some sort of code of honour? In other words, we do not seem to have a code of honour that fits the 21th century.
I don’t understand this question. Each person has his/her own code of honour, whether right or wrong but they all differ in some minute way.

I think that there is a good point here. Technology is changing our ways of thinking, mostly in terms of not thinking, because we do not need to, to survive.
We all need to think to survive even the lazy. To use the technology to give you the maximum benefit you have to learn the basics. Technology is a prop, to help us achieve our goals in life and advance our leisure time, it will not work without someone pushing the correct buttons.

In fact, few of us would be able to do what the smallest fielld mouse can: find food and shelter. This way a lot of meaning has fallen out of our mental Universe, and nothing new has come back in. Or so I speculate.
No i think that has to wrong in my opinion, because survival is in our DNA. If needed, we can revert back to the animal in us and live of the land. There are only the weak, lazy and infirmed that might have problems surviving in a hostile environment. We all want to live to see the sun coming up the next day.

Be well IAN 2411

[denuseri]

And just why did God put that tree in the Garden in the first place? To test his creation? Why would he need to do that? Being omniscient he would already know the results of that test.

And finally, the tree in question was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. So why doesn't God want man to have knowledge. He prefers stupid worshipers? For that matter, why would an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being need worshipers in the first place?


And this is the crux of my problems with religion: Everyone has their own interpretation of what the Bible (or Quran, or Torah, or whatever holy book) says one needs to do for salvation, and such interpretations cause schisms within religions. How can anyone know who is right? And why would God write a book of instructions which was so contradictory and ambiguous that it can be used to justify the beliefs of a (hopefully) moral and decent person such as yourself while at the same time be used to justify the abominations of the Westboro Baptist Church? Why, it's almost as if the Bible were a concoction of ancient mythologies and fairy stories!

First off God didn't write anything...men did. Hence the imperfections.

Secondly: In some interpretations the entire creation story is allegorical with the tree of life being the ultimate goal that can only be reached by first eating one's way through the tree of knowledge. Since God is perfect, "the serpent" acting out of jealousy or not...is still doing exactly what God intended it to do (so is mankind by the way), which is prompt mankind to seek knowledge so that one day eternal life could be obtained. The act of taking the apple being one of rebellion, yet also one of seeking to be like God. After all Eve was only tempted because she was told that if she ate of it, she could indeed become like God.

Third: The overall message...that we should all become more loving and peaceful with each other and work together seeking harmony (in essence be like God wants us to be) stands alone regardless of interpretation. It is basically all about overcoming our nature's despite our inherent sinfulness and becoming enlightened and transcending mortal existence. It's not even a Christan or Jewish, or Islamic only theme either...Buddhists, Hindus and a wide wide variety of faiths ( in fact almost all religions) address such aspirations of apotheosis in like manner...as if trying to explain the same universal concept. Which is a good concept...love one another as you would wish to be loved.

[denuseri]

Well, here goes:

Assuming that Jesus existed, how did a mulitute of people get fed by 2 fish and 5 loaves?

In short...it was a miracle.

Was it because coming from afar, those who could brought food, and they shared it?

Thats perhaps one interpretation...and a very good one at that imho.

Why did the crowd cry 'hosiana' on the entrance to Jerusalem, and 'crucify him' a few days later?

Because most of them thought he was coming to free them from the Romans but latter after hearing him preach in the synagogue how they were all messing up what God wanted from them (being greedy and corrupt and sinfully full of themselves etc) they were easily swayed by his detractors who would loose the most if he was right (the high priests etc).

Was it two different crowds, that of Barabas's followers, assuming he was a freedom fighter, and those of Jesus?

There was an active sub-sect/ cult element in their society that sought a violent solution from Roman oppression yes, but its purely speculative as to how many of them were present and influencing events.

Why did Judas betray him? Was he disappointed as some explanations would have it, that Jesus could not save them from the Romans? And why the kiss? There must have been many people who knew him by sight.

Ahh but would the guards recognize him? In some versions outside the commonly accepted cannon Jesus has even been attributed to telling Judas to betray him. In others Judas was indeed part of the more militant cultists seeking freedom from Rome and dissatisfied.

Why did he get crucified? Did he get caught in an uprising at the same time?

Crucifixion was the commonly accepted punishment for anyone who wasn't a Roman citizen who pissed off the Romans. The High priests were accusing Jesus of attempting to usurp Rome's auctoritas.

How did he resurrect? Was he never crucified? Or did he not die?

Lots of possibilities bounce around out there...like his body was stolen from the tomb etc...but amongst the faithful its basically back to divine intervention, IE a miracle. Again...one can take a non-literal interpretation and assume whats being given in the bible is an example (hold faith in god and receive eternal life) but that's up to you as an individual to answer for yourself imho.

What did the Romans want with Palestine anyway? There cannot have been a lot to tax??

Outside of all the major trade routes with Asia passing right smack through the middle of the area (making it rather rich btw) it also sat in a strategically important region for the Romans to defend against Parthia and help keep a secure hold over Egypt.

[denuseri]

And just an FYI.....not all the crucified were killed in exactly the same manner. Ideally one suffocated after days of suffering. If they really were being viscous suffocation was prevented by different placement like being slanted back at a 45 degree angle. The legs being tucked up under with the heals pointing up was particularly painful and would cause lots of muscle cramping and squirming around apparently. Sometimes one died from exposure other times the Romans got bored and just speared them. Some had their legs broken to hasten the death (not out of mercy but because they wanted to make sure they were dead or would be after the guards had to be leaving the area).

In some cases (especially in regions were the Romans were trying to placate or mollify wide scale rebellion) local cultural practices prevailed and the bodies were allowed to be removed after a time for burial. Though in the Biblical account one must remember there was an eclipse and an earthquake during the event and the Romans themselves were big on augury (they invented the word lol) and perhaps decided the wiser course was not to further anger the gods by leaving one of their favored hanging.

[Thorne]

First off God didn't write anything...men did. Hence the imperfections.
That would depend upon which sect you listen to. Many of them believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, even if it was transcribed by men. Mormons believe the same of their holy books, as do Muslims. They can't ALL be right!


Secondly: In some interpretations the entire creation story is allegorical with the tree of life being the ultimate goal that can only be reached by first eating one's way through the tree of knowledge. Since God is perfect, "the serpent" acting out of jealousy or not...is still doing exactly what God intended it to do (so is mankind by the way), which is prompt mankind to seek knowledge so that one day eternal life could be obtained. The act of taking the apple being one of rebellion, yet also one of seeking to be like God. After all Eve was only tempted because she was told that if she ate of it, she could indeed become like God.
In some interpretations the creation story is literally true! Again, how can you tell whose interpretation is right? And if you are correct, and God intended for mankind to attain knowledge, why did he supposedly curse us with Original Sin? Why is attaining knowledge sinful in the eyes of so many of His followers? As a parable, I have no problem with the idea of the story of Eve, but using it as the basis for demeaning and hating women, as so many theists do, is just plain wrong! By your interpretation we should be praising Eve, and her daughters, for doing what God intended in the first place!


Third: The overall message...that we should all become more loving and peaceful with each other and work together seeking harmony (in essence be like God wants us to be) stands alone regardless of interpretation.
It stands alone without religion, too. To quote Benjamin Franklin, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." This applies to society as a whole, not just to revolutionaries.


Which is a good concept...love one another as you would wish to be loved.
It IS a good concept. I firmly believe in it myself. What frosts me is when theists, of any stripe, try to claim exclusive rights to the concept, claiming that you cannot be a good person unless you follow the tenets of their particular brand of shamanism. And then they will only apply that concept to those they deem worthy!

Religion was, and still could be, a teaching mechanism, used to inform people of the laws and morality of their society. Religions, or their gods, are not the origins of these laws and moralities, though. And given the excesses to which so many religions have fallen, they certainly don't deserve the respect and adoration given to them by their followers. Especially when they must lie and threaten to keep those followers from walking away with their money.

[Thorne]

And just an FYI.....not all the crucified were killed in exactly the same manner. Ideally one suffocated after days of suffering. If they really were being viscous suffocation was prevented by different placement like being slanted back at a 45 degree angle. The legs being tucked up under with the heals pointing up was particularly painful and would cause lots of muscle cramping and squirming around apparently. Sometimes one died from exposure other times the Romans got bored and just speared them. Some had their legs broken to hasten the death (not out of mercy but because they wanted to make sure they were dead or would be after the guards had to be leaving the area).
All quite true, and gruesome. An item I saw on TV the other day talked about the only known relic of a crucifixion, the heel bone of a first century criminal (NOT Jesus) with a nail through the heel. It was placed in an area which missed all major blood vessels, but struck a major nerve cluster. Excruciatingly painful in and of itself, you also have to remember that the victim would have had his legs bent, as described above, forcing him to push up against that nail in order to lift himself and allow himself to breath. Usually, the only reason for spearing them was to make sure they were, indeed, dead, not to ease their suffering. And breaking the legs only insured that they could NOT push up any longer, and thus suffer slow, painful, terrifying suffocation. Try hanging from your arms, outstretched as in a crucifixion, to see how difficult it is to get a breath. And as the muscles in the diaphragm become over worked, each breath becomes painful as well. It was truly a horrific way to die, and designed to last for days. Yet Jesus supposedly died within short hours. Something doesn't scan there.


In some cases (especially in regions were the Romans were trying to placate or mollify wide scale rebellion) local cultural practices prevailed and the bodies were allowed to be removed after a time for burial. Though in the Biblical account one must remember there was an eclipse and an earthquake during the event and the Romans themselves were big on augury (they invented the word lol) and perhaps decided the wiser course was not to further anger the gods by leaving one of their favored hanging.
Yes, they may have allowed them to remove the body, after he was dead, but it's doubtful they would have done anything to hasten his death. And there is no archeological, historical or astronomical evidence for an eclipse or earthquake at that time. And if you try to claim "miracle" you would have to account for the fact that no other records of an earthquake have ever been found, and that a solar eclipse which was NOT predicted by the astronomers (who were very good at that by this time) would have achieved widespread notoriety, not only in Judea. Like so many other things in the Bible, these "auguries" seem to have been completely imaginary. Though the death of their leader might have caused the Apostles to feel as if their world had been rocked and that the light had gone out of their lives, it just never happened in reality.

[rocco]

Interesting fact I read, since this discussion began. Well I say "fact" but then again, most history is written by winners!!

Anyway, if Im wrong please direct me. I read that "Easter is "NOT a christian celebration after all!! It was indoctrinated during the rule of Augustus, for fear of a
Christian uprising! During his rule it was found that there were more "christians" than romans, sending worry amongst the high officials.

Under the Jewish calender. Nissan 14, so its called. falls before the celebration of what was known as "eastradom??!" which was pagan festival to the goddess of fertility. [thats why we have the easter bunny and chocolate eggs] all symbols of fertilisation.

So in order to pacify the people, roman beliefs were mixed in with christian beliefs in order to keep a status quo.

So am I right in believing that in those times, the "Christian Faith" was looked on as a left wing "terrorist organisation" considering it was set up after Jesus was executed?? These people were hated by the Jewish leaders and Romans, like today I suppose. With any organisation being frowned on because of indifference!
i.e. us for example!! A lot of people believe that anyone involved with "bdsm" are "not" normal or "perverted" as such. Does that make sense?

Like most readings it is up to interpretation. BUT! I cant understand why people dissect so called holy books, when its written in plain english for anyone to read! If you are a "christian" then should you not believe everything written down in the bible?
People like William Tindell, were burnt at the stake for translating the bible from latin to english! Yet we as a whole rip it to pieces, just because it doesnt fit in with what we want to believe! Strange really!!!

Funny old thing religion!!!!

But thanks for letting me get involved in this topic!! I love you guys!!!

[denuseri]

All quite true, and gruesome. An item I saw on TV the other day talked about the only known relic of a crucifixion, the heel bone of a first century criminal (NOT Jesus) with a nail through the heel. It was placed in an area which missed all major blood vessels, but struck a major nerve cluster. Excruciatingly painful in and of itself, you also have to remember that the victim would have had his legs bent, as described above, forcing him to push up against that nail in order to lift himself and allow himself to breath. Usually, the only reason for spearing them was to make sure they were, indeed, dead, not to ease their suffering. And breaking the legs only insured that they could NOT push up any longer, and thus suffer slow, painful, terrifying suffocation. Try hanging from your arms, outstretched as in a crucifixion, to see how difficult it is to get a breath. And as the muscles in the diaphragm become over worked, each breath becomes painful as well. It was truly a horrific way to die, and designed to last for days. Yet Jesus supposedly died within short hours. Something doesn't scan there.

He was scourged and beaten prior to the the event...subsequent blood loss from a scourging left completely untreated is probably what killed him so soon comparatively.


Yes, they may have allowed them to remove the body, after he was dead, but it's doubtful they would have done anything to hasten his death.

In some texts they were about to break his legs along with the others and didn't because one of the guards said he was already dead and decided to prove his point by piercing his side with his spear.

And there is no archeological, historical or astronomical evidence for an eclipse or earthquake at that time.

All the bible currently claims is it was unnaturally dark (even mentioning thunder) despite it being mid day which could have simply been a dark storm front passing through.

As for the earthquake....I haven't seen any evidence what so ever that there wasn't a small quake on that day in the region.

And if you try to claim "miracle" you would have to account for the fact that no other records of an earthquake have ever been found, and that a solar eclipse which was NOT predicted by the astronomers (who were very good at that by this time) would have achieved widespread notoriety, not only in Judea. Like so many other things in the Bible, these "auguries" seem to have been completely imaginary. Though the death of their leader might have caused the Apostles to feel as if their world had been rocked and that the light had gone out of their lives, it just never happened in reality.

The only people who will ever know for sure are all gone now anyways...the rest of us will have to believe or not based solely on our faith in their account of events.

All of which is beside the point. The op isn't asking us if Jesus lived or not; only what Easter is about.

[denuseri]

Anyway, if Im wrong please direct me. I read that "Easter is "NOT a christian celebration after all!! It was indoctrinated during the rule of Augustus, for fear of a
Christian uprising!

During his rule it was found that there were more "christians" than romans, sending worry amongst the high officials.

Actually there were no Christians what so ever during the reign of Augustus since Jesus and his ministry didnt even begin until the rule of Tiberius. Maybe the Romans hand was involved a couple hundred years later though when their was a larger following of Christians prevalent in the Empire.


So in order to pacify the people, roman beliefs were mixed in with christian beliefs in order to keep a status quo.

Oh yes but the process didn't begin until some point far (a couple hundred years) after the events inspiring Christianity.

So am I right in believing that in those times, the "Christian Faith" was looked on as a left wing "terrorist organisation" considering it was set up after Jesus was executed?? These people were hated by the Jewish leaders and Romans, like today I suppose. With any organisation being frowned on because of indifference!
i.e. us for example!! A lot of people believe that anyone involved with "bdsm" are "not" normal or "perverted" as such. Does that make sense?

Yep

Like most readings it is up to interpretation. BUT! I cant understand why people dissect so called holy books, when its written in plain english for anyone to read! If you are a "christian" then should you not believe everything written down in the bible?

Depends on how literal one wishes to be. Personally I believe the entire book being a concoction of men is fallible, and symbolically rife with allegory.


People like William Tindell, were burnt at the stake for translating the bible from latin to english! Yet we as a whole rip it to pieces, just because it doesnt fit in with what we want to believe! Strange really!!!





Thomas Jefferson went so far as to remove entire pages and re-write passages in his to suit his own personal interpretation.

[Thorne]

I read that "Easter is "NOT a christian celebration after all!! It was indoctrinated during the rule of Augustus, for fear of a Christian uprising!
Most of the early Christian holy days were timed to coincide with the Roman celebrations of their gods: Christmas around the time of the winter solstice, Easter around the time of the spring equinox, and others. Primarily this allowed them to celebrate their holy days under cover of the Roman celebrations. Later, it helped in the conversion of the Romans to Christianity, letting them celebrate at familiar times of the year, even to the point of incorporating some of their pagan symbols into the Christian celebrations. But denuseri is right, this took place long after Augustus.


Like most readings it is up to interpretation. BUT! I cant understand why people dissect so called holy books, when its written in plain english for anyone to read! If you are a "christian" then should you not believe everything written down in the bible?
Well, the Bible wasn't originally written in English, of course. It has undergone many translations and retranslations, all of which introduced errors. There have also been shown to be some passages which were deliberately changed by those making the copies in order to bring more in line with their dogma at the time. Add to that standard copying errors and you have a serious problem. And when you compound these errors with contradictions and historical fictions, well, it becomes pretty hard to believe EVERYTHING! But the intent of the Bible is not to be taken literally, but to be interpreted by the priesthood, for the betterment of the ruling classes, which included the priests, of course.


People like William Tindell, were burnt at the stake for translating the bible from latin to english! Yet we as a whole rip it to pieces, just because it doesnt fit in with what we want to believe! Strange really!!!
Not so strange, actually. Since I've started reading about it, I've been astonished at the number of people who admit that the primary reason they gave up on religion was that they actually read the Bible! The Church leaders did NOT want the common people to actually read what Jesus said, as that might give them dangerous ideas. It's my understanding (based on anecdotal evidence, I freely admit) than even now most preachers do NOT recommend that their congregations actually read the whole Bible, but only selected portions of it. They would much rather their flocks rely on THEIR interpretations rather than formulating their own.


Funny old thing religion!!!!
I only WISH it were funny. When you look at the idiocy of the Westboro people, the stupidity of that preacher in Florida burning the Quran, the things only now being learned of the atrocities of the Catholic Church, I find it very hard to laugh at any of it.

[Thorne]

He was scourged and beaten prior to the the event...subsequent blood loss from a scourging left completely untreated is probably what killed him so soon comparatively.
Unlikely. The Romans were pretty skilled at such things, and their ultimate objective was for the condemned to die slowly. Still, I suppose it's possible.


As for the earthquake....I haven't seen any evidence what so ever that there wasn't a small quake on that day in the region.
I haven't seen any evidence that it wasn't caused by a flying saucer, either. A lack of evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen, but it does bring the subject into doubt. And if, as you claimed in your earlier posts, the Romans looked upon these signs as auguries, they would have to have been something more than a small quake and a thunderstorm.


The only people who will ever know for sure are all gone now anyways...the rest of us will have to believe or not based solely on our faith in their account of events.
Well we certainly agree about that! I'm just not willing to put my faith in people who gleefully admit that they are little more than evil sinners in the eyes of their gods! Especially when they are trying to convince me that I'm just like them.


All of which is beside the point. The op isn't asking us if Jesus lived or not; only what Easter is about.
Well, since the celebration of Easter, for Christians at least, is all about the death and resurrection of Jesus, I don't think that questioning the validity of the stories to be beside the point.

[rocco]

Thorne and Denuesri, Thank you! Its interesting to understand or try to any way, how it all began! And I understand the idea of how things were written and re-written too. Like chinese whispers I suppose!

Thorne, I agree. And I didnt mean it to come across as literally "funny"! It seems that the very thing that is supposed to draw us closer to God, actually causes SO much grief!
When you look at any conflict, religion seems to play a massive part!

Thanks again for the instruction, who needs history lessons. When you can come here!!!! *big grin*

[thir]

Again, you are assuming that the reports in the gospels are true. And they don't even agree with each other!


Ok, for the sake of argument then. I am just trying to avoid a very short discussion ending with 'but it never happened, so there.'
It is an experiment in thought, a way to try to understand Chrisitianity, the things I have never understood.



If I recall (and I'm too lazy to look it up right now) the gospel of Judas claims that he was selected by Jesus to betray him, to fulfill prophecy. And the kiss is a major problem. If Jesus was so famous, why did one of his own have to identify him? Hell, if some of the Christians around here are to be believed, he would have been the only white guy in the whole damned country!


Hm. Come to think of it, the story says (bear with me) that only Jesus and the disciples were there - that was the point, to arrest him at a time when he was not in the midst of thousands of followers. Threfore someone would have to point him out, but it could have been anyone of a number of people, I guess.



WAS he crucified? The descriptions of his crucifixion in the gospels are very different from standard Roman practice. Crucifixion was intended to be a humiliating, slow, painful death by suffocation, followed by an ignominious disposal of the body. He should have been on the cross for days, struggling for each breath, not allowed to die in mere hours. His followers and/or family would NOT have been permitted to take his body for burial.


Even the romand cannot decide when a person dies. But it is curious that is was so short, giving ideas that maybe he was not, in fact, dead.



Again, the only evidence for his resurrection comes from his followers. Not exactly uninvolved witnesses. There are no extant accounts from the Romans or the Jewish temple of his existence, much less his execution.

The ONLY evidence we have for his existence are texts written at least 30 to 50 years after his death (Matthew), or even longer (Luke, John, Mark). And remember these are the four texts which the RCC decided, hundreds of years later, were good enough to include in their dogma. Other texts were tossed aside and ordered destroyed! How many of those would contradict the gospels as we know them?


There is also Jesphus, the jewish historian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
But you are of course right, in that it is hard to know anything for ceratain. The whole discussion is on the basis of if it happened - then what happended? As well as what is Chrisitanity about, really?



The Middle East has always been a major crossroads between the riches of India and the Mediterranean. And the Romans taxed EVERYTHING! I just saw a program the other day about an outpost on the Red Sea that handled shipments of spices and goods from India. People traveling TO the fort had to pay a tax! The equivalent of $25 for the wife of a soldier, hundreds for merchants, taxes on donkeys hauling goods, and if memory serves, the equivalent of $2500 for a prostitute! The Romans got plenty of money out of Palestine, believe me!

Sigh. And everybody finds them sooo cilvilized..

[thir]

Secondly: In some interpretations the entire creation story is allegorical with the tree of life being the ultimate goal that can only be reached by first eating one's way through the tree of knowledge. Since God is perfect, "the serpent" acting out of jealousy or not...is still doing exactly what God intended it to do (so is mankind by the way), which is prompt mankind to seek knowledge so that one day eternal life could be obtained. The act of taking the apple being one of rebellion, yet also one of seeking to be like God. After all Eve was only tempted because she was told that if she ate of it, she could indeed become like God.


I do not quite understand what you say - seeking knowledge (eating through the tree of knowledge) was the point, but not by eating the apple??

As for the alligorical angle, I learned recently that the way Danish Christians got past Darwin as it were, without loosing their faith, was to see the words of the bible as alligorical, or 'the free word'. Thus, everything had to be interpreted, and no conflict existed between the bible and Darwin. I believe other protestant sects have this view as well.

I have had thoughts about this story about Paradise and the tree of knowledge in terms of maybe we should never have eaten of it, metaphorically speaking, because our knowledge, that which in these days makes us equal to gods in that we can create life and do very many and quite alarming things, but, lacking the wisdom of god or gods, we screw it up and Earth is no garden of Eden.

Nature never was peaceful, or that is only one aspect of it, but maybe it was more like Eden than now.



Third: The overall message...that we should all become more loving and peaceful with each other and work together seeking harmony (in essence be like God wants us to be) stands alone regardless of interpretation. It is basically all about overcoming our nature's despite our inherent sinfulness and becoming enlightened and transcending mortal existence. It's not even a Christan or Jewish, or Islamic only theme either...Buddhists, Hindus and a wide wide variety of faiths ( in fact almost all religions) address such aspirations of apotheosis in like manner...as if trying to explain the same universal concept. Which is a good concept...love one another as you would wish to be loved.

Loving one another etc is a good concept. But the idea that we are born sinful (agressive, brutal, 'red in tooth and law') I do not believe. Sometimes it feels like the discussion will have it that either we are all love and sunshine, or we are all brutes! I believe in neither. I think we started out simply doing what we had to do to survive, like all the other animals.

But somewhere along the way something happened - ?? and with it, cruelty, brutality (towards our own) greed, hate, power games and all the rest.

I do not think we were 'born' with it - as in started that way as a species. But something happened.

[lucy]

There is also Jesphus, the jewish historian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
But you are of course right, in that it is hard to know anything for ceratain. The whole discussion is on the basis of if it happened - then what happended? As well as what is Chrisitanity about, really?
But that is exactly what this religion - all of them, in fact - is about, isn't it? About belief. Not about facts. If there'd be a video on youtube of the whole crucifixion (or is that crucifiction) of Jesus, there most likely wouldn't be a religion based on him. Instead we might have a couple gazillion conspiracy theories.

[thir]

Well, Master said I got my interpretations of the doctrine all wrong.


Ok - let's have it :-)



No, Jesus died so we could be freed from our sins.
Our sins were so great that only a blood sacrifice would work, not a spanking or a "naughty people, stop that" lecture.
Even if you are sinful, you can repent and still go to heaven. That is because of Jesus. Without him, you could have repented all day long and still go to hell.
Why try not to sin then? Because Jesus asked us to.

So there you go, one more interpretation.


.. I tried to get my head round the difference between appeasing god's anger because of our sins, which we should go to hell for. And being freed of them, meaning we do not have to if we repent. Doesn't that still mean that Jesus's sacrifice made god forgive us, and we would not have been otherwise?

Then..what did this sacrifice do, if not appease anger???




Just have to add that neither of us believe this stuff. And no, it doesn't have to make sense, it's religion for God's sake.

True, but I am trying to get my head round that religion. I do appreciate your trying to help - I just do not quite understand. This is difficult stuff.

[thir]

Do we need religion now to behave? No, it should be after all this time installed in us to abide by the same moral code.


Do you mean the moral code of the 10 commandments?



However because we are all born with equal amounts of good and evil, it depends on how strong our minds and abilities are to make one of these senses dominant and push aside the other. Most people get it right, but there will always be a small percentage that are weak and travel the wrong path.

Each person has his/her own code of honour, whether right or wrong but they all differ in some minute way.


Are we really born with evil and good? But what is that exactly? And how does that get into our genes?

Maybe one problem is that in the absense of religious codes or any other commonly accepted codes many people go astray and do weird stuff, like killing other people, or wrecking the planet.

I believe that regions can agree perfectly well on codes and do by and large abide by them, but the problem arises because the world is so small now, and power is so concentrated. People in power hardly ever abide by any codes. (That is one reason I could never be a soldier, even if I had what it took, I would fear to make myself a tool for untrustworthy trouble makers.)



No i think that has to wrong in my opinion, because survival is in our DNA. If needed, we can revert back to the animal in us and live of the land. There are only the weak, lazy and infirmed that might have problems surviving in a hostile environment. We all want to live to see the sun coming up the next day.
Be well IAN 2411

To be sure survival is in our genes, but we simply no longer know how to live off the land. It does take skill and knowledge. Without electricity, heating, tools, very few people would know what to do. How many can farm? How many can hunt with weapons made off the land directly? How many people know what you can or cannot eat of what you may find?

[thir]

And just why did God put that tree in the Garden in the first place? To test his creation? Why would he need to do that? Being omniscient he would already know the results of that test.


You put your finger on one of the questions; why tempt people? For that matter, why create such a tree?



And finally, the tree in question was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. So why doesn't God want man to have knowledge. He prefers stupid worshipers?


If I were a god, I'd either want people to have knowlegde and sense - a lot of sense! - or to have less knowledge! That part I understand, except why then put the tree in?



For that matter, why would an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being need worshipers in the first place?


A thing I have wondered many times. Gods do not need worshippers as I understand the word. They already have or are everything.

The answer could be that gods are not something we can really understand, so we create an image from ourselves - what we understand - and give them human weaknesses.



And this is the crux of my problems with religion: Everyone has their own interpretation of what the Bible (or Quran, or Torah, or whatever holy book) says one needs to do for salvation, and such interpretations cause schisms within religions. How can anyone know who is right? And why would God write a book of instructions which was so contradictory and ambiguous that it can be used to justify the beliefs of a (hopefully) moral and decent person such as yourself while at the same time be used to justify the abominations of the Westboro Baptist Church? Why, it's almost as if the Bible were a concoction of ancient mythologies and fairy stories!

Religion does not equal holy or unholy books. Only dogmatic religions, which are not all religions.

As for the books, I cannot understand anything in them - I simply do not know what is meant!

[ksst]

thir,

According to my Master, yes there is a difference. Jesus' sacrifice allows us to repent, which allows God to forgive us and let us into heaven. We were all born of original sin, so we were all going to hell. No matter how good we were were and blameless in life, because of the original sin doctrine. Fair? No. Kind? No. But that is God, from the Christian viewpoint. Jesus represents that forgiveness is possible.

[ksst]

Why tempt people? God is obviously a sadist.

[thir]

I don't understand this at all. It's a tree, and apples grow on it, hopefully, in good weather, if properly pollinated. What's that got to do with God?


Do you mean that god does the creation and sets things in mortion, and then it works or not works, according to - what? His laws?



It is simply an illutration. We are sinners not because we DO sin but because it is in our nature to sin. It is THAT nature that God changes when a person becomes saved.


But then why did he not create us so we do not sin from the start?? This is what I do not understand.
It seems to imply that the first try did not work?



He keeps punishing because people keep making the same choices. Choices He has given other alternatives for. But read the rest of the verse..... He blesses to the 1000th generation of those that love God.

But then why not undo the whole thing, and make good people instead? It would certainly be a blessing for humanity!

What good is Hell? I have never understood that either.

Again, thank you for trying to help.

[thir]

thir,
According to my Master, yes there is a difference. Jesus' sacrifice allows us to repent, which allows God to forgive us and let us into heaven. We were all born of original sin, so we were all going to hell. No matter how good we were were and blameless in life, because of the original sin doctrine. Fair? No. Kind? No. But that is God, from the Christian viewpoint. Jesus represents that forgiveness is possible.

Original sin being the apple? Disobeying?

As I said above, and no disrespect to any Christians meant here, truly!, but in that case I think God should delete this experiment and start again, with people without original sin. Give it another chance.

Thanks again for explaining, I find these things enormously complicated.

[thir]

Was it two different crowds, that of Barabas's followers, assuming he was a freedom fighter, and those of Jesus?

There was an active sub-sect/ cult element in their society that sought a violent solution from Roman oppression yes, but its purely speculative as to how many of them were present and influencing events.


The zealots, I assume. But all of this is speculative.
I speculate that the reputation of the zealots as violent and rogue may have come from their not being lead by religious leaders, and not being upper class. They do not sound a lot like the movement of Jesus, but who knows? Some say Jesus was a descendant of David, and so royal, others that he was a carpenter, a man of the people. If a man of the people, might he not have had contact with the zealots?



Why did Judas betray him? Was he disappointed as some explanations would have it, that Jesus could not save them from the Romans? And why the kiss? There must have been many people who knew him by sight.

Ahh but would the guards recognize him? In some versions outside the commonly accepted cannon Jesus has even been attributed to telling Judas to betray him. In others Judas was indeed part of the more militant cultists seeking freedom from Rome and dissatisfied.


I see Judas as one of the most enigmatic figures of the whole tale. If he were a zealot, why become a disciple of Jesus? Did he only join to ruin a competitive movement - an undercover agent? Or was the learning of Jesus not quite as peaceful as the new Testament would have it?

If Jesus told Judas to betray him, it becomes even more complex. Why? So Jesus could become a martyr? Did he not think his learning would survive without that? In that case poor Judas was an even bigger martyr!

In the musical 'Jesus Christ Superstar' Judas asks god: why did you choose ME for your horrible murder? I will be damned for all eternity!




Why did he get crucified? Did he get caught in an uprising at the same time?

Crucifixion was the commonly accepted punishment for anyone who wasn't a Roman citizen who pissed off the Romans. The High priests were accusing Jesus of attempting to usurp Rome's auctoritas.


But as I understand it, he did not actually piss off the Romans, only the high priests, who tried to involve the Romans because they themselves could not order any executions. Because his learning was a threat to their learning? It would not seem so, according to what is said about Jesus' learning. Because they feared a riot and a Roman massacre on jews? Then why not go after the zealot leaders? How was Barrabas caught?

[Thorne]

Thanks again for the instruction, who needs history lessons. When you can come here!!!! *big grin*
You're welcome, rocco. But please, don't just take my word for it, or denuseri's or anyone's! Research it, look it up for yourself. And don't just use one source, use multiple sources from both sides of the issues and see which side has the evidence to back up their stories. I don't claim to be 100% accurate. The best tactic, IMO, is to ask yourself the questions, then search for the answers.

[Thorne]

Even the romand cannot decide when a person dies. But it is curious that is was so short, giving ideas that maybe he was not, in fact, dead.
They may not have been perfect, but the Romans were pretty damned good at killing people. That was the purpose of the spear in the side, to make sure the person was dead.


There is also Jesphus, the jewish historian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
Josephus' text was written some 60 years or more after the death of Jesus, and would have relied heavily upon Christian documents. Some of the writings of Josephus regarding Jesus have been questioned, since they don't seem to be of the same quality of writing that he used.


But you are of course right, in that it is hard to know anything for ceratain. The whole discussion is on the basis of if it happened - then what happended? As well as what is Chrisitanity about, really?
That's the easy part! Christianity is the idea that Jesus died on the cross in payment for our sins so that our souls could be taken into heaven when we die to be with God for eternity. A very simplistic concept, really. But the devil's in the details!

[denuseri]

I haven't seen any evidence that it wasn't caused by a flying saucer, either. A lack of evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen, but it does bring the subject into doubt. And if, as you claimed in your earlier posts, the Romans looked upon these signs as auguries, they would have to have been something more than a small quake and a thunderstorm.

You would think so right? But No... in reality even something as small as seeing 7 birds fly over the capitol city from east too west was taken as a sign by the Augers.


Well we certainly agree about that! I'm just not willing to put my faith in people who gleefully admit that they are little more than evil sinners in the eyes of their gods! Especially when they are trying to convince me that I'm just like them.


Well, since the celebration of Easter, for Christians at least, is all about the death and resurrection of Jesus, I don't think that questioning the validity of the stories to be beside the point.

Its not all about that alone...its actually more specifically a re-defining of the Jewish Passover by the early Christians who were Jewish (later exported by Paul and others through the Roman world). And outside of one obscure Germanic inter-relation that according to actual historical texts (at least so far as Ive been able to find at this point) is not a direct adaptation of a pagan ritual in any way so much as Saxon peoples associating the word Easter with one of their already "old gods" at the time from the 800's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter Not a bad layman's reference here btw.

[Thorne]

I have had thoughts about this story about Paradise and the tree of knowledge in terms of maybe we should never have eaten of it, metaphorically speaking, because our knowledge, that which in these days makes us equal to gods in that we can create life and do very many and quite alarming things, but, lacking the wisdom of god or gods, we screw it up and Earth is no garden of Eden.
Knowledge is not evil in itself. It is only in our applications of that knowledge that we find evil. But willful ignorance is far more evil. Ignorance is the birthplace of the gods. It allows people to accept supernatural explanations for perfectly natural occurrences which they do not understand. The search for knowledge allows us to throw off the supernatural and understand how the world around us works. If you accept lightning as a punishment from a god, you are always going to find yourself at the mercy of the thunderstorms. But if you study it and learn its nature, you can protect yourself with a piece of metal and some wire! It's a pretty woeful god whose wrath can be deflected by a simple lightning rod!


But the idea that we are born sinful (agressive, brutal, 'red in tooth and law') I do not believe. Sometimes it feels like the discussion will have it that either we are all love and sunshine, or we are all brutes! I believe in neither. I think we started out simply doing what we had to do to survive, like all the other animals... I do not think we were 'born' with it - as in started that way as a species. But something happened.
Sadly, I have to go along with the idea that we are born brutes. I'm having the pleasure of watching my two granddaughters grow up, having the time to really observe them that I didn't really have with my own children. And I'm finding that children are greedy, selfish and cruel on their own. We have to teach them to share and not to hit others and that they can't have everything they want. We have the capacity to be good, but it is not innate within us. It's a learning process, lifelong.

[Thorne]

But that is exactly what this religion - all of them, in fact - is about, isn't it? About belief. Not about facts.
There's no problem with believing things. Where I have a problem is when people's beliefs fly in the face of the facts. Denying evolution, for example, simply because it feels better to believe that you are God's special child is insane.

[Thorne]

Do you mean the moral code of the 10 commandments?
No, the moral Code of Hammurabi, from which the 10 commandments derive. Or maybe just the basic moral code of people: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. It doesn't take a god to know what's right.


Maybe one problem is that in the absense of religious codes or any other commonly accepted codes many people go astray and do weird stuff, like killing other people, or wrecking the planet.
Do you really think religious codes change that? Look at the Inquisition, the mess of the Middle East, Ireland, 9/11, or pedophile priests/rabbis/preachers. I'm not saying religions CAUSE all of these things, but they don't seem to do anything to prevent them, either. If you think it's okay to kill someone because God told you to, you belong in an asylum, not a church.

[Thorne]

The answer could be that gods are not something we can really understand, so we create an image from ourselves - what we understand - and give them human weaknesses.
On the contrary, gods are very easy to understand. We create them to serve our own purposes.

[Thorne]

its actually more specifically a re-defining of the Jewish Passover by the early Christians who were Jewish
Yes, Passover, the celebration of another fictional event. Don't get me started (http://freethoughtblogs.com/alstefanelli/2012/04/06/the-logistical-impossibility-of-the-exodus-of-isreal/)! :)

[thir]

Knowledge is not evil in itself. It is only in our applications of that knowledge that we find evil. But willful ignorance is far more evil. Ignorance is the birthplace of the gods. It allows people to accept supernatural explanations for perfectly natural occurrences which they do not understand. The search for knowledge allows us to throw off the supernatural and understand how the world around us works. If you accept lightning as a punishment from a god, you are always going to find yourself at the mercy of the thunderstorms. But if you study it and learn its nature, you can protect yourself with a piece of metal and some wire! It's a pretty woeful god whose wrath can be deflected by a simple lightning rod!


It is true that knowledge can set us free from some fears, but they can start others - like when will the vulcano in Yellowstone pop? When will worldwar 3 start? When will the virus come that will kill us all? And other sunny ideas...

The other argument was that our technology is incredible and can create many things, but without any wisdom on what to do with it. So though knowledge is not evil in itself it can be turned to evil, and so often is. Maybe we are not ready so have so much knowledge.



Sadly, I have to go along with the idea that we are born brutes. I'm having the pleasure of watching my two granddaughters grow up, having the time to really observe them that I didn't really have with my own children. And I'm finding that children are greedy, selfish and cruel on their own. We have to teach them to share and not to hit others and that they can't have everything they want. We have the capacity to be good, but it is not innate within us. It's a learning process, lifelong.

I do not see why we should be like that by nature. I have worked with children many years, and while many are like you say, they are normally not only like that, but can also be helpfull and kind to others, depending on situations and their own mood at the moment.

But aren't siblings often quite hard on each other?

[IAN 2411]

Do you mean the moral code of the 10 commandments?
1. You shall have no other Gods but me.
2. You shall not make for yourself any idol, nor bow down to it or worship it.
3. You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.
4. You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day holy.
5. Respect your father and mother.
6. You must not kill.
7. You must not commit adultery.
8. You must not steal.
9. You must not give false evidence against your neighbour.
10. You must not be envious of your neighbour's goods. You shall not be envious of his house nor his wife, nor anything that belongs to your neighbour.

Let’s be fair thir, that apart from first four that are only relevant to the religion of Moses, the other six are basic laws that even in those days most people adhered to. How big do you think those tablets of stone would have to be, to have written on them all it states in the bible? Moses had to walk off the mountain with these. I think that if the truth was known he went up the mountain with his papyrus and wrote them himself. Remember, Moses was brought up and educated by the Pharaohs and all the people he was leading were uneducated slaves. This leaves us with only hear say and the word of Moses that it had ever taken place.



Are we really born with evil and good? But what is that exactly? And how does that get into our genes?
I believe we have these senses not inside of us at birth, but when we are young and innocent the teachings we are given indoctrinates us with both.

Example: - teacher to a class full of infants, you must not kill it is evil, love thy neighbour...ok that’s all well and good saying that, but up until that point they were loving their neighbour, but the teacher has now has implanted in their mind, evil.

That is a little harsh and things are probably indoctrinated into the infant mind in more subtle ways, but you have to learn evil to know evil.


Maybe one problem is that in the absence of religious codes or any other commonly accepted codes many people go astray and do weird stuff, like killing other people, or wrecking the planet.
In most cases greed causes the going astray, take killing, it is for money, or because a person loves another and needs freedom. Killing in anger could be put down to the need of a better and quieter life, but it is still greed for something the killer has not got of some type. Very few crimes throughout the world are not related to greed, even wars.


To be sure survival is in our genes, but we simply no longer know how to live off the land. It does take skill and knowledge. Without electricity, heating, tools, very few people would know what to do. How many can farm? How many can hunt with weapons made off the land directly? How many people know what you can or cannot eat of what you may find?

I have no choice but disagree on this point thir, remember the aircraft that crashed on the mountain. The survivors were a mixed bunch of ordinary people of any street in the world. However after all the food on board the aircraft had been eaten, they turned to cannibalism and started to eat the flesh of the dead. A revolting thought? Yes it is, but that is survival being shown at its best. As I stated earlier, we all want to see the next sunrise.

I would like to point out that all the above is only my opinion, and in no way am I rubbishing anyones religious belief's.

Be well IAN 2411

[Thorne]

It is true that knowledge can set us free from some fears, but they can start others - like when will the vulcano in Yellowstone pop? When will worldwar 3 start? When will the virus come that will kill us all? And other sunny ideas...
Would being ignorant of these possibilities make them any less likely? Knowing the dangers of Yellowstone, we can at least try to get some idea of when it will pop, and perhaps do something to prepare. If nothing else, perhaps we could save some lives by starting evacuations sooner. Knowing the potential for WW3, perhaps we can find ways to prevent it from starting. By learning all we can about viruses, perhaps we can find a cure, before that supervirus kills us all. Ignorance of the Black Plague did not help the people of Europe. Indeed, their ignorance made things worse.


The other argument was that our technology is incredible and can create many things, but without any wisdom on what to do with it. So though knowledge is not evil in itself it can be turned to evil, and so often is. Maybe we are not ready so have so much knowledge.
This is, and will always be, the flip side of the knowledge coin. When the first spear was invented, it's purpose was to aid men in hunting, making for safer, surer kills, and a steadier food supply. But that spear was just as effective at killing men. Should we have remained ignorant beasts grubbing our way across the plains, feeding on the scraps left behind by the lions and jackals? I think that the positives of knowledge and advancement almost always outweigh the negatives. If our neighbor insists on making swords, perhaps we can learn to make shields.


I do not see why we should be like that by nature. I have worked with children many years, and while many are like you say, they are normally not only like that, but can also be helpfull and kind to others, depending on situations and their own mood at the moment.
Yes, they can be kind, but the selfishness is always just below the surface. I watch one of the girls playing with a toy, and inevitably the other wants it, and will try to take it. We can teach them to share, that it's wrong to take things from others. And they will learn. It takes time and patience, but they do learn.


But aren't siblings often quite hard on each other?
In this case they're cousins, but yes, siblings do tend to be hard on one another. Familiarity breeds contempt, as they say.

[Thorne]

This leaves us with only hear say and the word of Moses that it had ever taken place.
Not even that. Evidence seems to indicate that Moses and the Exodus are complete fictions. They are the tales of priests used to teach their god's laws to the uneducated.

[denuseri]

It may help if you didn't only look for information on such things from pro-aethiest /anti-religion sites Thorne and instead stuck to academic sources....your so far off base claiming the Exodus is completely fictitious and couldn't have happened it isn't even funny.

Is it contested? Yes.

Why is it still contested?

There is a long standing schism between the narrow minded fuddy duddies in the field who simply can't stomach anything in the Bible as being construed as right and a much more open minded group who has often found a root of truth in most myths and legends of the ancient world.

I would put more faith in the open minded group if I were you...afterall...they discovered whats now commonly believed to be Troy, the Hittites, Babylon, perhaps even Atlantis and the most likely site for the Garden of Eden itself etc etc.

And all with fully supported cross disciplinary peer reviewed science!

Early mistakes in interpretations of the dates in the Torah lead to a narrow focus within the field to search for evidence in one very narrow window of time.

Collaborating data from other periods however (proved the earlier assumptions about the dates were indeed wrong) and corresponding periods have shown that a group of non-eygptian people did in fact live in lower Egypt and left during a time of well documented great calamity (most likely brought on by the eruption of Thera in combination with a terrible series of droughts and other terrible things some of which match the "10 plages" in great detail ) who subsequently migrated into Cannan (becoming a huge well documented pain in their assess instead).

[ksst]

Original sin- was eating the apple after God said leave it alone. Or sex. You know, apples and sex sometimes get confused. There was temptation, and the snake, being very phallic and all, tempted Eve. Before the apple, they were naked and happy in the garden. After the apple, which Eve shared with Adam, thus tempting him as well, they were naked and ashamed, and were kicked out of the garden. Of course, there were no apples in biblical times in those lands, so really it was some other fruit...

It does get kind of kooky, apologies to devout Christians, but really....

[IAN 2411]

Original sin- was eating the apple after God said leave it alone. Or sex. You know, apples and sex sometimes get confused. There was temptation, and the snake, being very phallic and all, tempted Eve. Before the apple, they were naked and happy in the garden. After the apple, which Eve shared with Adam, thus tempting him as well, they were naked and ashamed, and were kicked out of the garden. Of course, there were no apples in biblical times in those lands, so really it was some other fruit...

It does get kind of kooky, apologies to devout Christians, but really....

If this is to be believed please tell me who remembered the beginning of man that is referred to as Adam and Eve, Cain and Able etc. Once again this is all hear say and those that know the beginning are dead and most probably couldn’t write. This has to be just a very good story written by a person unknown. I find it very hard to believe that people in the 21st century still don’t believe in evolution. Or do they only believe in evolution when circumstances need them to, just as they only believe in the bible when there is a real need to call on GOD.

Ksst...I have never been confused between apples and sex, I’m just not that kinky.

Be well IAN 2411

[Thorne]

There is a long standing schism between the narrow minded fuddy duddies in the field who simply can't stomach anything in the Bible as being construed as right and a much more open minded group who has often found a root of truth in most myths and legends of the ancient world.
There is usually a root of truth in all myths and legends. Story tellers take a normal but unusual occurrence and start adding bells and whistles until you have the makings of a rollicking tale of wonder. The problems start when people start accepting the story as true rather than just a story.

Yes, there were several groups of people who left Egypt at times, for various reasons. They weren't slaves, and they weren't Hebrews, although they may have been the group which eventually became the Hebrews. Most assuredly there weren't millions of them and they didn't spend 40 years in one of the most desolate wastelands on the planet. Kernels of truth, inflated like popcorn to fuel the myth. But people aren't worshiping the truth, they worship the myth!

It's the same with the Ark stories. There are similar stories all over the world, because people tended to build their cities near water, which sometimes flooded, sometimes catastrophically. That doesn't mean there was a world-wide flood that wiped out all but a handful of people. And it doesn't make all those fools spending their money searching Mount Ararat "open minded". They are far more concerned with proving the myth than with finding the truth behind the myth.

Certainly there are historical people and places in the Bible. Most good authors will include such things in their fictions. They add a certain degree of believability to the tales. But just because someone has located a place that, with a lot of imagination, just might resemble the Biblical description of Eden, doesn't mean that the human race was started there by two people who suddenly realized they had no clothes. Just because a Roman governor named Pontius Pilate actually ruled in Judea in the first century doesn't mean that he condemned an itinerant rabbi to crucifixion and that rabbi was miraculously raised from the dead according to prophecy. Especially when those telling the tale have to distort the truth so immensely to try to fit those prophecies, even though the prophecies weren't intended as prophecy!

So yes, use the Bible as a starting point to find the bits of truth behind the myths. Don't use it as proof that the myth is truth.

[Thorne]

Original sin- was eating the apple after God said leave it alone. Or sex.
No, the sin was in fashioning coverings from fig leaves to hide their genitalia. Because God just LOVES him some good genitalia!

[thir]

No, the moral Code of Hammurabi, from which the 10 commandments derive. Or maybe just the basic moral code of people: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. It doesn't take a god to know what's right.


It isn't simple, is it? People do different things all over the world, and they all think they are doing the right thing!



Do you really think religious codes change that?


No. I just think that, since we live the way we do, we need some sort of codes. We do not have the natural behaviour of small tight communities any more, so we need something. I am not talking religious codes, just codes. Rather than greed and violence and total lack of respect for others.



Look at the Inquisition, the mess of the Middle East, Ireland, 9/11, or pedophile priests/rabbis/preachers. I'm not saying religions CAUSE all of these things, but they don't seem to do anything to prevent them, either. If you think it's okay to kill someone because God told you to, you belong in an asylum, not a church.

You are preaching to the converted ;-))

[denuseri]

Original sin- was eating the apple after God said leave it alone. Or sex. You know, apples and sex sometimes get confused. There was temptation, and the snake, being very phallic and all, tempted Eve. Before the apple, they were naked and happy in the garden. After the apple, which Eve shared with Adam, thus tempting him as well, they were naked and ashamed, and were kicked out of the garden. Of course, there were no apples in biblical times in those lands, so really it was some other fruit...

It does get kind of kooky, apologies to devout Christians, but really....

You can thank the western medieval artists for the apple bit ... all the early Bibles reference is a "fruit". Some theologians theorize that because fig leafs are mentioned it may have been a fig, others believe it was perhaps grapes.

All in all as far as mythological stories go I personally don't see it as any more or less "kooky" than any other cultures creation stories.

[thir]

5. Respect your father and mother.
6. You must not kill.
7. You must not commit adultery.
8. You must not steal.
9. You must not give false evidence against your neighbour.
10. You must not be envious of your neighbour's goods. You shall not be envious of his house nor his wife, nor anything that belongs to your neighbour.

Let’s be fair thir, that apart from first four that are only relevant to the religion of Moses, the other six are basic laws that even in those days most people adhered to.


I don't think so, different people different rules. As far as I know, with many tribes it is a sport to steal from each other, including women. Honor killings are an old system, as well as revenge killings. So are wars.



How big do you think those tablets of stone would have to be, to have written on them all it states in the bible? Moses had to walk off the mountain with these. I think that if the truth was known he went up the mountain with his papyrus and wrote them himself. Remember, Moses was brought up and educated by the Pharaohs and all the people he was leading were uneducated slaves. This leaves us with only hear say and the word of Moses that it had ever taken place.


Interesting thought. Where did Moses get his ideas from? Apparently these things were not self-evident, or there would have been no need to present them like that. He must have needed to unite the tribes as one people in much the same way as Mohammed did in his time. But from where did he get his ideas?? He did come from a polytheistic culture like the Egyptian one was at that time, and the Hebrews themselves were not mono-theistic.

As a matter of fact, the whole story about Moses is so interesting! Why did he do what he did? What about the 7 plagues? What happened with the Red Sea? And where on earth did he think he was going with all these people??



In most cases greed causes the going astray, take killing, it is for money, or because a person loves another and needs freedom. Killing in anger could be put down to the need of a better and quieter life, but it is still greed for something the killer has not got of some type. Very few crimes throughout the world are not related to greed, even wars.


So what can we do about it? Maybe stop having greed as a celbrated life-style, for one thing. Maybe start to value other things.

[thir]

They may not have been perfect, but the Romans were pretty damned good at killing people. That was the purpose of the spear in the side, to make sure the person was dead.


Then maybe they did in fact make sure that he died quickly - maybe to get it over with and avoid any more riots than neccesary.



Josephus' text was written some 60 years or more after the death of Jesus, and would have relied heavily upon Christian documents.


Why? he was a historian, simply, not a religious person.

[quote]
Some of the writings of Josephus regarding Jesus have been questioned, since they don't seem to be of the same quality of writing that he used.
[/quite]

I am not sure what you mean by 'quality'? But it seems to be just a short notice, anyway.

[thir]

It is true that knowledge can set us free from some fears, but they can start others - like when will the vulcano in Yellowstone pop? When will worldwar 3 start? When will the virus come that will kill us all? And other sunny ideas...

Would being ignorant of these possibilities make them any less likely?


Of course not - well, maybe ww3..but you said knowledge freed us from fear, and I just said there are always threaths, we cannot be freed from fear, it is part of any life, religious or not.



The other argument was that our technology is incredible and can create many things, but without any wisdom on what to do with it. So though knowledge is not evil in itself it can be turned to evil, and so often is. Maybe we are not ready so have so much knowledge.

This is, and will always be, the flip side of the knowledge coin. When the first spear was invented, it's purpose was to aid men in hunting, making for safer, surer kills, and a steadier food supply. But that spear was just as effective at killing men. Should we have remained ignorant beasts grubbing our way across the plains, feeding on the scraps left behind by the lions and jackals? I think that the positives of knowledge and advancement almost always outweigh the negatives. If our neighbor insists on making swords, perhaps we can learn to make shields.


I do not think they always do, but let's agree do disagree here, I cannot ad anything new.

[thir]

On the contrary, gods are very easy to understand. We create them to serve our own purposes.

You think that makes them easy to understand??

[thir]

Yes, Passover, the celebration of another fictional event. Don't get me started (http://freethoughtblogs.com/alstefanelli/2012/04/06/the-logistical-impossibility-of-the-exodus-of-isreal/)! :)

Well, they are not still in Egypt. So they got out, somehow, right?

[thir]

You can thank the western medieval artists for the apple bit ... all the early Bibles reference is a "fruit". Some theologians theorize that because fig leafs are mentioned it may have been a fig, others believe it was perhaps grapes.


Apples seem to have magical or mythical meanings, so maybe natural that it was chosen. I personally do not think the details are important.



All in all as far as mythological stories go I personally don't see it as any more or less "kooky" than any other cultures creation stories.

Is it a creation story? Many cultures have creation stories, naturally enough, but this one is an original sin story, not the same things IMO.

[thir]

I hope you Christians (and others) out there have not lost heart at this point - there is one more thing I would very much like to ask:

I have wondered for many years why Christmas is a much bigger Christian celebration than Easter?

I would have thought that Easter - with the resurrection - would be the crown of the events, the big victory over death! Also the cross was taken as a symbol for Christianity (by whom?) so again you'd think that Easter would be the really most important celebration, and a cause for great joy.

So, can anyone tell me why it isn't? Maybe it was, originally?

[Thorne]

Where did Moses get his ideas from? Apparently these things were not self-evident, or there would have been no need to present them like that. He must have needed to unite the tribes as one people in much the same way as Mohammed did in his time. But from where did he get his ideas?? He did come from a polytheistic culture like the Egyptian one was at that time, and the Hebrews themselves were not mono-theistic.

As a matter of fact, the whole story about Moses is so interesting! Why did he do what he did? What about the 7 plagues? What happened with the Red Sea? And where on earth did he think he was going with all these people??
As a matter of fact, the whole story about Moses seems to be fiction! There's no independent evidence that he ever existed, no evidence that there were ever Jews enslaved in Egypt, at least not in the vast numbers portrayed in the Bible, no evidence of a Hebrew Exodus, no evidence of millions of people spending 40 years in Sinai. Last I heard, even some Jewish scholars now doubt that Moses, even if he existed, ever wrote the first five books of the Bible, as has been traditionally believed. It's all myths and story telling, teaching tools for uneducated people. Aside from some of the more arcane dietary and clothing laws of the Bible, there is nothing in there that wasn't common in most of the earlier cultures around the world at the time. The Hebrews/Jews just adopted those that worked for them, changed those that needed to be changed to agree with their own beliefs, then wrote it up as if they invented it.

[Thorne]

Then maybe they did in fact make sure that he died quickly - maybe to get it over with and avoid any more riots than neccesary.
What riots? This was a man selected by the Jewish people to be executed. Why would they riot about it? And killing him quickly negates the whole purpose of crucifixion, which was to humiliate and torture the victim for as long as possible, as an example. No, from an historical perspective, the whole story makes little sense.


Why? he was a historian, simply, not a religious person.
Yes, but he was also Jewish. He would have relied on any documents, especially those coming from Jewish sources, and as near as we can tell, the only documents which referenced Jesus came from those Jews who were his followers, the first Christians.


I am not sure what you mean by 'quality'? But it seems to be just a short notice, anyway.
Quality is probably not the right word. Experts can usually tell if something was written by a person, especially one as prolific as Josephus. They have many examples of his works, but those short bits which reference Jesus don't seem to fit his style. And they are only one or two short comments, something similar to an historian referencing someone like King Arthur, or Paul Bunyan.

[Thorne]

we cannot be freed from fear, it is part of any life, religious or not.
True, we should be fearful of being struck by lightning. Scientific knowledge lets us deal with that fear by finding ways to prevent it from striking us. It eliminates the fear that some supernatural bogeyman will strike us down if we eat meat on Fridays, or have bacon for breakfast, or some equally inane religious prohibition gets broken.


I do not think they always do
I did say almost always.

[ksst]

I personally love a good story, and bible stories are certainly some of the best. I mean, take the story of Solomon and the two women claiming the same baby. Jim, in Huckleberry Finn, tells an excellent version of that story. Thanks to Samuel Clemons/Mark Twain, another of the world's great story tellers.

And the story of the birth of the baby Jesus. Belief or no, I find it a powerful and moving story. I told it to my kids, the little heathens.

As far as literally believing the bible, this was not what I was taught even in Sunday school. I went to a fairly liberal Methodist church for a while, as a kid, and they have a more loose than strict interpretation. Some of the sects that are very literal just confuse me as there are so many contradictions in the bible how do you even know which one to take seriously? Not to mention that is has been retranslated and handed down over the intervening years, and must be something like the old game of telephone in some spots.

[Thorne]

I personally love a good story, and bible stories are certainly some of the best.
I agree, there are some good stories. Just like Mother Goose, or the Brothers Grimm. They're sometimes interesting moral tales. But they're not gospel! :)


there are so many contradictions in the bible how do you even know which one to take seriously? Not to mention that is has been retranslated and handed down over the intervening years, and must be something like the old game of telephone in some spots.
This is one of the major bones of contention in the atheist community. How are you supposed to know which parts of the Bible are literally true, which parts have to be interpreted properly and which parts are basic garbage? With thousands of different sects having their own ideas of this, how can anyone claim they know exactly what God wants from us? We have to rely on men and women who claim that they are "instruments of the Lord". Yeah, right! As far as I'm concerned, the only difference between Pat Robertson claiming that God tells him what to say and some bum on the street saying the same thing, is that the bum on the street winds up in an asylum. Ol' Pat winds up with a couple of million of other peoples' hard-earned dollars.

[ksst]

Yeah really. There is this big thing going on now about hunting cranes in Wisconsin and it clearly states in the bible that we should not eat cranes. They don't make great head mounts either. What gives?

[thir]

True, we should be fearful of being struck by lightning. Scientific knowledge lets us deal with that fear by finding ways to prevent it from striking us. It eliminates the fear that some supernatural bogeyman will strike us down if we eat meat on Fridays, or have bacon for breakfast, or some equally inane religious prohibition gets broken.


What I mean here is that fear is part of our defense system, and we need it.

[thir]

As a matter of fact, the whole story about Moses seems to be fiction! There's no independent evidence that he ever existed, no evidence that there were ever Jews enslaved in Egypt, at least not in the vast numbers portrayed in the Bible, no evidence of a Hebrew Exodus, no evidence of millions of people spending 40 years in Sinai. Last I heard, even some Jewish scholars now doubt that Moses, even if he existed, ever wrote the first five books of the Bible, as has been traditionally believed. It's all myths and story telling, teaching tools for uneducated people. Aside from some of the more arcane dietary and clothing laws of the Bible, there is nothing in there that wasn't common in most of the earlier cultures around the world at the time. The Hebrews/Jews just adopted those that worked for them, changed those that needed to be changed to agree with their own beliefs, then wrote it up as if they invented it.

What I have a real problem with is the way in which science so often seems to be the victim of fads of one kind and another. Decades back, there were all these findings that this or that from the bible was now proven, or partly proven, or explained - by both Christian and non-Christian archelogists. This decade the fad seems to be that it is all just smoke and mirrors. I am extremely sceptical about these all-or-nothing waves.

Hold on to your hat Thorne - I believe in the bible! What I mean is, I do not believe that things written down there were taken completely out of the thin air. The archeologists now want us to believe that nothing happened, Moses did not excist, the jews were never in Egypt, nobody emigrated, it is all just a methaphor or allergory about freedom. I note that when archeologists are at loose ends, the word allegory thends to pop up a lot, because they know darn well that things are written down for a reason and they feel they have to come up with some sort of explanation.

Now, I believe that when something is written down, it is because something happened. It may be embellished, exaggerated, given a specific meaning, get garbled over the years, be partiallly inspired by myth (themselves distant account of who knows what) but they did not just get pulled out of thin air.

The latest is that no traces can be found of people wandering about in the dessert for 40 years - well, maybe that would be extremely difficult with tribes that had few things that would survive, and in a big dessert too. Maybe be they did not take 40 years to cross - why should they have? They say millions cannot survive in these areas with sheep and what not - well, maybe it wasn't millions - maybe it was thousands.

Some say thousands of jews were taken to Egypt as POWs in wars - there are always wars going on in these areas. Some say thousands more emigrated from Canaan to Egypt because there was a famine and Egypt was fertile. Maybe thousands left centuries later because of whatever natural disasters or plagues wreacked havoc in the country, and maybe Moses lead number of them out by way of a new, mono theistic religion and various promises of a better place.

Or maybe something different happened. But obviously (to me) something did.

[thir]

I did say almost always.

Sorry about that, my mistake.

[thir]

I hope you Christians (and others) out there have not lost heart at this point - there is one more thing I would very much like to ask:

I have wondered for many years why Christmas is a much bigger Christian celebration than Easter?

I would have thought that Easter - with the resurrection - would be the crown of the events, the big victory over death! Also the cross was taken as a symbol for Christianity (by whom?) so again you'd think that Easter would be the really most important celebration, and a cause for great joy.

So, can anyone tell me why it isn't? Maybe it was, originally?

If there are any Christians who would like to talk about this, but who have lost the taste for it in the thread, please do write a PM (personal message.). I'd really like to know.

[Thorne]

What I mean here is that fear is part of our defense system, and we need it.
Of course we need it. But to be afraid of imaginary things is a waste of energy. Save your fear for the things that can REALLY hurt you.

[Thorne]

What I have a real problem with is the way in which science so often seems to be the victim of fads of one kind and another. Decades back, there were all these findings that this or that from the bible was now proven, or partly proven, or explained - by both Christian and non-Christian archelogists. This decade the fad seems to be that it is all just smoke and mirrors. I am extremely sceptical about these all-or-nothing waves.
First of all, one of the things that science does is to correct itself. You generate a hypothesis that explains the data, then find evidence to support your hypothesis. Very often that evidence will DISprove your hypothesis, so you have to change or discard it. That's how science works.

Second, you have to remember that, until very recently, the Bible was considered to be an archeological tool, and many scientists tried to prove its accuracy by digging through the Middle East. And there were indeed things in the Bible that were historically real. There are other things in the Bible that are obviously fictitious. And there are things in the Bible that are fictional stories based upon real events. Just like the movie Titanic was based upon an actual event, but the character Jack Dawson and the story around him is totally fictional.


Hold on to your hat Thorne - I believe in the bible! What I mean is, I do not believe that things written down there were taken completely out of the thin air. The archeologists now want us to believe that nothing happened, Moses did not excist, the jews were never in Egypt, nobody emigrated, it is all just a methaphor or allergory about freedom. I note that when archeologists are at loose ends, the word allegory thends to pop up a lot, because they know darn well that things are written down for a reason and they feel they have to come up with some sort of explanation.
Not wearing a hat! Oh no!

I never said nothing happened. Something probably DID happen. There may have been a group of people, the ancestors of the Hebrews, who emigrated from Egypt after a series of natural catastrophes. There may have been a person which the character of Moses is based on. But there is no evidence that the Moses of the Bible, like Jack on the Titanic, ever existed. And the story behind Moses, born of slaves, placed into the river, found by a princess, was a fairly common religious story that long preceded the Biblical account. Just like many of the stories of Jesus (virgin birth, son of a god, murder of innocent children, etc.) were told in heroic stories of other cultures before the rise of the Hebrews.


Now, I believe that when something is written down, it is because something happened. It may be embellished, exaggerated, given a specific meaning, get garbled over the years, be partiallly inspired by myth (themselves distant account of who knows what) but they did not just get pulled out of thin air.
Not true! Writers make things up out of thin air all of the time! Look at Mormonism, or Scientology. Both fabricated from nothing by their founders. Song writers make things up all of the time, having nothing to do with reality, just to entertain the crowds. Don't you think that bards and singers in ancient times were trying to entertain their listeners? Of course, it can be far more entertaining if there's just a hint of truth in there, if your listeners can recognize a place or a person. That doesn't make the story true, just more believable.


The latest is that no traces can be found of people wandering about in the dessert for 40 years - well, maybe that would be extremely difficult with tribes that had few things that would survive, and in a big dessert too. Maybe be they did not take 40 years to cross - why should they have? They say millions cannot survive in these areas with sheep and what not - well, maybe it wasn't millions - maybe it was thousands.
One thing that archeologists know is that people, ALL people, create garbage. Broken pottery, burned hides, shattered bones. And feces, of course. Even thousands of people create a lot of shit, every day. And they didn't just wander through the Sinai. The Bible claims they stayed in some areas for years. There would have to have been a LOT of garbage. Yet none can be found! Now you can say that maybe there were only hundreds, or dozens, small camps that would vanish in time, but such a small group of people would be unlikely to have enough warriors to conquer Canaan as the Bible says they did. The Bible says there were millions, but even many thousands would have left something behind.


Some say thousands of jews were taken to Egypt as POWs in wars - there are always wars going on in these areas. Some say thousands more emigrated from Canaan to Egypt because there was a famine and Egypt was fertile. Maybe thousands left centuries later because of whatever natural disasters or plagues wreacked havoc in the country, and maybe Moses lead number of them out by way of a new, mono theistic religion and various promises of a better place.
Virtually all of these suppositions are based on the Bible. There are no records in Egypt that correspond to these events. Sure, some Jews were taken as slaves. Probably mostly women and children, who would eventually have integrated into the Egyptian population. As someone above noted, there's some evidence that a tribe of mercenaries called the Habiru may have left Egypt at about the time of the Biblical Exodus, and this could be the foundation for the stories. But the point is, the stories in the Bible did not happen as they were written!

[IAN 2411]

I read a story not long ago about the parting of the Red Sea, and apparently it has taken place on many occasions throughout history. Near one of the shores, if the moon is in the correct position and there are strong winds coming from a certain direction. The water pushes with the force of the wind in one direction leaving a large lake one side and the sea on the other. It leaves a shallow causeway to walk over.

If you remember the story that we were all told it states; the winds came and the sea parted. It is only our imagination and the exaggeration of the writer that allows us to believe it was parted in the middle. The story of Moses parting the sea could be true, but it could have been someone else running away from slavery with a few others. I would find it hard to believe that the pharaohs would allow so many just to walk off.

Be well IAN 2411

[denuseri]

Hebrew: or if you will: עברים or עברייםʿor Iḇrîm, ʿIḇriyyîm or ʿIvrim, ʿIvriyyim or ʕibrim, ʕibriyim is an ethnonym used in the Jewish Bible to describe the Jews.

It is only one word of many used by the Jewish people and others for them throughout the ages.

It isn't until the establishment of their monarchy that they actually wrote anything down themselves. Until then only oral records were kept. Hence the earliest written account of what came later to be referred too as the Bible wasn't until the times of David and Solomon.

Before then they were often considered Habiru (which is a lawless type of bandit or nomadic invader) especially by the Philistines who wrote too both the Hittites and the Egyptians asking for help against them at various times.

Where the ancient Egyptians referred to them as Habiru themselves on occassion (at least during times of strife with them as in the case of the "Exodus" ) it was more common to refer to them more directly as Shasu (a type of nomadic herder); more specifically Sashu of Yhw. Which btw is a well documented hieroglyphic rendering that corresponds very precisely to the well documented Hebrew tetragrammaton for YHWH.

Often times people get confused when studying Jewish history when it comes to sorting through the myths presented in the Bible and the archeological evidence.

It is very helpful however to understand that even though the Bible may sound to layman as if the Jews were all one contiguous group of people who traveled around together in a single ethnic and cultural gathering that they were in actuality often separated (sometimes for decades even centuries) into smaller groupings as were all such nomadic peoples of those times.

Biblical history reaserchers have shown bia a cross disiplinary approach that the Bible shows cultural bias of two distinctive groups...IE the old testament is a blending of two seperate and distinctive cultures oral histories into one set of "books".

How can both groups be Jews then you may ask?

At the time of the Exodus story there were in fact two settled and distinct groups of Hebrews who were out there with markedly different customs. Though both originally in so far as we know could have came from one commonly accepted point of origin many centuries before this epoch (The city of Ur): One group split from the other to settle in Egypt during a time of drought...and the other stayed in the vicinity of Canaan and were later driven into the hill country by the arrival of the Philistines.

Then years later they decided to start writing things down.

[Thorne]

Then years later they decided to start writing things down.
Which means that everything that came before was little more than a monstrous game of Telephone. And it was more like centuries later, not just years.

Nice post, denuseri. Pretty much agrees that what's written in the Bible cannot necessarily be taken literally. Even in the US, right now, despite all of the written and archeological evidence, groups in power are trying to rewrite history to suit their political and/or religious agendas. How much easier would that have been when all of your history was oral, and saying anything against the rulers was a death wish?

[Bellasub]

If there are any Christians who would like to talk about this, but who have lost the taste for it in the thread, please do write a PM (personal message.). I'd really like to know.

I really came on to this to mention that Christ was not created, but saw that got covered...then read Thorne's posts... skipped to the end to see how things ended. Largely, Christmas is a "bigger" celebration for 3 reasons.

1) It marks the end of the liturgical calendar, a New Year's of sorts. The church year is sort of like a mini-replay of the life of Christ every year.

2) Everyone agrees on the date of Christmas celebration. Easter is based on the lunar calendar and the Eastern Orthodox Christians, Coptic Christians, and Western Christians are often a little bit different on the date of Easter.

3) Mostly though, the secular world grasped heavily onto Christmas traditions and celebrations. Not that Christ's birth isn't a huge deal, it certainly is. At my church though, we spend basically the entire week at church. (short services monday, tuesday, wednesday, Maundy Thursday Mass + Footwashing, Good Friday is a...long service, then on Saturday we have Easter vigil which is about 3 hours and a wonderful amazing incredible service of anticipation and fulfillment. Then sunday morning is Easter worship service He is Risen indeed!)