The Passion of the Christ

[TWA Dude]

Inasmuch as the word claims to be inspired (not some cute collection of fables), we much conclude that either the claim comes from a liar - - in which case we should trust none of it - - or from a lunatic - - in which case we should trust none of it - - or from God - - in which case we should trust all of it.

I couldn't disagree more. You can trust all of it. So what if G-d chooses to deliver His message through an interesting story? He's G-d; he can do what He wishes, right?

Dude

 

[wms]

First I note no one was put up a counter-argument to Timebuilder's excellent defense of the Bible in all its versions, and I'd also like to thank Tony C for his contribution. For surplus1 I would add that there are legitimate reasons for differing versions. Because Greek and Hebrew incorporate words that do not have a one-for-one translation, it is not always possible to render the exact verbiage as was written into a meaning that has the same impact in our language. This sets up two different and competing schools of translation, word-for-word and thought-for-thought. While the latter can include some verses that may be over-stretched, those same verses can lose meaning otherwise.

Here is some info from a study by Sue Winter and exerpts from New Age Bible Versions (Ripler), 700+ pages.

As was mentioned, the KJV was compiled in the 1500s by Miles Coverdale from over 5000 manuscripts meticulously reproduced by scholars in the early centuries AD known as the Textus Receptus. When measured against 5000 manuscripts which support each other, the KJV has less than 1% inaccuracy, or more than 99% accuracy.

In the mid 1800s two men, Wescott and Hort sought to replace the "villainous"(their words) KJV. They were commissioned by Macmillan publishing with a scheme to compose a new bible. They used only two of the 5000 manuscripts available, the Sinaiticus Aleph and Vaticunus B, known as Aleph and B, written in the fourth century. These are the only two texts which fundamentally disagreed with the 5000 known manuscripts and were immediately dismissed by early christians and biblical scholars alike as inaccurate and heretical. The men and their committee rather used these manucripts along with their "intuition and instinct" (thought by thought) to pervert God's Word. The result was the Greek NT or Revised Version (RV). Virtually all modern Bibles, NLT, NASB, etc are derivitives of this work. Some of their beliefs were:
The devil is not real.
Hell is not real.
You must pay for your own sins and are saved only through baptism.
Everyone goes to heaven, so the Gospel is that we're all ok before God.
Jesus sinned.
There was no resurrection.
Christ did not suffer.
Jesus was created.
And other obsurd things.

The NIV was edited by Edwin Palmer and a committee of nine, including two homosexuals. According to Palmer and his associates:
Being born again does not mean accepting Jesus as your Saviour.
The orginal texts do not say that Jesus is God.
That John 3:16 is wrong.
They changed convicting words for social acceptance.
The Bible is only men's words.
Jesus was called God's son because of obedience and not relationship.
The NT does not sanction the worship of the Lord Jesus.
That the condemnation of homosexual offenders 1 Corr 6:9, NIV means those that offend homosexuals.
And other wrong doctrine.

The KJV from 5000 manuscripts of the Textus Receptus or some other version from Aleph and B with a sordid history? I choose the KJV of the Bible to read because it has the best credentials. It may not be perfect. It was, after all, transcribed by human hands. But transcribed is better than rewritten.

As far as reading level goes. If you get past the thees and thous, the KJV is on a 6th grade reading level according to Flesch-Kinkaid Grade Level Indicator.

PS The word of God is living, and can speak to anyone in any form. But a believer should be growing in the truth, and passing it on. I was saved shortly after being scared to death by reading Revelations in a complimentary from Days Inn modern english version of the NT only.

 

[Timebuilder]

Quite frankly I don't like the idea that one must profess faith in another man for salvation. Furthermore I don't like the idea of a religion that tells other religions they must do the same. Yeah, I know, it's G-d's demand and not yours. Tell it to the Judge.

You don't have to "tell it to the judge."

The judge is "telling it to you."

Big difference.

 

[wms]

Candidly, I think that people who did not even exist for 1500 years of Christianity have a he!! of a nerve telling me that "Christianity contradicts Catholicism". I'm old enough to have spent nearly sixty years listening to Reformists, otherwise known as Protestants, telling me that they are Christians and I am not. I'm sick of it and feel no need to be "politically correct" in responding. If Protestants expect me to be tolerant of their beliefs, then they need to be equally tolerant of mine.

Catholicism, Protestants, Denominationalism all contradict the Bible. The only religion instituted by God was Judaism, and it ended at the cross. God through His word has given plenty of instruction concerning how the church is to be organized, practice, gather and worship. There is no instruction about how to be a Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, etc. The believer is given instruction on how to gather around Jesus Christ alone and no other person or doctrine. And anyone who deviates from the instruction in the Word of God is disobedient to God Himself. Funny, we would not change the Gospel, but when it comes to honoring Christ and being obedient to God, we think we have a better way. But the only way acceptable to God is given in the Bible and the only expiration of those teachings is the return of the Lord Himself.

 

[skydiverdriver]

Surplus,
I'm sorry that you feel the reformists are saying bad things about your religion, (as you did about theirs), but I think you are just misunderstanding their intentions. I agree that Catholisism is the oldest christian religion, and I applaud them for standing up for their beliefs against a lot of critisism. I don't think they follow individual priests, and although I'm not an expert, I do believe you follow the Pope. However, it's not meant to offend you that the protestants feel that some catholics might not be christians, it's because of a concern for your very soul.

I guess it depends on your definition of christian, as I believe it literally means Christ follower. Of course, the Catholics follow Christ. However, I think the Catholic church has some teachings that are false. I'm not sure why you feel that the Bible should not be taken literally, except for one passage where Christ said to Love God with all of your heart mind and soul, and love your brother as yourself. How can only one sentence be okay, and the rest of it a problem of interpretation? Well, you have gone over the interpretation thing, and I can't add to that. However, I can speak to why protestants feel that some catholics are not christians. My definition of a christian, is someone who is saved, who is going to Heaven because of a saving faith in Jesus Christ. If you have done that, accepted Christ as your savior, you are a christian. It doesn't matter if you are catholic or baptist or whatever. Most protestant religions believe this, and their doctrinal differences are minor and of less importance. Some just have differences in the way they worship, and I see nothing wrong with that.

I have no problem with you, or any other catholic person. I disagree with some of the beliefs of your faith, but I don't see that as an attack. However, I do see that you have attacked protestants by calling them names, and saying we are saying bad things about your church. But, really, church doesn't matter. It's your relationship with God that matters. I only tell you this because I am concerned for your soul. I'm sorry if you take this as a personal attack, or one against your church, but that is not how it is presented. It's just an invitation, and it's not mine, it's Gods. When you finally get to meet Him, what church you went to, or what someone else said about you won't matter. I'm sure you agree with that. Thanks for listening.

 

[skydiverdriver]

Surplus,
I read another post of yours and I have a question for you. Since you say that protestants have some incorrect assumptions about the catholic church, would you agree that you might have some about the protestant church as well? I see you say that you feel protestants are following one man, like a pastor or preacher. It is true that my pastor's name is on the sign outside, but I've seen quite a few catholic churches with someone's name on them. I belive you call them saints, and aren't they people too? Do you follow the saint who's name appears on your church, or do you follow God? Just the same, the pastor's name is on the sign just for informational purposes. I agree with most of what my pastor says, but not everything. And, I'm free to tell him if he says something that I can show him in the Word is incorrect. I also happen to be a Southern Baptist, and I'm sure you have heard a lot about them. However, the only reason we are in that organization is to pool money for missions. The convention doesn't tell us what to believe or who to follow, but they do have a faith and message, similar to your creed. Our creed has even been changed on occasion, as we understand men are fallable and may have to hold up their beliefs to the Word of God on occasion.

I also agree with you that Martin Luther was a catholic, and he was trying to reform the church. However, the selling of indulgences was not his only problem. He nailed 95 thesises to the church door, and not all were about one item. He also wanted to translate the Bible into German, so the common people could read it. The church didn't want that, so perhaps that is where we get the idea that the church doesn't want you to read it.

I'm willing to find out that some of my feelings about your church are incorrect. Are you willing to do the same with mine? Thanks for your time.

 

[Snoopy58]

> But how do so many eye-witnesses to the miracles of
> Jesus are going to die for professing their belief when if, as you
> say, they're lying, and their faith is worthless and they know it? > Well all the Apostles save John were martyred -all without
> giving up their faith. Now you reason with me, how is it that
> they were willing to die for nothing?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it that Jews during the Inquisition were martyred -all without giving up their faith? At Masada? Arab homocide-bombers in Israel are willing to die just to kill a few civilians. People can be zealous about the strangest things sometimes.

That argument misses the point. People will do all kinds of things for what they BELIEVE to be true... martyred Jews, martyred Christians, suicide bombers, kamikazi pilots, you name it. The point is that the ORIGINAL Christian martyrs weren't dying holding on to what they'd been TAUGHT to believe, but based on what they'd SEEN. Now, if they had seen Jesus NOT rise from the dead, then they would have been dying for something they KNEW to be FALSE... a far, far cry from dying for what one believes to be true.

If there was no resurrection, troublemakers might have been willing to TEACH a falsehood (that there had been), but would they all have accepted death rather than recant? After all, if they had seen Jesus not be resurrected, they'd have to know that they wouldn't see an afterlife either (at least, not a favorable one), so why not back off their tale at that point?

Instead, ALL the apostles willingly accepted death rather than deny what they'd seen. Sorta suggests that they saw what they were teaching they'd seen, don't you think?

When someone acts on what he has been TAUGHT is true, that shows how firmly he believes what he has been taught, but not so much necessarily about the truth of the teachings. But when someone acts on what he has SEEN, the "belief in what he was taught" aspect is removed. In that instance, there is a firsthand knowledge at work.

Powerful indication that the apostles HAD such firsthand knowledge of the Resurrection, which they then all trusted to save them even after their own deaths.

 

[Timebuilder]

Instead, ALL the apostles willingly accepted death rather than deny what they'd seen. Sorta suggests that they saw what they were teaching they'd seen, don't you think?

It is that level of veracity, the willingness to die exhibited by the apostles, along with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in them, that makes what they wrote in the New Testament to be 100% trustworthy, and why 2Tim 3:16-17 holds so much value.

 

[TWA Dude]

The point is that the ORIGINAL Christian martyrs weren't dying holding on to what they'd been TAUGHT to believe, but based on what they'd SEEN.

Good point. Thus I'll revise my point to read what they believe they saw. I'm not trying to play some word game. People believe they've witnessed miracles every day when in actuality all they've witnessed was the unpredictibility of nature. No, I can't suggest a plausible explantion for what the apostles might've seen to make believers out of them. I can't explain a lot of ghost sightings either but that doesn't mean ghosts exist. Keep in mind that in those days lack of scientific knowledge meant that lots of natural events became "miracles". Obviously they saw something that touched them deeply and made them believe in Jesus.

To a slightly different point, weren't there documented witnesses to Muhammad riding his horse to heaven? And what about the Book of Mormon?

Dude

 

[Snoopy58]

Fair point that people can be mistaken about what they thought they saw. If the entire basis for belief in the divinity of Jesus was a single miracle that all the apostles thought they saw, along with His teachings that would perhaps predispose them to interpret some mysterious sight as Him risen, that would be a strong argument against the apostles' credibility.

However, Jesus appeared several times in different places and different circumstances to various groups of people. There was no single "mis-interpretable" (if that's a word) event, but rather many separate "sightings:" the upper room (with all but "Doubting" Thomas present), the road to Emmaeus, on the beach, etc. The book of Acts notes that He taught his disciples for a period of 40 days after His resurrection.

I say that NOT to pound you with the line "the Bible says so, therefore that's exactly how it happened," but to clairify what the claims are. If it was a single amazing appearance but no more, it would be a stronger argument that "they didn't see what they thought the saw." As is, either lots of people were fooled/deceived/confused/whatever on multiple occassions in multiple places, or the writers of the Gospels saw Him once & embellished that into writing that they saw Him many times in many places, or else they saw the things that they wrote about.

Not proof, but I think it is strongly suggestive.

After all, at the time the Gospels and the early epistles were written and first circulated, there were others around who could have called the writers on inaccuracies or embellishments.

Further, there were many other miracles they wrote about -- Lazarus being raised from the dead, diseases healed, sight restored, etc. While any one of these miracles can be dismissed as mistaken, unscientific, hoax, whatever, the Gospel writers were present during the 3 years of Jesus' ministry, and they'd have seen all (or, for any one apostle, many) of His miracles. Again, if He were a charlatan, they'd be in the best position to know it. But that's not what they concluded.

It isn't "beyond all reasonable doubt" courtroom-style proof, but the writers of the New Testament have some fairly impressive credibility. Faith is still required, but it's a reasonable leap of faith, not a blind one.

 

[SDF2BUF2MCO]

And what about the Book of Mormon?
Dude

I'm going back to my days living in Utah when my Mormon friends were trying to "convert" me. If I recall correctly, I think Joesph Smith had one (?) witness - or a few a best - to his vision. He convinced the future Mormons he had a revelation.

 

[TWA Dude]

If it was a single amazing appearance but no more, it would be a stronger argument that "they didn't see what they thought the saw." As is, either lots of people were fooled/deceived/confused/whatever on multiple occassions in multiple places, or the writers of the Gospels saw Him once & embellished that into writing that they saw Him many times in many places, or else they saw the things that they wrote about.

Not proof, but I think it is strongly suggestive.

I appreciate your point but I don't see a distinction between one witness and numerous witnesses since there's a sole source of information -- the Christian Bible. Super 80 alluded to the writings of Josephus as a secondary source but as yet he hasn't elaborated as to whether Josephus was a witness to Jesus or merely relating what he'd heard.

Continuing on my ghost analogy, if one believes in ghosts then one will tend to see or experience their presence where non-believing people can present logical explanations. I re-emphasize that I'm not calling anybody liars. I believe that the man Jesus existed and he deeply affected his followers. Those followers, wanting a Messiah (as we all do), then believing Jesus was the Messiah, started to interpret events as miracles. It's quite easy to see how in those times a fervent group of followers could spread the word and viola a legend is created. I hasten to add that I can't "prove" this theory and indeed it isn't the only possible explanation. As I've said before very little of the Bible is provable in any conventional sense. The leap of faith need not be blind, as you said, but it is faith in events taking place two thousand years ago. Just like there's no such thing as impartial reporting there's no such thing as impartial history. Everyone has an angle.

Dude

 

[Super 80]

I appreciate your point but I don't see a distinction between one witness and numerous witnesses since there's a sole source of information -- the Christian Bible.

But the Bible is not a single source book. While it is a matter of theory whether Matthew or Mark came first and served as a basis for the other Synoptic Gospels, Luke as a Greek trained physician has proven to be a first-class historian of that era. He documents that he literally researched the accounts to verify them. In addition, John was written significantly after the Synoptic Gospel accounts.

Acts itself is a history like other Scriptural history that is not centered on boosterism, the faults and follies of the Apostles are as much on display as their accomplishments.

The Epistles were written by no less than five people. The books that make up the Epistles were originally written as letters to the Churches and received wide circulation.

The aspect of having multiple witnesses shows that Jesus made an impression that was universal. It is not so much a matter of wishing something true, healing a man born blind was never done before -and was able to be backed up as a fact by a lifetime of that man's family, friends and townspeople that knew him first hand.

It is not a matter that they wished it true by fervent belief, if you read the Gospel accounts, which you say you haven't, then you would find that often the apostles did not "get it" and did not understand. Their fervent belief was rather shaky at first and they did not become bold ambassadors for the Lord until after the baptism by the Holy Spirit, prophesized by Jesus.

The change that enabled the Apostles was stark and dramatic. This is recorded by the many witnesses that came to faith that day. And if their witness of the conversion of 3000 on the day of Pentecost was not true, then it would be common knowledge.

This acceptance of witness to establish fact is just as it is used in the Courts today. Multiple witness establishes the truth to what Jesus said and did as much as what Moses said, or Job, or Noah, or any of the Prophets.

Your complaint about Josephus is specious as well. On the one hand, if he just "hears about" Jesus, his testimony is not valid, and if he witnessed Jesus' words and deeds then we can't rely on it.

Like the establishment of fact by common witness in this era, the same can be said to be true of the OT narrative accounts, which makes up about 50% of the Old Testament. Once a fact was known, it was not necessary to prove it, it was common knowledge by the testimony of many witnesses. At certain times the OT authors will even reference books long since lost in antiquity as if to say, 'well enough of this is known that he doesn't have to prove it.'

TWA Dude mimics the post-modernist that has no firm foundation of absolute. Truth is not truth, but whatever you believe it to be.

But the ethical theist says that there is an absolute truth and that it has been revealed to men and women by God.

This is the possibility many cannot allow; the Gospel accounts and Epistles are true.

But this is exactly what many witnesses in unison testify to -an establishment of fact. Because they didn't have videotape, cassette tapes, or cameras, there is no other way to tell the truth than through the spoken and then written word.

With as much opposition that existed for the earliest Christians, before those Jews that were Christian were even known as or called Christian, had these witnesses been false, this new faith would have been crushed by exposure. Instead, they were persecuted, which makes sense to me: when you can't fight the common knowledge of the people, attack them outright instead.

 

[Timebuilder]

Or, on the individual level, when you don't like the message, attack the messenger.

 

[TWA Dude]

But the Bible is not a single source book.

It doesn't matter how many authors penned it. You've lamented about how I refuse to take your arguments as "proof" as defined by what a court may allow. The flaw in that is when a judge hears conflicting testimony he must decide which version is accurate. Though it carries the power of law that judge is nonetheless only offering his opinion. For the sake of discussion let's say the Pope sued a Chief Rabbi over refusal to accept Jesus as Messiah. Could an impartial judge be found, i.e., an atheist or agnostic? (I say no.) Next, since no physical evidence exists the judge would have to hear a line of "expert" witnesses from both sides. Would the Hebrew or Christian Bibles even be admissable or are they hearsay since the "authors" aren't in attendance? Even so the judge would have to decide who's interpretation of the Hebrew Bible is correct. IMHO your proof is not provable. For that matter neither is mine.

The aspect of having multiple witnesses shows that Jesus made an impression that was universal. It is not so much a matter of wishing something true, healing a man born blind was never done before -and was able to be backed up as a fact by a lifetime of that man's family, friends and townspeople that knew him first hand.

I can't object to your first sentence but the second is unsubstantiated. I'm sure you've seen charismatic televangelists "healing" congregants. Physicians do some pretty amazing things as well. Were any of the sick who visited Jesus not healed?

Their fervent belief was rather shaky at first and they did not become bold ambassadors for the Lord until after the baptism by the Holy Spirit, prophesized by Jesus.

Was this a physical occurence or a spiritual event? All I know of Baptism is that it involves water. (As a side question, does the Baptism ritual original from the Jewish Mikva ritual which has hygienic origins?)

This acceptance of witness to establish fact is just as it is used in the Courts today. Multiple witness establishes the truth to what Jesus said and did as much as what Moses said, or Job, or Noah, or any of the Prophets.

As I stated above a court would have to entertain counter arguements. For the sake of discussion let's say some event takes place in a room full of Christians and Jews. Everyone's an eyewitness and in court every Christian testifies to seeing one thing and every Jew testifies to another, for a total of two different versions. Obviously the judge would have to take into consideration the differing beliefs of the two witness groups before rendering his opinion. This is how I view your arguments. You see that which fits your beliefs and I see that which fits mine.

Your complaint about Josephus is specious as well. On the one hand, if he just "hears about" Jesus, his testimony is not valid, and if he witnessed Jesus' words and deeds then we can't rely on it.

Well, did Josephus witness any miracles or didn't he?

Josephus' birth name was Yosef ben Mattityahu and he had been the leader of the Jewish forces in the Galilee. Despite becoming a traitor by assisting the Romans in putting down the Jewish Great Revolt of 66-70 C.E. he remained a Jew. His accounts of physical things have been largely supported by archaeology include of course the events at Masada. In other ways his accounts may be considered suspect since he did work for his Roman masters and undoubedly wished to please them.

TWA Dude mimics the post-modernist that has no firm foundation of absolute. Truth is not truth, but whatever you believe it to be. But the ethical theist says that there is an absolute truth and that it has been revealed to men and women by God.

Great stuff, except for the fact that for two thousand years the Jews have believed a different truth and thus can't be labelled "post-modernist". In case I haven't been completely clear the only judge I believe can preside over the question of Jesus (or even Muhammad) is G-d -- and no book being thrust in our faces proclaiming it's own "truth" can count as the word of G-d since we obviously have so many different versions. Perhaps we'll know in the End, or perhaps not.

With as much opposition that existed for the earliest Christians, before those Jews that were Christian were even known as or called Christian, had these witnesses been false, this new faith would have been crushed by exposure. Instead, they were persecuted, which makes sense to me: when you can't fight the common knowledge of the people, attack them outright instead.

Oh, I think the Romans were equal-opportunity oppressors to all non-pagans. It was a simple power issue to them and a prescient one at that. To be a false-witness it must be proven, and in any case a false-witness means to be intentially false, which is not my accusation.