Dobbadan

"Christianity rises to the top when you earnestly investigate the other theories, philosophies, movements and religions of the world ...

Christianity is not based upon evidence...but it is backed by evidence. Obviously anyone could “claim” to be God. The difference with Jesus is that His life completely backed those claims. Check out the history, check out the claims."

OK: imagine I'm a passionate adherent of solipsism. Everything I say is backed by my knowledge/awareness of my own existence. And everything you say applies equally to my putative faith in my being all that is.And as an all-encompassing faith, solipsism is logically peerless.

It's the faith you have against the scepticism the likes of me have that means we can't reason with each other, far less convince each other. Some of just can't do faith. I envy your lot, in a way.I would flat-out love to believe in a power greater than me (rueful laugh - my partner was genuinely amazed when I explained to him - after yet another failed to get help from AA - that "a power greater than me" meant god, not alcohol). I can't. Would it be understandable if I blamed the nuns who "educated" me?

I've digressed. Sorry. What I want to ask is - why do you keep saying Jesus is the only way? The precepts of the said (historically verifiable, but far less eminently manifest than Caesar) Galillean rabble-rouser are sound, but they're really only a re-statement of the Golden Rule. Why do you invest common decency and common-sense with godhood?

BD: Good on you. Nice to see a believer doesn't think every fight is worth bloodshed. I might - mostly - disagree with every word you write, but on balance (Islam excepted, and I'll even accept you've personal reasons there that over-ride the benefit of my doubt)you're as reasonable a scripture-quoter as I can imagine.

BTW, the Da Vinci code is bollocks, and deserves no comment whatsoever. Can we have - Christians, agnostics, atheists, theologians, historians, whatever, a far more interesting discussion about 'The Name of the Rose'?

Bosk,

We are not likely to agree on conclusions but my points were based on scholarship.

To say that John was a Jew is correct. But that he was writing to "a Jewish audience" is questionable.

John states that his purpose in writing was to show that Jesus is the Christ, God's Son, and wanted to persuade people to believe in Christ and have life in his Name (John 20:31). Australian NT Johannine scholar, Dr. Leon Morris, supports such a purpose, as does D. A. Carson's commentary on John. That suggests it was for Jew and Gentile.

The liberal Bultmann considered that the most influential background to Johannine Christianity was Mandaen Gnosticism. Evangelical D. A. Carson views the Jews of the dispersion and Jewish proselytes as "the only possibility" of readership.

As for John's Jewish time-keeping, I stand corrected. However, renowned exegetical scholar, B. F. Westcott suggested that John used Roman time and Mark Jewish.

Dr. Leon Morris gives this assessment:
"There appears to be no evidence that the so-called Roman method of computing time was used other than in legal matters like leases. At Rome, as elsewhere, the day was reckoned to begin at sunrise" (The Gospel According to John, Eerdmans 1971, p. 800).

What is Morris's solution?
"It is more likely that in neither Mark nor John is the hour to be regarded as more than an approximation. People in antiquity did not have clocks or watches, and the reckoning of time was always very approximate. The "third hour" may denote nothing more firm than a time about the middle of the morning, while "about the sixth hour" can well signify getting on towards noon. Late morning would suit both expressions unless there were some reason for thinking that either was being given with more than usual accuracy. No such reason exists" (p. 801).

Scholars have harmonised the resurrection accounts. My statement is no novelty!

Thank you for bringing me up to speed but your view that the Gospels present contradictory evidence seems to be based on your presuppositions.

Ozspen
YOUR presupositions betray you.
1) Roman & Jewish measurement of time was the same (sunrise to sunset) so wether John was using Roman or Jewish time is totally irrelevant.

2) You claim that the text only claims that the crusifixion occured sometime in the afternoon. Now you are contradicting your own scripture. The TEXT is VERY specific. Mark says the crucifixion occured at the 3rd hour & John says the 6th. There is NO evidence within the text to justify your interpretation. Your interpretation is in fact, merely an ad hoc explanation to save your belief that the Gospel writers were eye witnesses & to avoid an obvious contradiction.

3) You claim there were no clocks in that era & therefore the writers of John & Mark could only give a rough estimate [i.e late afternoon]. Wrong again! Ever heard of a sundial? A Waterclock [the Greeks & the Romans possessed those]. A candle clock? [Mainly used by the Egyptians]. How do you think anyone could say what hour it was otherwise unless they possessed a means of measuring time?

Conclusion: The Greco-Roman world had a fairly accurate method of measuring time. Hence the writers of the gospels could make claims concerning the time of the crucifixion. & their claims were wrong! They are disqualified as witnesses!

4) Harmonizing is a discredited technique. How can I claim that? Quite easily. Let's say I have two books that contradict each other. I claim they don't but you will show Me that they do. Seems easy doesn't it? But wait I say. First we have to start our examination with two presupositions. The first presuposition is that there are NO contradictions. The 2nd is that I may twist the text any way I wish as long as it eliminates any seeming contradiction. Think you could find any contradiction between my books now? Impossible isn't it? But you proclaim harmonizing is the way to go! Are you serious?

Philo & Dobbadan

I'm sorry but you've lost me. I'm proably being slow here but you seem to be saying that the question of wether Jesus exsited or not isn't important only his message is. Correct or am I getting it wrong?

Because I thought that since Jesus is declared to be divine in the first few versus of john then wether he existed or not is of prime importance. I'm probably missing something here. Sorry I seem a bit slow on the uptake today.

Also Philo seem to say that the history of jesus isn't important & then provides a list of historical [& semi-historical] events. I'm sorry but I don't get it. If the history isn't important why the dates? I don't mean to insult either of you, [as I said before it's probably me being slow on the uptake] but I don't understand your arguments.

Oliver,
Where’ve you been? We’ve missed you.

You shouldn’t make a statement of dogma like. “The Bible is also a fiction.” You are merely giving your opinion, whereas the Church upholds the Bible as a reliable reference of fact. So do not expect the Church to dismiss its primary text as fiction.

When witnesses report facts there’s every possibility that, how one sees events will differ from another, this does not make their report fiction rather personal impression. Study witness statements on an incident and you will discover discrepancies - that is reality. The Christian text was not a collusion of men endeavouring to form a religion but witnesses of history whose lives had been changed reporting and those collated fragments and verbal stories into a cohesive report. Luke1: 1 - 4.

Christians recognise there were many competing voices among Jewish sects, Gnosticism one. Gnosticism had more in common with Persian Zoroastrianism than OT Jewish thought.

When Rome enforced Christianity as the State religion it corrupted it, because people brought their pagan beliefs with them into the Christian State. Jesus wasn’t about national religion but about personal faith. He said, “My kingdom is not of this world”; “The kingdom of God is within you”, meaning the rule of God was in the heart [passions] and mind. Roman Catholicism adapted Christianity to existing pagan practises doesn’t nullify the truth of Jesus Christ or his teachings. Quote, “Jesus legends and the Roman mysteries were also merged: e.g., Christmas Day. Mary Mother of God probably "is" linked to Orisis.”

Oliver I suggest you read the teachings of Jesus on marriage and its sanctity and you will realise such claims of prostitutes as spurious. “ I would not have a clue whether Mary and Jesus were in a relationship.“

I can tell you that nothing fazes the Churches about the DVC; we welcome it because it gets people thinking about the truth. “The Da Vinci Code is feared, as it could be the thin end of the wedge, not because of its fiction, but, because further readings expose Christian fiction.

Bosk,
The Gospels were not written as chronological history but as collected events and teachings of Jesus Christ with settings of the events in time and place. The primary purpose is to gain an understanding of the message and demonstrate the very nature and character of God incarnate in his anointed Christ. The teachings is to make God incarnate in our lives as John identifies it as being sons of God. Jesus said, "Do the works that I do and you will know the doctrine wether it be of God or not". Until your or my life is ministering to the needs of people in the same capacity; you can hardly be at liberty to dismiss his message as fiction.

Jesus emerged among a nation of hurting people while the religious heirarchy were wanting the overthrow of Rome. Such national pride is also seen in the life of his disciples as they constantly expected he would emerge as the leader to acomplish this - even after his resurrection. Jesus turned the view of power upside down, he did not come to weild power and a sword but to serve and give his life. Jesus had been earlier challenged by the leader of the Zealot forces to join him and gain the kingdom by force [Matt 4] but Jesus addresses him as the opponent of God. Jesus had no interest in Nationalism but in reconciling all mankind. His teaching is, "Love your enemy" hardly a moto for Jewish nationalism. His message was in a juxtaposition to the expected power of Religion and State. Understand his Blessings in Matthew 5, not the formulation of a religion to overthrow Roman occupation. It is the uniqueness of his message that changes lives - follow him.

That the Roman Emperor made his name a National Religion ultimately destroyed the uniqueness of his message. He was not about combining faith with State enforced law, but about changing lives that would make decisions based on equality and justice for all men and offer sinners forgivness and reconciliation.