A brave admission from a Christian Trav, congratulations! You may find enlightenment this lifetime, afterall!

You said:

<<But even so, what IF those events were slightly exaggerated in terms of crowd numbers, or what if the followers of Jesus added in a story or two after the events?>>

This concept shouldn't phase you but it opens dialogue on a simple set of questions.

If Jesus' followers added "a story or two" which ones?

Wouldn't adding a story or two be a fib? Why would they fib?

Therefore does teaching an "added story or two" make the teachings suspect?

If there is no evidence whatsoever other than the biblical accounts could a few more than "a story or two" have been added?

Don't churches teach this stuff as God's word, inerrant and infallible?

Is it wrong in a religion that purports to represent truth to teach stories where someone "added a bit"?

These are the very points I was trying to make in this thread.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2572&page=0

It was never designed to undermine a person's faith, but it was designed to question whether the Bible is a reliable reference.

Pericles, has somehow managed to get you to make a grand admission and it shouldn't phase you, you are correct.

Hopefully, however, it may help you to search deeper and question things more openly.

Christianity, by it's very nature, can't teach falsehoods as that would be a blasphemy against God.

Faith has much more to do with personal spirituality than the black book, so heavily relied upon by Christians, teaches.

Did the ressurection take place...I have no idea but I believe it too may be very suspect!

Well done both of you!

Sells

No doubt the disciples 'experience' of the resurrection is best described as subjective. As to the weakness, or otherwise, of your argument that depends, perhaps, on one's philosophical disposition to the arguments of the phenomenologists.

In reporting their 'experience', however, the disciples have 'created' an objective reality, namely the Church. The Church, in turn, seems content to leave the matter of the resurrection somewhat ambiguous. Large numbers of Christians believe the resurrection to be an objective reality and the Church does little or nothing to correct this misunderstanding. Some Churches actively encourage it.

As history the resurrection would be merely an aberration, a temporary relaxation of the laws of nature accessible only to those present 'at the time'. Such an event might alter the course of history but could it redefine history?

As 'subjective reality' the resurrection becomes accessible to all people in all times because it is possible to share the experience of the disciples rather than 'merely' report their experience. This is why sacraments are more 'effective' than sermons, why the eucharist defines Christianity more truly than adherence to dogma such as the Trinitarian formula. Whatever Jesus of Nazareth might or might not have done historically he did gather to himself the Messianic ideas of the day and 'created' the Christ whom anyone can 'experience' as a 'subjective reality'. (Or perhaps it was the disciples who gathered together those ideas and attached them to Jesus. It hardly matters which). Furthermore, it is the canon of Scripture that constrains us from flights of religious fantasy rather than the historical 'facts' of Jesus' life (or resurrection). One only needs to read a few of the non-canonical gospels to appreciate this fact.

What surprises me about this thread is that you have not attracted harsher criticism from our evangelical friends. Perhaps they do not fully comprehend what you have said.

Opinionated2
You said "Faith has much more to do with personal spirituality than the black book, so heavily relied upon by Christians, teaches"

I agree that my Bible (mine's white by the way) has a lot more to say about relationships and about what is just in society than it has to say about 'personal spirituality'. Im inclined to think that my Bible is closer to the money than any sort of 'personal spirituality'. Call me cynical but Im inclined to the view that adventures in 'personal spirituality' tend to be narcissistic in nature and, if anything, antithetic to the message of the Gospel.

Waterboy,

I am thrilled that you think you are cynical, and I guess skeptical and I guess questioning. But do you question properly?

You said

<<Call me cynical but I'm inclined to the view that adventures in 'personal spirituality' tend to be narcissistic in nature and, if anything, antithetic to the message of the Gospel.>>

I guess from that comment you haven't met many spiritual people who aren't religious...never mind I shan't be harsh because of your lack of experience.

I would have thought Christians were more narcissistic than the spiritual people I have met so rather than cynical you may just be wrong.

I am also interested on your views regarding "your inclination that you Bible is closer to the money", I would have thought that it is so contradictory on all things including relationships & the law that it is a rather debatable statement.

I would have thought personal spirituality draws on a person's experiences rather than the misguided words from a dusty old book.

If you are like most people here you probably don't know the Bible all that well anyway. Feel free to bring your cynicism to this thread if you have some great wisdom to impart.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2572&page=0

This thread is about the alleged resurrection of Jesus, so we shouldn't clog it with your philosophical ponderings

Opinionatedx2

I may be cynical and I might even be wrong.... How about you?

If 'personal spirituality' is solely informed by 'personal experience' then it is bound to be very much more limited and 'quirky' than a spirituality that is informed by the wider experience of a 'faith community'. The dusty old book, as you say, is neither inerrant nor infallible. It is a part of the record of a faith community, collected from nearly a thousand years of experience, seeking to make sense out of their shared experiences in spite of their less than perfect knowledge of God. It reflects their mistakes and mistaken ideas along with a few of their successes. The experiences of a faith community, such as those that have contributed to the Bible, might just be useful in broadening and interpreting personal experience. There is little wisdom in dismissing the experience of others as lightly as you do.

You said
"I guess from that comment you haven't met many spiritual people who aren't religious...never mind I shan't be harsh because of your lack of experience."
and
"If you are like most people here you probably don't know the Bible all that well anyway. "
You guess wrong! You do make some wild assumptions.

Given your propensity to make wildly unjustified assumptions, your self-declared resistance to learning from the experience of others and your pompous disregard for well-formed syllogism one must doubt your capacity to make any meaningful contribution to this thread.

Waterboy,

Isn't it you who make the wild assumptions? Your definition of "Personal spirituality" is simply wrong.

Personal spirituality is often driven by an event, an experience or a longing to know more. It is not commenced by indoctrination or feeding children chocolates and presents as bribes to further the cause of a religion whose book, the Bible, is dubious at best.

It is not based on myth that has been taught as fact.

It does not pretend honesty where very little honesty exists.

It does not present "a GOD' that hardens a Pharoah's heart Exodus 7:3 God allegedly says "And I will harden Pharaoh's heart..."

GOD HARDENS PHARAOH'S HEART!

God stated he would do it...culminating in

Exodus 12:29 "And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt..."

Would a God commit such a deliberate and intentional obscenity? I don't dismiss it...I expose it as utter rubbish!

If this is rubbish what else is rubbish...Abrahamic religions are based on coddswallop!The experiences of a faith community, such as those that have contributed to the Bible, might just be useful in broadening and interpreting personal experience.

<<The experiences of a faith community, such as those that have contributed to the Bible, might just be useful in broadening and interpreting personal experience.>>

How can this be if the experiences documented are untruths that people believe as facts and churches teach as facts?

It is you who made the wildly unjustified assumptions originally in your first reply to me and when corrected you suddenly want to take your cricket bat and ball and go home.

I have plenty to offer these threads...I will at least give an honest interpretation of the Bible pointing out it's serious flaws.

You were the one who stated "...that adventures in 'personal spirituality' tend to be narcissistic in nature"...Isn't that a wild assumption?

If much of the Bible is rubbish how can there be any value in a falsified "shared experience"?

And if the Bible is wrong in many places, is the resurrection a load of bunkum as well