Historical Facts: Authentic Christianity vs Popular Thinking

To listen to popular media, discovery channel, internet forums you would almost believe that Christianity is based on nothing more than some sort of 'personal beliefs'.
You would also believe that historical research, archeaological discovery and scientific method were OPPOSING these 'personal beliefs'.
Of course this is not true.
In reality, Christianity has the very well documented and researched angle.
Its your Dan Browns, Higher Critics and 'forum experts' who base their antichristian stories on imaginary stories, unverifiable sources and what amount to 'urban myths' etc.

Well you may or may not agree with that analysis but I wanted to drop a link to Hank Hannegraafs 'Best of' broadcast.
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/Bible_Answer_Man/archives.asp?bcd=2006-12-26
(Choose WindowMediaPlayer or Realplayer to listen)

And I dont always agree with every point they bring up but Id strongly recommend a listen to Nancy Pearcey:
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/Bible_Answer_Man/archives.asp?bcd=12/13/2006

Pearcy does a good job explaining how antichristians are trying to 'frame' the debates so as to 'disqualify' christianity just by establishing 'their premise' for example.

Check those out (at least the first one) and would be interested in opinions on the historicity of the Gospels and Christianity.

 

Quick reply to previous post: I haven't listened to the talks yet, but the point seems to be that Jesus Christ was a historical person and Christianity has roots in real historical events...so what's the problem with that? I, for one, don't have a problem with those facts.

 

I dont have a problem either but it does seem to be a popular idea today to suggest otherwise.
If I was going by CNN 'special reports', Time/Newsweeks Christmas and Easter editions or perhaps alot of articles written in Hipforums... I might be tempted to beleive archeology, historic documents and research are always validating the critics and mitigating traditional Christianity.

Duly noted: Probably the biggest 'controversy' of the year had to be the Davinci Code Movie.
The problem seemed to be when people did understand it was fictional but unfortunately believed it was based on 'real historic discoveries'.
Hyped news reports giving the false impression that Christians were 'highly challenged' by the film etc.

I would even lend an example here:
You cant believe how many people I talk to who are absolutely convinced that the New Testament was 'one book' written and then 'translated' over and over one-from-one over centuries.
Lots of people actually believe that is the 'historical truth' about the Bible.
When I explain (for example) that we have completed bibles from around 500AD - they are almost in shock.
We have complete books of the NT from before that.
Most dont even realise we have early church fathers from before that who quote scriptures and - if we combined them all - would almost be able to have a new testament complete from those.

Or to put this in another way - You certainly 'could' have people miswriting, rewriting or screwing up translations of our Bible AFTER 500AD.
Sure.
But we dont have a big problem because all we have to do is pull out the completed copy of the Bible from 500AD and catch them out.

Now I know this.
You might already know this.
But you would be surprised how many people are convince otherwise and its somethign they just think they heard on 'History Channel' or some courses they took at a liberal university course etc.

 

Its not the historical facts that are disputed - its
a) what christians often take as fact is actually nothing more than anecdotal
b) what christians often rely on is evidence from the bible at best in conjunction with evidence from other disputable sources
c) what is often presented as fact by christians is unscientific evidence that never disputes or finds fault with the evidence contained in the bible
d) the fact that religions themselves (especially the vatican) have for nearly 2000 years sought to suppress all science and history which conflicts with their fairy stories

just accept science is wiping religion off the map of human interests
in the name of sanity, and reason, over fairy storys and bloodshed-in the-name-of a mythical being

 

You are a case in point.
Did you notice how you tried to trump the very premise of the debate?
Here it is:
"just accept science is wiping religion off the map of human interests"

Its what we call a 'false dichotemy' but basically its a false argument.
If a person dumber than you wasn't paying attention they might even believe that 'science' is something 'opposed' to something else called 'religion'.

In reality, it is science that is validating and confirming Christianity.
Science being born out of Christianity and for the most part sponsored by the Church in its beginnings.
Why?
Because the Church has its faith in reason, science and investigation.
Thats the point of this topic really.
To explain that manuscript evidence, archeological evidence, probability science, are what reveal the truth of Christianity.
Once again,
Science is what reveals and confirms Christianity.

Again as an example: I believe the Gospels are genuine accounts and trustworthy because I can find researched documentation, archeological evidence and subject them to reason:
http://faithfacts.gospelcom.net/maps_m.html

Now what does someone say who believes that the Council of Nicea 'rewrote' or 'changed' the Gospel accounts?
Where is the 'science' you claim to adhere to?
What do you do when manuscript after manuscript pre-dating Nicea shows the same consistant Gospel accounts found after Nicea?

Well here is what you might say: "Well errr.. I just believe that they must have gone and 'planted' those so that it would make their scam look more believable.. and errr.. well yes I guess hundreds if not thousands of people would need to conspire, essentially be dishonest but all keep it secret for hundreds of years and ..."

You know seriously, that kind of thing is the antiscientific 'blind faith' here.
Not Christians who relentlessly seek out all the scientific evidence and make efforts to deal with it.
Even recording the Nicea Council (and others) so that history may examine them.
Modern Science was born out of Christianity and its a friend to Christianity to this day.
We believe because we have objective and rational evidence.
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.html

 

Listening to the media to lear about the Christian faith is a total waste of time. They are working as hard as they can to disprove the Bible, and some of the most recent discoveries that would really be an eye opener to the world, never makes it on their broadcast. They often come on as if they are being very even handed and trying to present both sides of the story. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Often when I try watching some of their broadcasts I end up changing the channel and just shaking my head.

 

Oh its amazing sport to watch the secular media fake 'unbiased' coverage of Historical Christianity.
The 'usual suspects' being your A&E documentaries, the Discovery Channel, Time/Newsweek etc etc.
It so obvious to an informed Christian (or informed anyone) how carefully they are working the 'spin' to make everything seem as 'doubtful' or 'controversial'.
The 'key phrase' to tip you off is when you hear 'Scholars believe...' or 'Scholars disagree'.
If its some far 'liberal' weakly 'theory' held by the most heretical teachers then: 'Scholars believe...'
If its something like the Resurrection then they will now say 'but scholars disagree..'

Its all using words, images and stacking the interviews so as to give an appearance that historic Christianity is, at best a 'nobody really knows' shot in the dark.

CNN just finished a series of this crap with 'The Early Christians' which was entirely designed to make Christianity as suspicious and 'questionable' as writing and tape would allow.

I actually enjoy it for intellectual sport just to see how they work this stuff.

 

Well, I would guess that the reason being is, at this point, nobody really knows.

 

Yeah they're REALLY trying to prove the Bible wrong. Why they have shows like "Naked Archaeologist" which seems to only be about trying to prove the Bible.

Or shows like "History's Mysteries" or coding the Past" which also seems to be heavily Biblical centric.

In fact I have yet to find a show that is consciously trying to prove the Bible wrong.

 

I could not of said it any better. Great post.

 

Just a recent show that was put out there made the statement, that the Rapture of the church was never mentioned in the Book of Revelation. They left the average viewer with the idea that maybe there is no Rapture of the church then. This is the kind of stuff that makes me sick. They focus on the Book of Revelation and ignore all the other prophecies of the Bible. If you want to mislead people, that is what you do. You cannot just take one book from the Bible and try to explain all the prophecies if you want to present an honest picture of the Bible. The Book of Revelation requires all the other supporting prophecies if you hope to understand it. And if these programs were really interested in the truth, they would be reporting on the the new finds found in the Red Sea, and the discovery of Mt. Sinia in Saudi Arabia which is a block buster. Yet we never hear a thing from them do we. I have been around to long not to know a white wash, when I see it. If you want to prove the Bible, you donot leave your viewers with false information, or half truths.

 

What about the books and gospels excluded from the bible? The ones that didn't make the cut at the council of nicea? Are they true as well? Did the guys there have the divine knowledge to make a divine descision like that?

 

You know about Nicea because early church fathers from around the empire were open to free speech, open process as well as being careful to record the rational debates and free exchange of ideas they had.

Thats how you know about Nicea in the first place.
It was just one of the councils btw.
for that matter, the word 'convention' is a better choice of words to describe it.

Anyways, this 'Nicea Convention' is exactly why I can trust in the New Testament.
In this case, bishops and leadership from all the scattered churches and groups (many who would have never met or known each other otherwise) came together to see what exactly they agree on.
DULY NOTE: They are ALREADY well established into Christianity each to their own regions.
They ALREADY have their own collections of epistles and Gospels.

AHA!
Now if anything would prove to you that the whole thing was just a bunch of competing ideas, different 'versions' and all sorts of different books then the Council of Nicea would EXPOSE THE PROBLEM!
Nope.
What happened when we got them all together and 'compared notes' was that we found out that, by and far and wide, almost all the Bishops had the very same understandings.

What about the books that are included in the 'Canon'.
They dont arrive there by a process of 'exclusion' as you put it.
In fact, Nicea doesnt 'pick and choose' either.
It asks what books and Gospels are ALREADY being used and then see's them agreed upon.
Its also recorded so that their concensus is open to the public and people like you some 1600 years later.

So your question should be phrased like - 'Why is it that Christians were not already including Gnostic Gospels and other books BEFORE and up till Nicea gathered a concensus'?

Because most of them are fake and shitty books.
Most of them are not 'gospels' anyways, despite the sad fact people keep callign them that.
But most of them are crap attempts to write lousy pseudoscriptura.

Basically, shitty books made up by crap writers that cant even get it straight were not likely to get included along with real Gospels and Epistles.

Crazy stuff eh.

 

evidence suggests SOME christians beliefs as truth
but it also suggests against a lot more christian beliefs

 

Thats an interesting assertion to throw out there.
Maybe youd like to share ONE example of evidence 'against' a Christian belief?

If we can get through it then maybe I can return with another 'for'
You can share another etc.

Example?

 

that would take forever =P

evidence against the creation of the 10 commandments: the Book of the Dead has almost the exact same commandments

 

Absolute unadulterated BS !
The church sponsored science up to the point where it conflicted with what was written in the bible. For the most part of the churches history it has done its best to murder, socially ostracise, and excommunicate, any impartial observers that made noises to the effect that the bible was contradicted by scientific observation.
Those scam artists like the pope and other religious scammers stifled the fact that the earth revolves around the sun - that the earth was round, that a vacuum can exist - etc etc etc - scientists had a lot to be afraid of from the church. It is religion that is opposed to science, and if anyone dumber than you were to read what you were saying - they may actually miss the the fact that the only thing religion has ever had to fear from science is that those people who dress in silly clothes and pray to a mythical being might lose all their revenue and be made to look a laughing stock. However during at least 1700 of the last 2000 years scientists feared they would be murdered or made to suffer otherwise at the hands of the church - hardly a credible argument you have

none of which is proven by you or analysed by you - thats just some website with no meaningful counter-analysis -
You should actually find out what science is - its a method of analysis regarding facts and sources of facts - in fact science isnt actually the method of proving you are right - its the methodology by which you try to prove you are wrong using all the best analysis - reason and facts - but cannot - it is a "best description" scenario

in fact you just sound like someone who is hyped up about the fact you actually know that your religion dont have a leg to stand on

Lets not forget history and my advice to anyone who believes the church aided science is to go get more medication, your schizophrenia is getting in the way of a proper perspective on history.

.
.

 

Yes it would if you chose to go copy&paste 100 'contradictions' from infidels.org and lay them all out and walk away.
but,
I thank you for not wussing out like that.

I think I know what you are getting at so let me explain what we are talking about first.
Of course we all know about Moses and the Israelites coming out of Egypt and later on Moses gives them the Ten Commandments.
Ok.
Back in Egypt there were magic spells and whatnot written for dead people walking into the next life. Many of these spells have been collected and made into a 'Book of the Dead'.
The 'insinuation' you are making is that several of the ten commandments sound so similar to several of the 'Oaths' found in the Eqyptian rituals.

So the question is asking (insinuating) that maybe Moses just copied some of his Commandments from those Spells.
Does it indicate Moses 'plagiarised' instead of receiving Divine Revelation

Lets take a look.
Here is one of the Eqyptian rituals and its for dead people who must walk into the path of one of the Demigods.
*As a newly dead person - you want to lighten your heart so it does not get eaten by a Monster named 'Ammit'.

(I will embolden the parts that are similar to some parts of the Commandments)

A second second trial was that the deceased would have to recite a negative confession "when [she or] he descends to the hall of the Two Truths." In the statement, he or she swore that they had not engaged in specific behaviors while alive. According to Egyptologist Ahmed Osman, one translation of the statement reads:

"Hail to thee, great God, Lord of the Two Truths. I have come unto thee, my Lord, that thou mayest bring me to see thy beauty. I know thee, I know thy name, I know the names of the 42 Gods who are with thee in this broad hall of the Two Truths . . . Behold, I am come unto thee. I have brought thee truth; I have done away with sin for thee. I have not sinned against anyone. I have not mistreated people. I have not done evil instead of righteousness . . .
I have not reviled the God.
I have not laid violent hands on an orphan.
I have not done what the God abominates . . .
I have not killed; I have not turned anyone over to a killer.
I have not caused anyone's suffering . . .
I have not copulated (illicitly); I have not been unchaste.
I have not increased nor diminished the measure, I have not diminished the palm; I have not encroached upon the fields.
I have not added to the balance weights; I have not tempered with the plumb bob of the balance.
I have not taken milk from a child's mouth; I have not driven small cattle from their herbage...
I have not stopped (the flow of) water in its seasons; I have not built a dam against flowing water.
I have not quenched a fire in its time . . .
I have not kept cattle away from the God's property.
I have not blocked the God at his processions.


So some of these more or less sound similar to some of the Ten Commandments.
Even thought they are not 'Commandments' but they are pledges of certain moral righteousness.

Umm.
I dont know how to tell you this but pretty much the only places we are finding similarities are in altruisms, in 'moral laws' which are found EVERYWHERE.
Dont Lie.
Dont Cheat.
Dont Steal.
Dont Commit Adultery.
Dont Murder People.

You really have to be joking if you think something is 'suspicious' that Moses also gives some pretty basic rules.

Moses also has others like the Sabbath Laws, Obeying Parents, Worshipping One God.
The Eqyptians have many many other completely different 'rules' in the magic spells and rituals for their dead people etc.

Wait?
Did I suggest to you this actually goes to show more objective evidence that the Bible has validating truth to it?
Yes I did and this does go to show what Christians have been learning for years - that there are certain 'Laws' that are written on mens hearts and minds.
BEFORE (and after) Moses gave actual stone tablets its taught that mankind does have a sense of right and wrong and understands certain things to be so.
Murder,
Cheating,
Stealing,
Lying,

And if this claim is true then I should expect to see this proved out in different cultures, different civilisations and throughout history.
I DO!
Obviously you see that too and in fact you can find that really is the case going through history.
Christian Missionaries who were often the very first outsiders to other cultures would make it a part of their mission to introduce themselves to the peoples and ask them up front:
"What are the very basic 'rules' of your society"
Without exceptions, whether it be Mic-Mac natives in Canadas Maritimes or Vikings in Norway,
Without exceptions every peoples (many having NO written laws even) would explain clearly:
You cannot Murder,
You cannot Steal,
You cannot Lie,
You cannot commit Adultery,

So the bottom line here is that Eqyptians including four or five of these inside a 'disavow evil incantation' is no 'coincidence' and is actually the RULE we would expect.
From them,
From everyone.
It just goes to confirm the teachings of 'Universal right and wrongs' as taught in the Bible do manifest themselves over and over again throughout mankind.

 

I notice you never had anything to say on the subject of religion being against science even though I at least took the time to explain it to you. As for your blatant attack on civilisation above

I dont know where you get your ideas from but they have no basis in reality whatsoever - ha ha ha - just like your religion.

The fact is that the missionaries were highly complicit in subduing and obliterating the culture of other people and the missionaries actually made life a lot more difficuilt for various tribes throughout Africa - and certainly in South America the christian religion is wholesale responsible for the deaths of millions of people.

Many cultures didnt even have a concept of adultery until christians poked their nose in and killed them all for being savages because they had polygamous relationships.

Some cultures never even had a concept of theft until the christians arrived and spoilt things by stealing all the gold and punishing those who tried to get it back with death.

Who says its wrong to lie ?????????
you cant justify that - there are times where its an absolute necessity to lie - infact you have even lied yourself - everyone has lied because at times it it is the best course of action to preserve other morals in tact.

You make christians sound like theyve been trying to save the world when what they have really been interested in is their warped moral high ground and an attempt to save themselves and steal other peoples dignity

 

Regarding Missionaries Accounts..

Wow.
Christian Missionaries are easily one of our best sources for understanding cultures and peoples through civilisation.
Much of what we know about (for example) Aboriginal cultures comes from careful records and accounts made by Missionaries.

The inquiry into the 'laws' and 'morals' of peoples was a very typical starting point for many missionaries.

Where do I get that from?
You know there are so many books, biographies, accounts and published material on this its hilarious you would ask that.
Here to get you started:
http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-christian-missionaries

Amazon would probably be able to find you hundreds (if not thousands?) of resources complete with their own bibliographies, notes and references.

Responding to any of the other cheezy bait in your posts would only be dignifying them.
Your lucky you get this much.