Religion in America

[OCanada]

Irrelevant.

The facts are the facts. Especially troubling for those who think each word is sacred and the same as originally written which was often well after the event

[MDlaxfan76]

I'd say that we have a spectrum of confidence in each case, based upon lots of reinforcing evidence in most of those instances...now, what Alexander the Great actually said after a particular battle, not so much...

My point about what you wrote about The Gospel of John being an exact quote as actually spoken by Jesus, and accurately recalled and translated, is that we have very little direct confirmatory evidence of those words, though we do have a number of reports, at least second or third hand, that appear to be roughly the same tale...but an exact quote? Nah...that's a much lower confidence. And we certainly don't know if the claim, as you implied, is "true" simply from the gospels...we can 'believe', have 'faith' in such, but that's the limit...which, at least IMO, is just fine. As I said, we, as followers, imbue these texts and tales with meaning based upon our choice to do so. We can't know for certainty, but we can choose to believe. Or not.

In the instance of Mohammad, we do have much greater confidence, based upon the evidence, that the words as written in Arabic actually were the work and words of a single prophet...how "true" they are beyond that is a matter of faith for Muslims. I, for one, don't think that the fact that we know that Mohammad wrote those words as repeatedly transcribed over the ages necessarily makes them more "true" than the Gospel of John, or vice versa. But they are indeed what Mohammad wrote, not someone else later (an aspect of the Gospel of John's recounting that makes it problematic). Nor does it make them more "trustworthy" other than as an "accurate" transcription of what Mohammad wrote. But I'm not Muslim, so I don't share that specific faith, while I do respect it.

Would it be fair to conclude from what you say here that you believe there is no absolute truth in the Universe? That whatever any individual believes is true? If so, may I ask what you believe will happen to you when you die, for instance? And if you have a definite belief and hope in that regard, what do you base it on?

I also have another question. What are the tests that you apply to any ancient historical document (or any piece of ancient literature, for that matter) to determine if it is accurate or reliable? Is there an established criteria that you apply? If so, what is it?

(I have more to respond to in what you've written here but I don't want to get ahead of myself. I'm slowly working my way through the questions and statements of not only yourself but others who have weighed in, as well.)

No, it would be inaccurate to conclude that I don't think (or believe) that there is an absolute truth, much less that truth can simply be substituted for by "whatever any individual believes is true". I'm not a relativist.

However, my own belief (the closest I get to "absolute truth") is that we humans are incapable of fully understanding completely "absolute truth" much less should be telling others that we do, nor that they are damned if they don't see everything the same way we do.

The "God" I believe in, and I do believe there is a higher power albeit not necessarily as we humans have constructed in our imaginations, would not require only one way to seek "truth" and meaning, nor only one way to contribute positively to whatever role we have to play in the world, in the universe.

As to afterlife, I'm skeptical, though I'm willing to suspend such in the notion that our 'spirit' lives on in some way, within that flow of life force in the universe. But do we reincarnate? Or do we go to some sort of 'heaven' in which we are conscious of being?...these seem to me to be more wishful thinking, more of man's imagination than any sort of known "absolute truth".

As to sacred texts, that's entirely a matter of belief tradition. These stories were told orally and eventually written down, and in the case of the Christian Bible, only some of those stories were selected from a larger set by a group of men much later. Again, by men. The texts' historical accuracy, at least to me, is less relevant than how they are used to inspire good in the world...or evil...they are very powerful because we humans choose to imbue them with a sense of the sacred...but they can be used either way.

Back to belief, I think we are "called" by our "better angels" to seek that path of good and resist the temptations to use the sacred for control of others (evil).

I can find that "call" in all the major religions (which to me is saying that "God" calls in whatever culture or language), though I happen to have the cultural affinity to my own faith tradition.

But I can definitely see the beauty ("God") in other faith traditions.

But that's me.

[MDlaxfan76]

Irrelevant.

The facts are the facts. Especially troubling for those who think each word is sacred and the same as originally written which was often well after the event

+1

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

Problem with the Gospel of John is that we're pretty darn sure this a second hand account at best, so a direct quote from Jesus some 4 or more decades later, as then translated over the years from there, may or may not actually be what Jesus said...might be close, might not be...

If we want to look at a higher likelihood of a religious document being what the prime figure in that religion intended, I'd suggest the Koran, in Arabic...written by Mohammad himself, not by others remembering what he may have said...on the other hand, Mohammad's claims that these are actually Allah's words and instructions may or may not be "accurate"...

I researched the idea that Muhammad wrote the Qur'an. Though I didn't do a relatively exhaustive search, everything I found stated that Muhammad didn't write the Qur'an, but that he dictated his messages to others who wrote down what he said:

Who wrote the Qur’an? You may think the answer to this is obvious: Muhammad wrote the Qur’an. And the crucial difference between Muslims and non-Muslims is whether they believe he was inspired by God to do it. But if you did give that answer, you’d be completely wrong.

For one thing, not even Muslims think that Muhammad wrote the Qur’an. They believe that God wrote it and then revealed it to Muhammad. A technicality you might think. But actually, they don’t even believe that Muhammad, once it had been revealed to him, wrote it down either. He spoke it, preached it, recited it (qur’an literally translates as ‘recitation’). And those around him, his followers, then memorised it, and some noted it down on anything to hand, like palm leaves and stones. So how did it become a book? According to Islamic tradition, not until after Muhammad had died (in AD 632), under the first caliph Abu Bakr, were these parts all gathered together and arranged into a book. The scribe Zaid was charged with the job of locating all the parts and compiling them into one volume. And around 20 years later, under the third caliph Uthman, the same scribe was charged with gathering all the variant versions that still existed, determining the correct one and burning the rest. You might think this haphazard process is not one which would have inspired confidence that the final product contained the authentic words, and only the authentic words, of Muhammad. But this is the official story, and Muslims seem happy enough with it.

https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/ ... the-quran/

After reading the beginning of this article, it occurred to me that what you present as skepticism for the authenticity of the Gospel of John would also apply to the Qur'an. If I am incorrect, what is the distinction?

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

I learned about christianity from this!

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0120655/

I looked up the movie and read the beginning of the plot on the Wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma_(film) The film is categorized as a fantasy comedy. It has no basis of truth regarding Christianity. I would recommend learning about Christianity from the New Testament, which is the collection of writings and letters which make it up. It's an excellent way to determine where Christians are following the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, and where they are deviating from that standard. It's one of the traits the Bereans were commended for. They didn't just take the apostle Paul's word for it when he preached to them that Jesus was the Messiah, they searched to see if what he said was borne out by Scripture:

The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

Book of Acts, 17th chapter, verses 10 and 11

[MDlaxfan76]

Problem with the Gospel of John is that we're pretty darn sure this a second hand account at best, so a direct quote from Jesus some 4 or more decades later, as then translated over the years from there, may or may not actually be what Jesus said...might be close, might not be...

If we want to look at a higher likelihood of a religious document being what the prime figure in that religion intended, I'd suggest the Koran, in Arabic...written by Mohammad himself, not by others remembering what he may have said...on the other hand, Mohammad's claims that these are actually Allah's words and instructions may or may not be "accurate"...

I researched the idea that Muhammad wrote the Qur'an. Though I didn't do a relatively exhaustive search, everything I found stated that Muhammad didn't write the Qur'an, but that he dictated his messages to others who wrote down what he said:

Who wrote the Qur’an? You may think the answer to this is obvious: Muhammad wrote the Qur’an. And the crucial difference between Muslims and non-Muslims is whether they believe he was inspired by God to do it. But if you did give that answer, you’d be completely wrong.

For one thing, not even Muslims think that Muhammad wrote the Qur’an. They believe that God wrote it and then revealed it to Muhammad. A technicality you might think. But actually, they don’t even believe that Muhammad, once it had been revealed to him, wrote it down either. He spoke it, preached it, recited it (qur’an literally translates as ‘recitation’). And those around him, his followers, then memorised it, and some noted it down on anything to hand, like palm leaves and stones. So how did it become a book? According to Islamic tradition, not until after Muhammad had died (in AD 632), under the first caliph Abu Bakr, were these parts all gathered together and arranged into a book. The scribe Zaid was charged with the job of locating all the parts and compiling them into one volume. And around 20 years later, under the third caliph Uthman, the same scribe was charged with gathering all the variant versions that still existed, determining the correct one and burning the rest. You might think this haphazard process is not one which would have inspired confidence that the final product contained the authentic words, and only the authentic words, of Muhammad. But this is the official story, and Muslims seem happy enough with it.

https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/ ... the-quran/

After reading the beginning of this article, it occurred to me that what you present as skepticism for the authenticity of the Gospel of John would also apply to the Qur'an. If I am incorrect, what is the distinction?

No, the writers of John were not present, nor were they directly writing down the words of someone who was. Telephone tag.

Muhammad said the words (whether or not one believes these were Allah's words) and the scribes wrote them as he said them. In no way, am I suggesting that makes them more 'accurate' or, more importantly fundamentally 'true', than the Gospel of John, simply that the words have been passed down to us as the exact historical text that was written. They are indeed written contemporaneously as Mohammad said, not a retelling decades later by those who never heard him. Muhammad's words were captured and written down as he said them. Very intentional.

The Gospel of John, however, does not have this historical benefit...so, relying upon the words you quote as somehow authoritative based on being an accurate description of what actually happened, what Jesus actually said, is very suspect. Certainly more suspect than the Koran.

That said, the Koran has some of the same issues of variation, dependent on who was writing down Muhammad's words, small variations that may or may not matter in terms of the meaning...As much of the Koran seems more poetic to me than actual prescription/proscription (as is the Christian bible), it is more important to me that these words/texts can be interpreted in various ways by different people.

But claiming perfect knowledge of their meaning, much less that the tale told in John is accurate historically seems to me be very foolish...and, more importantly, dangerous.

I have the same issue with claims about the Koran.

[PizzaSnake]

I'd say that we have a spectrum of confidence in each case, based upon lots of reinforcing evidence in most of those instances...now, what Alexander the Great actually said after a particular battle, not so much...

My point about what you wrote about The Gospel of John being an exact quote as actually spoken by Jesus, and accurately recalled and translated, is that we have very little direct confirmatory evidence of those words, though we do have a number of reports, at least second or third hand, that appear to be roughly the same tale...but an exact quote? Nah...that's a much lower confidence. And we certainly don't know if the claim, as you implied, is "true" simply from the gospels...we can 'believe', have 'faith' in such, but that's the limit...which, at least IMO, is just fine. As I said, we, as followers, imbue these texts and tales with meaning based upon our choice to do so. We can't know for certainty, but we can choose to believe. Or not.

In the instance of Mohammad, we do have much greater confidence, based upon the evidence, that the words as written in Arabic actually were the work and words of a single prophet...how "true" they are beyond that is a matter of faith for Muslims. I, for one, don't think that the fact that we know that Mohammad wrote those words as repeatedly transcribed over the ages necessarily makes them more "true" than the Gospel of John, or vice versa. But they are indeed what Mohammad wrote, not someone else later (an aspect of the Gospel of John's recounting that makes it problematic). Nor does it make them more "trustworthy" other than as an "accurate" transcription of what Mohammad wrote. But I'm not Muslim, so I don't share that specific faith, while I do respect it.

Would it be fair to conclude from what you say here that you believe there is no absolute truth in the Universe? That whatever any individual believes is true? If so, may I ask what you believe will happen to you when you die, for instance? And if you have a definite belief and hope in that regard, what do you base it on?

I also have another question. What are the tests that you apply to any ancient historical document (or any piece of ancient literature, for that matter) to determine if it is accurate or reliable? Is there an established criteria that you apply? If so, what is it?

(I have more to respond to in what you've written here but I don't want to get ahead of myself. I'm slowly working my way through the questions and statements of not only yourself but others who have weighed in, as well.)

“No, it would be inaccurate to conclude that I don't think (or believe) that there is an absolute truth, much less that truth can simply be substituted for by "whatever any individual believes is true". I'm not a relativist.

However, my own belief (the closest I get to "absolute truth") is that we humans are incapable of fully understanding completely "absolute truth" much less should be telling others that we do, nor that they are damned if they don't see everything the same way we do.”

So, perhaps your admitted lack of comprehension of the “truth” would make some behavior you view as relativistic to be in fact congruent with morality?

Interesting that your admission if imperfect grasp of “reality” is conjoined with an absolutist position.

[MDlaxfan76]

I'd say that we have a spectrum of confidence in each case, based upon lots of reinforcing evidence in most of those instances...now, what Alexander the Great actually said after a particular battle, not so much...

My point about what you wrote about The Gospel of John being an exact quote as actually spoken by Jesus, and accurately recalled and translated, is that we have very little direct confirmatory evidence of those words, though we do have a number of reports, at least second or third hand, that appear to be roughly the same tale...but an exact quote? Nah...that's a much lower confidence. And we certainly don't know if the claim, as you implied, is "true" simply from the gospels...we can 'believe', have 'faith' in such, but that's the limit...which, at least IMO, is just fine. As I said, we, as followers, imbue these texts and tales with meaning based upon our choice to do so. We can't know for certainty, but we can choose to believe. Or not.

In the instance of Mohammad, we do have much greater confidence, based upon the evidence, that the words as written in Arabic actually were the work and words of a single prophet...how "true" they are beyond that is a matter of faith for Muslims. I, for one, don't think that the fact that we know that Mohammad wrote those words as repeatedly transcribed over the ages necessarily makes them more "true" than the Gospel of John, or vice versa. But they are indeed what Mohammad wrote, not someone else later (an aspect of the Gospel of John's recounting that makes it problematic). Nor does it make them more "trustworthy" other than as an "accurate" transcription of what Mohammad wrote. But I'm not Muslim, so I don't share that specific faith, while I do respect it.

Would it be fair to conclude from what you say here that you believe there is no absolute truth in the Universe? That whatever any individual believes is true? If so, may I ask what you believe will happen to you when you die, for instance? And if you have a definite belief and hope in that regard, what do you base it on?

I also have another question. What are the tests that you apply to any ancient historical document (or any piece of ancient literature, for that matter) to determine if it is accurate or reliable? Is there an established criteria that you apply? If so, what is it?

(I have more to respond to in what you've written here but I don't want to get ahead of myself. I'm slowly working my way through the questions and statements of not only yourself but others who have weighed in, as well.)

“No, it would be inaccurate to conclude that I don't think (or believe) that there is an absolute truth, much less that truth can simply be substituted for by "whatever any individual believes is true". I'm not a relativist.

However, my own belief (the closest I get to "absolute truth") is that we humans are incapable of fully understanding completely "absolute truth" much less should be telling others that we do, nor that they are damned if they don't see everything the same way we do.”

So, perhaps your admitted lack of comprehension of the “truth” would make some behavior you view as relativistic to be in fact congruent with morality?

Interesting that your admission if imperfect grasp of “reality” is conjoined with an absolutist position.

Before I respond, are you addressing me?

What you have quoted (my words are italicized in blue) following ONW's question seem to be getting mixed in with his view.

[MDlaxfan76]

Pizza,
Assuming that you are asking me about the seeming logic conflict.

I'm suggesting that I believe there actually is an "absolute truth, however I just don't think any human can completely know what such is. That lack of perfect understanding doesn't obviate the existence of an absolute truth, just an admission that we are limited in our ability to grasp it perfectly.

However, that doesn't mean, for me, that any and all claims to "truth" are equally likely to be accurate; nope, there are not multiple "absolute truths".

I think some claims can be seen to violate morality, whereas others are consistent. Claims that violate morality seem to me to discardable when seeking a better understanding of "absolute truth".

However, there are different approaches to getting closer.

That needn't be "relativistic", simply different ways to describe it.
So, certainly can be "congruent" if not perfectly the same.

However, when someone claims to perfectly know an "absolute truth" and, more importantly, that others are damned if they do not accept that description, I find that position actually violates morality.

I don't give that claim the benefit of the doubt the way a relativist might.

I'm certainly no philosopher, that's just my current best swing at the ball..

[Farfromgeneva]

I'd say that we have a spectrum of confidence in each case, based upon lots of reinforcing evidence in most of those instances...now, what Alexander the Great actually said after a particular battle, not so much...

My point about what you wrote about The Gospel of John being an exact quote as actually spoken by Jesus, and accurately recalled and translated, is that we have very little direct confirmatory evidence of those words, though we do have a number of reports, at least second or third hand, that appear to be roughly the same tale...but an exact quote? Nah...that's a much lower confidence. And we certainly don't know if the claim, as you implied, is "true" simply from the gospels...we can 'believe', have 'faith' in such, but that's the limit...which, at least IMO, is just fine. As I said, we, as followers, imbue these texts and tales with meaning based upon our choice to do so. We can't know for certainty, but we can choose to believe. Or not.

In the instance of Mohammad, we do have much greater confidence, based upon the evidence, that the words as written in Arabic actually were the work and words of a single prophet...how "true" they are beyond that is a matter of faith for Muslims. I, for one, don't think that the fact that we know that Mohammad wrote those words as repeatedly transcribed over the ages necessarily makes them more "true" than the Gospel of John, or vice versa. But they are indeed what Mohammad wrote, not someone else later (an aspect of the Gospel of John's recounting that makes it problematic). Nor does it make them more "trustworthy" other than as an "accurate" transcription of what Mohammad wrote. But I'm not Muslim, so I don't share that specific faith, while I do respect it.

Would it be fair to conclude from what you say here that you believe there is no absolute truth in the Universe? That whatever any individual believes is true? If so, may I ask what you believe will happen to you when you die, for instance? And if you have a definite belief and hope in that regard, what do you base it on?

I also have another question. What are the tests that you apply to any ancient historical document (or any piece of ancient literature, for that matter) to determine if it is accurate or reliable? Is there an established criteria that you apply? If so, what is it?

(I have more to respond to in what you've written here but I don't want to get ahead of myself. I'm slowly working my way through the questions and statements of not only yourself but others who have weighed in, as well.)

“No, it would be inaccurate to conclude that I don't think (or believe) that there is an absolute truth, much less that truth can simply be substituted for by "whatever any individual believes is true". I'm not a relativist.

However, my own belief (the closest I get to "absolute truth") is that we humans are incapable of fully understanding completely "absolute truth" much less should be telling others that we do, nor that they are damned if they don't see everything the same way we do.”

So, perhaps your admitted lack of comprehension of the “truth” would make some behavior you view as relativistic to be in fact congruent with morality?

Interesting that your admission if imperfect grasp of “reality” is conjoined with an absolutist position.

The Germans were a pretty good resource on this topic

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/ab ... 6024241BDE

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

Outta

Hebrew is generally considered to have four stages of development.

1 Biblical or Classical Hebrew until around 3rd century B.C., when most of the Old Testament was written
2 Mishanite Hebrew, the language of Mishna consisting of literature of Jewish traditions written about A.D.200 This form of Hebrew was never a spoken language among people.
3 Medieval Hebrew from about the 6th century A.D. to 13th century A.D.
4 Modern Hebrew, the language of Israel in modern times.

They have significant variations. Link is simply one of many possible

https://zinglanguages.com/hebrew-language-evolution/

Assuming Jesus died in 33 CE. A century or so passed before the first gospel. In today’s terms not that long in those times an eternity. There was no printing press nor books or pamphlets. His teachings were not recorded or transcribed. There were transmitted orally with all that can mean for error. Originals were copied by hand and over time various scribes added their own “ edits” or corrections to what they received. Add to that the dejudaization the Church performed over the first three centuries or so.

I understand what you're saying as to the change of the language over the years, but it didn't change enough to make what was written in ancient times unreadable or untranslatable today. Also I would add another item to the list: the Septuagint, which was translated from the Hebrew into the Greek by the Jewish religious order of the day back in the 3rd century BC.

Also, what proof do you offer that the first gospel wasn't written for a century or more? There are archeological scholars who assert that all four gospels, in addition to the whole of the New Testament, were written down before the end of the first century. The good doctor Luke comes to mind as far as writing the gospel down mere decades after Jesus lived on earth:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.
Luke's gospel, 1st chapter, verses 1-4

Luke was an excellent historian, witness here how he left himself open for criticism if what he wrote wasn't historically accurate:

Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness.
Luke's gospel, 3rd chapter, verses 1 and 2

[RedFromMI]

Not always the best source to use, but from Wikipedia (which does have references here):

The four canonical gospels were probably written between AD 66 and 110.[5][6][7] All four were anonymous (with the modern names added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission.[8] Mark was the first to be written, using a variety of sources.[9][10] The authors of Matthew and Luke both independently used Mark for their narrative of Jesus's career, supplementing it with a collection of sayings called the Q source and additional material unique to each.[11] There is near-consensus that John had its origins as the hypothetical Signs Gospel thought to have been circulated within a Johannine community.[12] The contradictions and discrepancies between the first three and John make it impossible to accept both traditions as equally reliable.[13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel

[MDlaxfan76]

Not always the best source to use, but from Wikipedia (which does have references here):

The four canonical gospels were probably written between AD 66 and 110.[5][6][7] All four were anonymous (with the modern names added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission.[8] Mark was the first to be written, using a variety of sources.[9][10] The authors of Matthew and Luke both independently used Mark for their narrative of Jesus's career, supplementing it with a collection of sayings called the Q source and additional material unique to each.[11] There is near-consensus that John had its origins as the hypothetical Signs Gospel thought to have been circulated within a Johannine community.[12] The contradictions and discrepancies between the first three and John make it impossible to accept both traditions as equally reliable.[13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel

So, as I'd previously noted, 3-8 decades after the death of Jesus.
3 decades was a full generation away from the event. 8 decades a full lifetime (age expectancy if you lived past early childhood was 55).
And "John" was last, and with the most contradictions from the earlier.

The notion that anything with this set of conditions can be described as reliable, 100% accurate history is borderline preposterous. So, it should come as no surprise at all that the stories have some marked differences and contradictions. They're stories.

Which is fine, they can be quite inspiring as such.

[OCanada]

Hallelujah

Hebrew: Hallelu - praise joyously. Yah short for the never spoken name for God. An active imperative.

Christian: A word of praise rather than an instruction,

Amma

Hebrew: A young girl

Christian. Virgin

Not engaging with the issues created by translations between two languages; scribes’ errors and deliberate edits,; the differences in concepts contained within two very different cultures and worldviews is to ignore the elephant in the room. Which doesn’t address the selection bias used to make choices

[jhu72]

Jesus loves the little children, but apparently Southern Baptists don't.

[Brooklyn]

https://youtu.be/fUZHnN-lZug

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

If one assesses the books of the Bible with the same criteria that other ancient manuscripts are analyzed by, there is simply no reasonable scientific ground for criticism. There exists a specific criteria to analyze ancient manuscripts as to their authenticity, accuracy, reliability, etc. One of these criteria is the Bibliographical test. In layman’s terms, how many copies remain of an original manuscript and what is the time period between when the original was written and when we have our first copies. At the turn of the century, there were in existence 8 manuscripts (MSS following) from the history of Thucydides (circa 460-400 B.C.) and 900 years between when he wrote said history and the first copy which survived. Caesar’s History of the Gallic Wars was written between 58 and 50 B.C. with 9 or 10 MSS dating 1000 years after his death. Aristotle wrote his collection of poetry around 343 B.C. with 5 MSS in existence and the first copy dated 1100 A.D.

The New Testament by stark contrast has well over 20,000 MSS in existence with the first copies dating a mere 250 to 300 years later. If the New Testament can be questioned and dismissed as lacking reliable historical authority, then where is the place found for other works of antiquity?

As I noted previously, I’m slowly working my way through the responses, many of which I haven’t read yet.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

Other gospels purporting to tell the same story of Jesus had different takes, some of which contradicted those that ended up being adopted much later as holy scripture by men with decidedly political purposes in doing so.

Which other gospels are you referring to?

[CU88]

LOL

An American Evangelical Christian is forcing people to listen to him on a subway in Sydney, Australia.

Two Aussies can’t take it any longer and tells him to shut up. This is a great clip.....


https://twitter.com/Caring_Atheist/stat ... 4578524161

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

I totally respect your beliefs, and, if you are true to them, all the better.

I have never doubted what I believe about Jesus defined by what is revealed in the Bible, but I haven't always lived up to what Jesus calls His followers to do. I have failed myriad times in what a Christian is supposed to be. But where I am eternally grateful is that He promises to forgive me if I confess what I do wrong (1 John 1.9), what is against His standard, also known as sin. Anything contrary to God's law in my life is sin. The marvelous part of endeavoring to follow Jesus is He promises to put His life in me, so it's not just me trying to live up to (let's face it, an impossible standard--anyone reading what is known as The Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew chapters 5, 6 and 7, will agree with me on that) His standard, but His life in me helping me to live His way, and there to forgive me and wash me from my sin when I fail and confess to Him where I fall short.