Today we had a Christian Scholar briefly speak during my comparative religion class. He talked about how "
none of the people who wrote the gospels, did so from firsthand experience." Nothing was written for a good 50 AD until Saul/Paul came along and wrote things down based on the myths of Jesus that he could collect from spectator's descendants. (actually even his status as real author is questioned) Essentially, he was the first literate newly converted Christian to go around and record stories of Jesus from children who had heard rumors and myths passed on by their elders. The Gospels came even later.
Romans who were persecuting the Christians couldn't understand why people would follow Christianity. Written stories (the only and most reliable account of news at the time) had reason to be embellished, exaggerated, or downright fabricated in order to present an undeniable perception of Jesus to the Roman people. An elitist Roman general was written in as a witness to Jesus stating that he was indeed the son of God. This was later read and added to in the next gospel to include his entire army as well. When it was mentioned that the stone of Jesus' tomb was moved aside, Gospels written after it replaced a man in a robe who spoke of Jesus' resurrection with an angel who moved the stone herself. These miraculous stories were invented for the purpose of trying to convert as many people as possible, "
as faith writings, and not as historical accounts."
The scholar told us that common Christians (not in a derogatory way) usually didn't know this, and if you go to a church and get up in front of everyone and present the historical reasons that the Gospels weren't written by the apostles' nor was it able to be (or even meant to be) accurate, you'd probably be stoned to death or something. It is really something that only the historian Christians commonly agree upon and the rest of the world has to catch up.
...Much like when the scientific community was all zeroing in on the changes of population over time and Darwin presented his (and Wallace's) take on evolution to them. He got little response from them but then he published a book and citizens who hadn't gradually come to similar conclusions on their own were hearing them for the first time, it came as a shock and caused great controversy. He told us he was shocked too, when he first became familiar with this.
Any well educated Christian scholar will tell you that the Gospels are written for spiritual purposes and aren't meant to be taken literally.
They are simply stories to embrace spirituality, not to report actual events. All in all, Jesus has become more of a mythical figure who is based on a man who did claim to be the messiah and died by Crucifiction. We can't know much more about him, except for the fictive literature of the people he indirectly moved, and the Roman census.
[This relates heavily to the 2nd Foundational Falsehood of Creationism video.]
As for embracing spirituality and not reality, it is much like Santa Claus. We are all taught that he is real when we are young, because it is an essential part of the spirit of Christmas. He doesn't have to be real, to carry some sort of meaning. Christmas wouldn't be the same if he was written out.
Some how how i missed this post earlier. I will agree that better men than us have debated this.
Hi. It's been a while Wardogg.
First off, how is that relevant? Are we appealing to other people's debates to avoid our own inquiry? Quite frankly, I feel like watching any one of those debates I would be able to pick a "winner" or "loser", based on their reasoning and debate skills.
Its funny when I view sciences' stance on evolution and the beginning of the earth to me it looks like a religion, a lot of guess and presumptions that no one can prove.
What presumptions are you talking about? And what proof are you asking for?
The only perfect proof is witnessing the creation of the Earth, so what we have instead is sizable evidence. Furthermore, it is not religious because it is based upon the principles of observation and repetition. Gravitational attraction of swirling masses, debris, planetesimals, and protoplanets are all seen in distant space. Connecting them as a stages in a cycle takes little to no imagination. If you want to know more about Nebular Theory, just ask.
When you mock my belief in something that is unproven and unshown and then you spout that water formed on earth because of comets that flew by 4.5 million years ago you have to somewhat see my side of it.
I don't approve of the ridicule of others or their beliefs, but I should probably mention that it is accepted by the vast majority of scientists that H
20 ice is a large part of comets. I don't see any flaw in thinking that dust-like snow from comets was commonly intercepting Earth's orbit. Not to mention outgassing of the planet's inner water from global cooling would release large amounts of water and air.
Believe what you want. I applaud your convictions to science, one way or another we are all going to find out for sure, and that is a fact.
We will only find out for sure if there is an afterlife. If we just die, we won't even know that we were waiting on an answer. What part of science don't you like? The methods or the conclusions?