Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[Persus13]

A roman historian named Josephus gives a pretty solidly based account for the genuine existence of a historical figure meeting the identifying credentials of Jesus of nazareth.

Again, as i said above, in an era where the literature was almost completely in control by the established religion, such texts could have been easily manipulated and injected with any number of pages the original author never wrote.

Josephus wasn't just a Roman historian, he was a Jewish Pharisee who gave us a pretty good account of the Jewish rebellion in AD 70 and is our source for a lot of historical knowledge on other Messianic figures in 1st century Judea.

This post by a guy who is a self described "atheist bastard" is one that I think does a decent job on the subject of Josephus and Tacitus (although its a little long, and I have some minor disagreements with him based on the fact that I'm Christian and he isn't).

[Askot Bokbondeler]

The idea i get is that not one but several Jesuses(Jesi?) existed. That era was particularly fertile in free thinking rabis, philosophers, and prophets. One(or a few) of them might have been named Christ. IIRC John the Baptist was more notable in his time and his existence is better documented, and i think there's a few more characters who are partial matches to Christ, but under different names and denominations of "neo-judaism", and Jesus is just the name that stuck to the composite character that came out of the conflation of all these cults.

[UXLZ]

How do you reconcile conflicting accounts between various writers of the Bible?

Spoiler: From that blog post Persus link (click to show/hide)

For example, in gMark Jesus is depicted as going to the Jordan and being baptised by John the Baptist (Mark 1: 9-11), after which he hears a voice from heaven and goes off into the wilderness to fast.  For the writer of gMark, this is the point where Jesus becomes the Messiah of Yahweh and so there is no problem with him having his sins washed away by John, since prior to his point he was man like any other.  The writer of gMatthew, however, has a very different Christology.  In his version, Jesus has been the ordained Messiah since his miraculous conception, so it is awkward for him to have the chosen one of God going to be baptised by John, who is a lesser prophet.  So gMatthew tells more or less the same story as he finds in gMark, which he uses as his source, but adds a small exchange of dialogue not found in the earlier version:

But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.
(Matt 3:14-15)

When we turn to the latest of the gospels, gJohn, we find a very different story again.  The writer of this gospel depicts Jesus as being a mystical, pre-existent Messiah who had a heavenly existence since the beginning of time.  So for him the idea of Jesus being baptised by John is even more awkward.  So he solves the problem by removing the baptism altogether.  In this latest version, John is baptising other people and telling them that the Messiah was to come and then sees Jesus and declares him to be the Messiah (John 1:29-33).  There is no baptism of Jesus at all in the gJohn version.

[origamiscienceguy]

How do you reconcile conflicting accounts between various writers of the Bible?

Spoiler: From that blog post Persus link (click to show/hide)

For example, in gMark Jesus is depicted as going to the Jordan and being baptised by John the Baptist (Mark 1: 9-11), after which he hears a voice from heaven and goes off into the wilderness to fast.  For the writer of gMark, this is the point where Jesus becomes the Messiah of Yahweh and so there is no problem with him having his sins washed away by John, since prior to his point he was man like any other.  The writer of gMatthew, however, has a very different Christology.  In his version, Jesus has been the ordained Messiah since his miraculous conception, so it is awkward for him to have the chosen one of God going to be baptised by John, who is a lesser prophet.  So gMatthew tells more or less the same story as he finds in gMark, which he uses as his source, but adds a small exchange of dialogue not found in the earlier version:

But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.
(Matt 3:14-15)

When we turn to the latest of the gospels, gJohn, we find a very different story again.  The writer of this gospel depicts Jesus as being a mystical, pre-existent Messiah who had a heavenly existence since the beginning of time.  So for him the idea of Jesus being baptised by John is even more awkward.  So he solves the problem by removing the baptism altogether.  In this latest version, John is baptising other people and telling them that the Messiah was to come and then sees Jesus and declares him to be the Messiah (John 1:29-33).  There is no baptism of Jesus at all in the gJohn version.

what does the g in front of the the names mean?

[Frumple]

Probably gospel?

E: Specifically, it's being used to denote the difference between, say, John the figure and the text that is the Gospel According to John. The passage is consistent about that use, anyway.

[Calidovi]

How do you reconcile conflicting accounts between various writers of the Bible?

Spoiler: From that blog post Persus link (click to show/hide)

For example, in gMark Jesus is depicted as going to the Jordan and being baptised by John the Baptist (Mark 1: 9-11), after which he hears a voice from heaven and goes off into the wilderness to fast.  For the writer of gMark, this is the point where Jesus becomes the Messiah of Yahweh and so there is no problem with him having his sins washed away by John, since prior to his point he was man like any other.  The writer of gMatthew, however, has a very different Christology.  In his version, Jesus has been the ordained Messiah since his miraculous conception, so it is awkward for him to have the chosen one of God going to be baptised by John, who is a lesser prophet.  So gMatthew tells more or less the same story as he finds in gMark, which he uses as his source, but adds a small exchange of dialogue not found in the earlier version:

But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.
(Matt 3:14-15)

When we turn to the latest of the gospels, gJohn, we find a very different story again.  The writer of this gospel depicts Jesus as being a mystical, pre-existent Messiah who had a heavenly existence since the beginning of time.  So for him the idea of Jesus being baptised by John is even more awkward.  So he solves the problem by removing the baptism altogether.  In this latest version, John is baptising other people and telling them that the Messiah was to come and then sees Jesus and declares him to be the Messiah (John 1:29-33).  There is no baptism of Jesus at all in the gJohn version.

They are people, and their viewpoints will contradict. I take it that opinions weren't squandered during the compilation of the bible, and misinformation, ignorance, and simply forgetting to write something down were common issues.

[Ghills]

How do you reconcile conflicting accounts between various writers of the Bible?

Spoiler: From that blog post Persus link (click to show/hide)

For example, in gMark Jesus is depicted as going to the Jordan and being baptised by John the Baptist (Mark 1: 9-11), after which he hears a voice from heaven and goes off into the wilderness to fast.  For the writer of gMark, this is the point where Jesus becomes the Messiah of Yahweh and so there is no problem with him having his sins washed away by John, since prior to his point he was man like any other.  The writer of gMatthew, however, has a very different Christology.  In his version, Jesus has been the ordained Messiah since his miraculous conception, so it is awkward for him to have the chosen one of God going to be baptised by John, who is a lesser prophet.  So gMatthew tells more or less the same story as he finds in gMark, which he uses as his source, but adds a small exchange of dialogue not found in the earlier version:

But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.
(Matt 3:14-15)

When we turn to the latest of the gospels, gJohn, we find a very different story again.  The writer of this gospel depicts Jesus as being a mystical, pre-existent Messiah who had a heavenly existence since the beginning of time.  So for him the idea of Jesus being baptised by John is even more awkward.  So he solves the problem by removing the baptism altogether.  In this latest version, John is baptising other people and telling them that the Messiah was to come and then sees Jesus and declares him to be the Messiah (John 1:29-33).  There is no baptism of Jesus at all in the gJohn version.

How do you reconcile conflicting accounts between various writers of the Bible?

Spoiler: From that blog post Persus link (click to show/hide)

For example, in gMark Jesus is depicted as going to the Jordan and being baptised by John the Baptist (Mark 1: 9-11), after which he hears a voice from heaven and goes off into the wilderness to fast.  For the writer of gMark, this is the point where Jesus becomes the Messiah of Yahweh and so there is no problem with him having his sins washed away by John, since prior to his point he was man like any other.  The writer of gMatthew, however, has a very different Christology.  In his version, Jesus has been the ordained Messiah since his miraculous conception, so it is awkward for him to have the chosen one of God going to be baptised by John, who is a lesser prophet.  So gMatthew tells more or less the same story as he finds in gMark, which he uses as his source, but adds a small exchange of dialogue not found in the earlier version:

But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.
(Matt 3:14-15)

When we turn to the latest of the gospels, gJohn, we find a very different story again.  The writer of this gospel depicts Jesus as being a mystical, pre-existent Messiah who had a heavenly existence since the beginning of time.  So for him the idea of Jesus being baptised by John is even more awkward.  So he solves the problem by removing the baptism altogether.  In this latest version, John is baptising other people and telling them that the Messiah was to come and then sees Jesus and declares him to be the Messiah (John 1:29-33).  There is no baptism of Jesus at all in the gJohn version.

Everything Laptisen said, plus this:

Ancient peoples did not have the same idea of what history or documentation meant.  Now, we want all our sources to agree on important facts, have standards of evidence, etc.  Then, the standards were very different. 

Also, I think each gospel was written for a different audience so each focuses on different things, presents ideas differently, uses different language, etc.

As for the doctrines, LDS theology says:

Every person is a spirit child of Heavenly Father born into a body. Jesus was, in addition to being a spirit child of God, conceived with the Holy Spirit and thus the Son of God in a physical as well as spiritual sense.  He lived without committing sin which is what qualified him to be the perfect sacrifice, freeing all humanity from death.  Committing sin would have disqualified him and left the rest of us eternally stuck.

He got baptized because
1) Part of living without sin is obeying commandments, and everyone is told to get baptized as part of the process of getting back to heaven, and
2) To set a clear example for all the rest of us so that we absolutely know baptism is required to get back to heaven.

[Persus13]

How do you reconcile conflicting accounts between various writers of the Bible?

Spoiler: From that blog post Persus link (click to show/hide)

For example, in gMark Jesus is depicted as going to the Jordan and being baptised by John the Baptist (Mark 1: 9-11), after which he hears a voice from heaven and goes off into the wilderness to fast.  For the writer of gMark, this is the point where Jesus becomes the Messiah of Yahweh and so there is no problem with him having his sins washed away by John, since prior to his point he was man like any other.  The writer of gMatthew, however, has a very different Christology.  In his version, Jesus has been the ordained Messiah since his miraculous conception, so it is awkward for him to have the chosen one of God going to be baptised by John, who is a lesser prophet.  So gMatthew tells more or less the same story as he finds in gMark, which he uses as his source, but adds a small exchange of dialogue not found in the earlier version:

But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.
(Matt 3:14-15)

When we turn to the latest of the gospels, gJohn, we find a very different story again.  The writer of this gospel depicts Jesus as being a mystical, pre-existent Messiah who had a heavenly existence since the beginning of time.  So for him the idea of Jesus being baptised by John is even more awkward.  So he solves the problem by removing the baptism altogether.  In this latest version, John is baptising other people and telling them that the Messiah was to come and then sees Jesus and declares him to be the Messiah (John 1:29-33).  There is no baptism of Jesus at all in the gJohn version.

Well I don't really see that as conflicting. As the others said, each gospel goes about telling things in a different way and so there is overlap in all of them but many stories are only found in 1 or 2 of them. If you interviewed four witnesses of something that happened, all of them would probably have different but overlapping things to say about the event, and the gospels are the same way. John leaving out the baptism is not surprising because he was being very deliberate about what went into his book and its a lot more structured then the others. So from a Christian perspective he just left out the bit on the baptism because he didn't see it as important to the narrative he was telling. Also from a Christian perspective there isn't a conflict between the two passages in Matthew and Mark and the lack of a mention in John. The blogger's perceived conflict comes out of his interpretation of the three gospels and what Jesus they're describing, while from a Christian perspective, there isn't any conflict between the Jesus described in them.

In terms of how do you reconcile conflicting accounts in the Bible in general, I'm no expert on the Bible, and I certainly can't speak Greek, Ancient Hebrew or Aramaic, so what I would do is ask someone like a seminarian or a priest or a biblical scholar about it or consult a book, but a lot of times stuff in the Bible makes more sense if you understand the cultural context or the language behind it. There's been almost 2000 years of thought on that front, so I'm sure someone has probably looked into it before. You could probably say that about any question asked in this thread though.

[origamiscienceguy]

-snip-

well said.

[ggamer]

Today we sang the national anthem, pledge of allegiance, and military songs in church

Yknow, I wonder if we saw Iraqi Christians singing their anthem in church we would think it was as normal.

This kinda stuff makes me want to vomit

E: what the fuck

What possesses people to be this damn stupid

[wierd]

Conflation of religious faiths with state nationalism is ALWAYS a bad thing.


That is WHY our nation (is supposed to) keeps religion and politics separate. (GOP and fundamentalism not withstanding. ahem.)


Military anthems, nationalist anthems, and political rhetoric have no place in a church. Religious anthems, rhetoric, and dogma have no place in the governance of the nation.

[MonkeyHead]

Conflation of religious faiths with state nationalism is ALWAYS a bad thing.


That is WHY our nation (is supposed to) keeps religion and politics separate. (GOP and fundamentalism not withstanding. ahem.)


Military anthems, nationalist anthems, and political rhetoric have no place in a church. Religious anthems, rhetoric, and dogma have no place in the governance of the nation.

The anthem of the United Kingdom is God save the Queen, though to be fair it is rather vague as to which god (I quite like the idea of Loki watching over her). This manages both those objectionable things, along with a third strike of hereditary entitlement all rolled in for some kind of combination of deluxe fuck up. Even then, for some unknown reason people often wonder why I (as an atheist Welshman) have little to no loyalty to such a set up.

[wierd]

Amusingly, THE REASON DETER for the US's "Separation of church and state" was the unmitigated assfuckery of the English court and the Church of England as they held hands.

[Descan]

Canada (Ontario) has the best of both worlds!

We have the Queen as our Head of State, and head of the Anglican church, but we ALSO have publicly-funded Catholic schools.

[Bohandas]

Conflation of religious faiths with state nationalism is ALWAYS a bad thing.


That is WHY our nation (is supposed to) keeps religion and politics separate. (GOP and fundamentalism not withstanding. ahem.)


Military anthems, nationalist anthems, and political rhetoric have no place in a church. Religious anthems, rhetoric, and dogma have no place in the governance of the nation.

Speaking of which, does the "under God" line in the Pledge of Allegiance strike anybody else as mildly seditious? It disparages the authority of our government and the legitimacy of our democracy. The nation is not under anything!