I was hoping you'd ask. I believe it's different and let me explain why. In the case of a modern Muslim, he dies a quick and easy death attacking innocent people. In the case of these early Christian leaders, many suffered gruesome, longsuffering deaths where all they had to do was recant or just go back to their old occupations. Others moved their families into hostile lands with no hope for material or other reward in order to an almost certain obscure death away from friends and family. That's what is unique about the Christian faith. There is a Christian saying: "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church." And it's true. All the great Christian movements are begun non-violently through many deaths of innocent men who simply go and share the gospel. But, anyway, what I'm getting at is that these men were peaceful men who died incredibly courageous, "long" deaths because they loved and cared about the people they were going to. Nothing could be more the opposite than what you see with modern Islamic extremists. And that's why you can actually draw the opposite conclusions...
it is doubtful that the miracles really occured according to scholars: THE "JESUS SEMINAR" Liberal theologians investigating the life of Jesus Overview: The Jesus Seminar is a group of academic theologians who study Christian writings from the 1st to 3rd century CE, from a religiously liberal perspective. They are composed of members with "Protestant, Catholic, Jewish and independent" backgrounds. 1 Their initial goal was to determine what Jesus really said. Their second goal was to describe what Jesus really did. In the past, liberal and mainline religious academics have lectured, written articles in specialist journals, attended conferences and debated among themselves. They have taught generations of mainline and liberal divinity students. But their conclusions have rarely filtered down to the public. "The public is poorly informed of the assured results of critical scholarship, although those results are commonly taught in colleges, universities and seminaries. In this vacuum, drugstore books and slick magazines play on the fears and ignorance of the uniformed." 2, Page 34 2, Page 5 Many, if not most, of the miracles described in the Gospels did not actually occur. There was no virgin birth, no walking on water, no feeding of thousands with a few fish and loaves. Jesus did not bring Lazarus back to life. Jesus' bodily resurrection, walking through walls, transfiguration, ascension into heaven, etc. are myths. There are no such entities as indwelling demons. Jesus probably healed mental and physical illnesses in the same way that religious healers work today. Conclusions of the Jesus Seminar: Most fellows would probably agree with the following conclusions: The four canonical gospels were written chronologically in the order: Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John over the interval from about 70 to 110 CE. The Gospel of Mark and the sayings gospel of Q were two independent sources which the authors of Matthew and Luke used as the basis of their gospels. Both Matthew and Luke also incorporated material from their own sources. The Gospel of Thomas was discovered in 1945 in Nag Hammadi, Egypt. It was part of a Gnostic Christian library which was apparently buried during a time of persecution of the Gnostics by Pauline Christians. It contains 73 sayings that are duplicates of those found in the canonical Gospels. It also has 65 sayings (or parts of sayings) that are unique. The Gospel of John represents a religious tradition that is independent from the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke). They differ so much that either John or the Synoptic Gospels must be largely abandoned in the quest for an understanding of Jesus' actual sayings and acts. The Seminar has largely rejected John. Many of Jesus' followers had previously followed John the Baptist. Jesus rarely spoke of himself in the first person. The many "I am" statements in John originated from the Gospel author, not from Jesus. Jesus did not claim to be the Messiah. Jesus did not claim to be God. Jesus did not believe that his execution was necessary in order for those who trust in him as Lord and Savior would be saved from eternal damnation. Jesus believed that the Kingdom of God had already arrived in 1st century Palestine and was visible in the way that he and his followers treated each other. On the other hand, John the Baptist and Paul viewed the Kingdom as coming at a time in their future, sometime in the 1st century. 2 Page 137 Jesus probably talked to his followers and preached in Aramaic. The books in the Christian Scriptures are written in Greek. Thus, even those parts of the Gospels that Jesus is believed to have said, are actually translations into Greek of his original words. About 18% of the sayings of Jesus recorded in the 4 canonical Gospels and Thomas rated a red or pink rating (Jesus definitely or probably said it). The remaining passages attributed to Jesus were actually created by the Gospel writers. In Mark, only one saying (Mark 12:14) was given a red rating; many are pink. Matthew contains many sayings of Jesus which have been rated red or pink. But all of the words attributed to Jesus from the description of the last judgment in Chapter 25 until the end of the Gospel, were rated black (definitely not said by Jesus). Luke also contains many pink and red ratings. But all of the sayings attributed to Jesus from his comment that the earth will pass into oblivion within a generation (Luke 21:32) to the end of the Gospel are all rated black. The Gospel of John was unique among the canonical Gospels: none of the words attributed to Jesus were rated red. There was only one pink passage. One was gray (Jesus did not say this, but it contains ideas similar to his). The vast majority of sayings were rated black.
You are citing the opinions of the most liberal of the liberal scholars as evidence?? Extremely liberal scholars like this are essentially no different than atheists. They are Christian in name only and have probably never seen a miracle in their entire lifeâ¦
lol. so they are not "real christians" because they dont agree with you? maybe they have it right. how do you know your version is right and they are wrong? here is a list of scholars. how does your education compare to theirs? http://www.westarinstitute.org/Fellows/fellows.html The Fellows of the Westar Institute are scholars with advanced degrees in biblical studies, religion or related fields. Since the beginning, more than two hundred Fellows have participated in the Jesus Seminar and other Westar projects, including the Paul Seminar, Canon Seminar and the recently begun Acts Seminar. At various stages of the projects, different Fellows have been involved in the research and deliberations. Andries G. van Aarde Valerie A. Abrahamsen Karen Armstrong Richard L. Arthur Harold W. Attridge Robert Bater Joseph Bessler-Northcutt Edward F. Beutner Anthony Blasi Marcus Borg Willi Braun James R. Butts â Marvin F. Cain Ron Cameron Bruce D. Chilton Kathleen E. Corley Wendy J. Cotter John Dominic Crossan Don Cupitt Jon Daniels Jean Jacques D'Aoust Jon F. Dechow Arthur J. Dewey Joanna Dewey John Dillenberger Dennis C. Duling Susan M. Elliott Robert T. Fortna â Robert W. Funk Lloyd Geering James Goss Heinz Guenther Sakari Hakkinen Maurice Hamington Walter Harrelson Stephen L. Harris Charles W. Hedrick James D. Hester C. M. Kempton Hewitt Jack A. Hill Julian V. Hills Richard Holloway Roy W. Hoover Michael L. Humphries Glenna S. Jackson Arland Jacobson Clayton N. Jefford Gregory C. Jenks F. Stanley Jones Larry Kalajainen Perry V. Kea William Doane Kelly Chan-Hie Kim Karen L. King John S. Kloppenborg Paul Alan Laughlin Nigel Leaves Davidson Loehr â Sanford Lowe John Lown Gerd Luedemann Dennis R. MacDonald Brian Rice McCarthy Lane C. McGaughy Edward J. McMahon II Loren Mack-Fisher Marvin W. Meyer Darren Middleton J. Ramsey Michaels L. Bruce Miller Robert J. Miller â Robert L'H. Miller â Winsome Munro Culver H. Nelson Rod Parrott Stephen J. Patterson Richard I. Pervo Robert M. Price Anne Primavesi Vernon K. Robbins James M. Robinson Marianne Sawicki Daryl D. Schmidt Oswald Schrag Bernard Brandon Scott Philip Sellew Chris Shea Thomas Sheehan Lou H. Silberman Dennis Smith Mahlon H. Smith John Shelby Spong Michael G. Steinhauser Roy SteinhoffSmith Robert F. Stoops, Jr. Johann Strijdom Jarmo Tarkki W. Barnes Tatum Hal Taussig Barbara Thiering Joseph B. Tyson Leif E. Vaage James Veitch Paul Verhoeven Wesley Hiram Wachob William O. Walker Donna Wallace Robert
Iâm pointing out that most of the ultra liberal scholars live their lives and believe no differently than a practicing atheist. This makes them highly biased. Can they have their opinion? Sure. Are they objective? No. Thatâs my point. Thereâs interesting arguments on both sides of the debate and so imo itâs pretty boring for one side to cite conservative scholars and the other side to cite liberal scholars. What good does citing scholars do anyway? Letâs face it: you could care less what the conservative scholars think and I feel pretty much the same way about what I consider an atheist who is examing the bible as mythology. Itâs better to stick to the issues imhoâ¦
And let me explain why I don't give someone with such a closed mind much credence in investigating the Bible. The reason is that - let's face it - the Bible is at its roots a book about the miraculous and the spiritual. This would be like getting a bunch of atheists together to investigate the UFO's. I've used this example before, but I want to give it again but I can never get any of the materialists to respond: On 3/13/97 the famous "Phoenix Lights Incident" occurred in my home city here. As you may know, it was witnessed by 100's of Phoenicians. One of the onlookers was a local neurosurgeon named Dr. Lynne Kitei. Out of fear of attack from people like yourself I am sure and fear for her practice, she remained underground about what she saw until recently when she had her story published in the April issue of Phoenix magazine. Her husband is a prominent Phoenix physician and saw them as well as did many others around the Valley. These came by relatively close to her balcony - she lives in the elite part of town and if you read her story you would definitely not believe that she saw "military flares or balloons". Here is a quote from her: "I took mental note of every nuance - size, shape, color, distance. Each sphere was an oval, between 3 and 6 feet across. The orbs seemed to be hovering motionlessly in perfect symmetry, one on top, and the other two aligned underneath, like a pyramid. The soothing amber light contained with in each orb looked different from any light I had ever seen. It didn't glare at all, and was uniform throughout, reminding me of a holiday luinaria that shines from within, without the light extending beyond the edge." This occurred, according to her story, approximately 100 yards from her balcony. I know roughly where she lives and it's dead center in the middle of the city. Either this lady is a liar (as are the 100's of other Phoenicians) or it's true. This was not military balloons or flares. "
Now if these atheists were investigating this story, their bias would be to throw out this neurosurgeon's story simple because they have never seen anything like this. Even tho this event was witnessed by 100's of people, including this very prominent doctor, they would throw it out. And even tho it appeared so clearly and cannot be explained by natural phenomenon, they would likely throw it out simply because it is non-materialistic. They might even do what you do - citing their credentials and telling how UFO tales are similar to those from several hundred years ago and have only been propogated since there was a collective conscious about it. They could come up with many skeptical questions such as 'Why would these light just hover around? What is the point?" But the bottom line is this: there is no reason to believe their opinion any more than the 100's of people who saw something unexplainable. In fact, imo quite the opposite: it is easier to believe the people really there. And here's my question: are we to throw this out simply because it didn't occur in a lab??
I didnât ask my question very well. What Iâm really asking is this: This neurosurgeon has credentials just as good as any of the scholars you cited. So why immediately discount her story? The only reason is because it doesnât fit into oneâs anti-supernatural worldview if you ask meâ¦
wouldn't it be an important issue to know that modern scholars now believe that many of the biblical stories never happened? we are able to determine through scientific study that parts of the bible were mistranslated or made up. the kjv version of the bible that 95% of christians today use was translated in the 1500s. what do you do if you want information on the latest medical science. do you look at a book from the 50s or do you look for the most current information? whole sections of the bible are now known to be forged such as the last 10 verses of mark. they are not even included in the newest bible translations. here is a comparison of the kjv version of the bible with the newest bibles being printed today. it is an eye opener. one changed word can often make a big difference: http://watch.pair.com/scriptures.html TABLES OF COMPARISON OF SELECTED SCRIPTURES AFFECTING FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINES OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH KING JAMES VERSION ENGLISH REVISED VERSION NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION NEW KING JAMES VERSION The categories of tables were selected to represent the most significant areas of change in modern translations which affect fundamental Christian doctrine. This listing is only a portion of the overwhelming number of alterations to essential doctrines. 1. THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men." (Philippians 2:5-7) Modifications to key verses such as this one and others containing titles of the Lord Jesus Christ denigrate the doctrine of His deity. (more, see tables) 2. THE INCARNATION "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." (I Timothy 3:16) New versions change "God" to "He" in this verse and omit other references to Jesus Christ coming in the flesh 3. THE VIRGIN BIRTH "BEHOLD, A VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD, AND SHALL BRING FORTH A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME EMMANUEL, which being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: and knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son; and he called his name JESUS." (Matthew 1:23-25) In the prophecy as it was originally given in Isaiah 7:14, the Revised Standard Version changes "virgin" to "young woman" and the NASB has "maiden" in a footnote. In Matthew 1:25, new versions change "her firstborn son" to "birth to a son", casting doubt upon the virginity of Mary at Jesusâ birth. Other verses are changed to indicate that Jesus was born of an earthly father. These alterations deny the role of the Holy Spirit in the conception of Jesus Christ and, therefore, His divine nature. 4. THE SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins." (Colossians 1:13,14) New versions remove reference to the blood atonement in this and other verses. Words are also omitted or changed which show that the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ is the full atonement for our sins. 5. THE RESURRECTION "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene...After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country . . .Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen." (Mark 16:9,12,14) New versions isolate Mark 16:9-20 with the misleading disclaimer that it is not contained in the earliest manuscripts. They also question almost every appearance of Jesus after his resurrection, causing doubts concerning His bodily resurrection and deity.