Choosing a faith

Not really. For example if we look at the rise of empathy and altruism, or even consciousness, you and others claim scientific evidence. Yes, you can observe it happening but that still doesn't tell why it happened.That said, let's assume that science can actually come up with how consciousness evolved in the same manner that science has demonstrated physical evolution to be a reality. That still doesn't give an explanation of what the impetus was for its evolution. For example I believe I mentioned Chris Barrigar earlier in this thread. Here is a review of his book "Freedom All the Way Up' that outlines briefly his belief.

quote:

---

Freedom All The Way Up proposes four intertwined elements that make up the meaning of life—self-worth, purpose, identity, and hope. Materialism (atheism) claims the universe has no meaning, so there is no larger purposeful story into which we can place ourselves—we are left on our own to construct meaning for our lives. Barrigar argues, though, that the universe possesses God’s meaning and purpose—to provide the space and conditions by which to bring about the existence of agape-capable beings in agape-loving relationships with God and with others. In effect, the universe is a great ‘freedom system’ designed by God with freedom built in ‘all the way up’, from the Big Bang to the emergence of big brains and free will. Barrigar describes the emergence of this system through his novel agape/probability account of God’s design for the universe, which integrates such disciplines as quantum physics, statistical mechanics, probability theory, evolutionary psychology, neuroscience, and game theory. This system sets up the conditions for a fundamental choice between autonomous freedom, which focuses principally on self, and agapic freedom, which focuses principally on God and on others. Materialism chooses autonomous freedom, but thereby introduces nihilism into each of the elements of meaning. In turns out that nihilism is a much greater problem for Materialism than suffering is for Theism. In contrast, agapic freedom infuses self-worth, purpose, identity, and hope with God’s agape-love, dispelling Materialism’s inherent nihilism. Freedom All The Way Up provides a dramatic new proposal for God and the meaning of life in our scientific and humanist age.

---

I think we have a very different idea of what the means.

That was pretty much my point. However the key is selflessness so it can't be for some form of reward in the next life for the theist, or to be highly thought of by others for the atheist.

I'm sure curious as to why you would make that claim The messianic movement was very much part of that era. It was hoped that a messiah, (a man anointed by Yahweh would lead them in battle against the Roman with the sword. Jesus argued that the battle was against the evil behind the Romans and that is fought with love and kindness. Examples are to "turn the other cheek", "Go the extra mile and particularly the call to "love your enemy".

It's not so much the material, although in some cases it is helpful, but the increased understanding of the early Greek and Hebrew languages. You completely ignored the verses prior to that clearly show that this is about a revolutionary war with the Romans.

Firstly, the Bible is a library of books written by men for a number of purposes. (In sone cases to justify the evil they were doing.) Most of it though, particularly in the OT was about what they had observed and what Jesus taught. We can look at the Bible as evidence but then we can make up our own minds as to whether or not we accept the Bible as being an historical account.I'll agree that I'm replying to a number of people and it is sometimes difficult to keep everyone else's positions straight. I am trying hard not to be irritating. I would like to see an example of that. If it is a belief it can't be an objective reality. I'm not going to dig through this whole thread to find the quote and as far as I was concerned was that what I wrote was in agreement with what you had posted earlier.So are you saying that the Gospel accounts aren't evidence? Can you then explain why they are not.They are obviously written to be believed as can be attested to by the fact that many at the time and still now do believe the accounts to be accurate to one degree or another.

And how do you know that the early Christians didn't do a lot of work to support their claims? You make these statements without any support. I have no idea where that remark on hostility comes from. You should try sitting on this side of the fence. The Didache does include some of Jesus' sayings but primarily it was an instruction manual on ho wthe church should be run. It evolved, apparently considerably over a period of time. The sayings of Jesus in the Diadache are just as likely to have come from the Gospels as the other way around. Garrow doesn't seem to have gotten much if any support for His view.
However even if he is correct it doesn't impact the dating or the order of the synoptics. Also Jerome wrote this.

quote:

---

Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed. Who translated it after that in Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian city of Beroea to copy it.

---

Just off the top of my head:
1/ The destruction of the Temple would have confirmed Jesus' forecast of the event. They would clearly want to have included that.
2/There would be no point to focus as much as they did on His opposition the the Temple culture and authorities as neither still existed after 70AD.
3/This was a major catastrophic event and they could hardly have ignored it, even when it supported their message. Well it does. As John said in Chap 1 "the Word became flesh". Jesus the man embodied God's nature and revealed that nature to the world thus embodying the return of Yahweh. He also fulfilled the messianic role but by preaching and teaching non-violent revolution as opposed to a violent one.

I wasn't referring to any specific passage but to your comment that there had been 2000 years to figure this stuff out. You are going to believe what you are going to believe but in the context of the whole passage it is clearly about what is going to happen when the revolution comes. Certainly there were other messianic movements during that period however I have never come across any evidence about end times predictions by them or Josephus. Can you give me an example.I do agree that many of the early Christians believed that it would happen soon, and you can still read about people claiming that for today. INHO it, like the first coming, which wasn't at all what people expected and I doubt the 2nd one will be either. My personal opinion for what it is worth, (which is very little I agree), is that it happens individually as we shuffle off this mortal coil.

How many people predicted WWII prior to it happening. Jesus would know, that a revolution was a popular idea, and that a rebellion was going to happen at some point in time. He actually gave it a very wide period of time with His prediction. No, it is simply about the vindication of His message and the confirmation of it, giving His message authority. Of course it was an earthly event and I don't understand why you thought I said it wasn't. However, the Jewish government in the Hasmonean did not bring about what had been hoped for. There ere a number of factions that simply didn't work well together and it was what was essentially a civil war that made it easier for the Herodians, backed by the Romans. to take over and bring that era to a close. Daniel was written near the end of the Hasmonean dynasty and the fact that He is writing the material in Chap 7 is an indication that he wasn't all that happy about things as they were. Yes, it was used as being about a human being but it was also used as Daniel used it here to have a heavenly significance.​

Essentially, correct but we can observe that enough people testified about it that the early church was formed in contrast to all of the other messianic movements of the era. Some of the other movements even had some military success but when the Romans executed them their movements always ground to a an immediate halt. This movement didn't end in spite of the humiliating cruel death at Roman hands. Certainly Paul was the greatest evangelist but he was hardly alone. Also of course Paul was under the tuition of the Apostles prior to going to the Roman/Greek areas, that also did include the Jewish diaspora. There is some factual basis in that he clearly describes specifically who the account is about. With the amount of detail given I would say that there is a basis for the story, which I agree could have been fabricated by one of the characters. However, I would still contend that Luke was given that account and believed it. There is a difference between using mindless particles to facilitate consciousness as opposed to evolving from mindlessness. The it is empathy or even just consciousness.

I'm on Windows. BTW I get those symbols for apostrophes as well when I read a post on email.

I don't see the symbols when I send the message. The only reason that I see them is when I open posts from others that I see them on my email site.

Hi Phat.Actually I was referring to Jesus not Daniel. I think that too often we acknowledge Jesus as wholly God and wholly man but then we ignore the wholly man part of Jesus.I don't think that Jesus was that much different than you and I in most respects. It is through the Daniel 7 text that we can understand the wholly God part.I always think of Jesus in Gethsemane. He believes that He is being called to go into Jerusalem, make a messianic statement by riding a colt into Jerusalem and in general tick off everyone in authority. He know that by doing this He is almost certain to be put to death. So, quite reasonably He prays to the Father that He needn't go through with this. However ultimately through His understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures, and through prayer, He believes that He is to go ahead with it and that somehow God will vindicate what it is that He was doing.So, He prays to the Father that "this cup be taken from Him" but ultimately He believes BY FAITH that this what He called to do. This actually makes sense of the Gospels when you read them holistically.Understanding it with the idea that He supernaturally knew that He would be resurrected changes everything. Just for one thing it makes the sacrifice of all those who were martyred minimize what it was that Jesus did. It is no longer the great act of the faith that we as humans are called to. I often think of being in the position that Jesus was in Gethsemane and have no doubt that it would be a short prayer and I wouldn't even come close to having the guts to do what Jesus did.In the end I simply do what I can to honour and serve the man Jesus. and the one appointed as Lord by God the father. Frankly I'm not doing a great job of it. Jesus is wholly Man and wholly God and the first born of the New Creation, or the renewal of all things.

I haven't run across any Christians who didn't think that Jesus was the Jewish messiah. However, Jesus was a messiah who different didn't teach or act in the anticipated way. Messiah was simply the man anointed by God to lead them against their enemies. So yes, from a Jewish POV Jesus didn't do what they expected of Him. Not true for the early followers of Jesus. Jesus triumphed by showing that with the worst that could be done to Him He still triumphed and showed that evil and death don't have the final word.The messianic stuff as you call it is an earthly thing with no connection to the second coming.

That's correct. You managed to find one guy with a different perspective on it. Nothing from everybody that I have read suggests that as a possibility to be the case.Here is the first part again.

quote:

---

Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed.

---

You seem to want to read Jewish apocryphal writing as plain language, yet here you want to read something that is in plain language as meaning something altogether different. By the time of Jerome the Gospels had long been established as Gospels so he is clearly referring to the Gospel of Matthew. Sure, it is John's theology that explains the views of the early Christians as that sort out the meaning that they could glean from Jesus' teachings and also of His resurrection.

We do have the writings of the early church fathers plus Tacitus the Roman historian who wrote this:

quote:

---

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa,

---

​ Actually we have a pretty good idea of who wrote them. Richard Bauckham a Cambridge scholar wrote a book called Jesus and the Eyewitnesses with over 600 pages going into the autorship of the Gospels. I own it and have read it.Yes, there are contradictions in some details. Different people will often remember details differently.There is external evidence from early material as well as by the rise of Christianity.As you know I contend that the Gospels were all written within 30 years with the possible exception of John. We have already had multiple posts on that in this thread.And of course you know the "Sermon on the Mount" never happened do you?