A Question About Jesus As Savior

[Wingmaster05 0]

I had Intro to Christianity today, and came across a startling fact; most of the bible had not been translated into english until almost 1000 years after jesus' birth. Bits and pieces were starting from late 8th century...But still, what about the millions and millions of souls who don't hear about Christ? They get a free pass into heaven? I mean, this is almost a millennia of time where the english speaking world (granted, small at this time, but something we can associate with) had no working bible for them to read and hardly any translations of the gospels, and perhaps gospels we consider today as heresies. Of course, the Christians in class didnt think it was startling at all. nothing seems to question their faith, at least on the outside.------Another question, I meant to ask in class but missed the opportunity. The 4 gospels of the new testament weren't written until at least 40 years after jesus' death?!? Did I hear that right? AND, we aren't sure who wrote them?

[Mattnxtc 0]

I had Intro to Christianity today, and came across a startling fact; most of the bible had not been translated into english until almost 1000 years after jesus' birth. Bits and pieces were starting from late 8th century...But still, what about the millions and millions of souls who don't hear about Christ? They get a free pass into heaven? I mean, this is almost a millennia of time where the english speaking world (granted, small at this time, but something we can associate with) had no working bible for them to read and hardly any translations of the gospels, and perhaps gospels we consider today as heresies. Of course, the Christians in class didnt think it was startling at all. nothing seems to question their faith, at least on the outside.------Another question, I meant to ask in class but missed the opportunity. The 4 gospels of the new testament weren't written until at least 40 years after jesus' death?!? Did I hear that right? AND, we aren't sure who wrote them?

This are common themes of a religious studies class.first lets tackle your first question.It is true that the bible wasnt translated into English but that was of no problem for a few reasons: 1. That is why the Catholic Church was important. The priest translated it and so they gave teh sermons...Its the reason the Church is so powerful in the Catholic tradition. They were the ones who told what was in the bible2. This was inconsequencal (sp) anyways b/c the majority of people alive could not read. And if you were important enough to learn to read you learned greek anyways since it was the scholarly language to know. So the fact that it was not translated was no problem. When you look at the letters from Paul you see that these were letters that would have been read to a group of believers. There would have been one copy that was passed from villiage to villiage.Your second question is partially true...In fact people believe most of the letters were written well before then b/c major events were not included in the letters (Nero burning christians) and since we know that Paul and Peter died in those times 40 years is probably the extreme at which they could have possibly have been written. It is probably much closer to that and was within the life times of those who would have been alive during Jesus's time

[mcsoupman 0]

I had Intro to Christianity today, and came across a startling fact; most of the bible had not been translated into english until almost 1000 years after jesus' birth. Bits and pieces were starting from late 8th century...But still, what about the millions and millions of souls who don't hear about Christ? They get a free pass into heaven? I mean, this is almost a millennia of time where the english speaking world (granted, small at this time, but something we can associate with) had no working bible for them to read and hardly any translations of the gospels, and perhaps gospels we consider today as heresies. Of course, the Christians in class didnt think it was startling at all. nothing seems to question their faith, at least on the outside.------Another question, I meant to ask in class but missed the opportunity. The 4 gospels of the new testament weren't written until at least 40 years after jesus' death?!? Did I hear that right? AND, we aren't sure who wrote them?

I don't think you meant English. Maybe the Latin Vulgate? English wasn't until 1611. I forget when the Septuigent was made. (LXX) Yes the Bible wasn't spread around the word right away. In Acts we read that God left witness for all people. There are stories from different people groups from around the world that have previously believed in the "one creator God." It was an Inca priest that told the people not to kill the Spaniards because they were sent from God. Too bad they killed the people instead of giving a witness to God as they should have. That's what greed leads you to.Yep, did you know that Paul actually wrote the first recorded book of the NT? Well there is testimony to the authorship of the Gospels from the likes of Origen and Eusubias. Back then, things were passed through oral tradition. That sounds dubious to us westerners, however there were strict rules and punishments to the passing on of stories accurately.

[brvheart 1,752]

This are common themes of a religious studies class.first lets tackle your first question.It is true that the bible wasnt translated into English but that was of no problem for a few reasons: 1. That is why the Catholic Church was important. The priest translated it and so they gave teh sermons...Its the reason the Church is so powerful in the Catholic tradition. They were the ones who told what was in the bible2. This was inconsequencal (sp) anyways b/c the majority of people alive could not read. And if you were important enough to learn to read you learned greek anyways since it was the scholarly language to know. So the fact that it was not translated was no problem. When you look at the letters from Paul you see that these were letters that would have been read to a group of believers. There would have been one copy that was passed from villiage to villiage.Your second question is partially true...In fact people believe most of the letters were written well before then b/c major events were not included in the letters (Nero burning christians) and since we know that Paul and Peter died in those times 40 years is probably the extreme at which they could have possibly have been written. It is probably much closer to that and was within the life times of those who would have been alive during Jesus's time

I disagree with this. They wouldve made a copy and kept a copy for themselves.

[the shank 0]

you think 911 is a lie and youre a christian...watch out dude one more strike and youre out of here

[Wingmaster05 0]

you think 911 is a lie and youre a christian...watch out dude one more strike and youre out of here

Good thing we aren't playing baseball.I'm a christian? Who said? And the 911 stuff is a whole other story. Look it up if you wish, or I can give you some things.----Matt: to me it seems very logical and pivotal to write down the story of jesus as soon as possible, it just made me cast some serious questions on how accurate it can be. Another question (the Nero thing got me thinking): Was Jesus written about in any secular literature during his lifetime (and the lifetime of his followers)?

[Mattnxtc 0]

Good thing we aren't playing baseball.I'm a christian? Who said? And the 911 stuff is a whole other story. Look it up if you wish, or I can give you some things.----Matt: to me it seems very logical and pivotal to write down the story of jesus as soon as possible, it just made me cast some serious questions on how accurate it can be. Another question (the Nero thing got me thinking): Was Jesus written about in any secular literature during his lifetime (and the lifetime of his followers)?

yes i agree it was a pivotal time in history that should have been written down...the problem is twofold thoughthe vast majority of people couldnt read or write...its probably close to 90% that couldnt read or write...Thats why when you read a letter from Paul you see it addressed to so many people...it would be like a town hall meeting where one person who could read would read the letter and the others would listen. Also there is a very strong emphasis on oral history at this time. They didnt have paper like we did and so just as we have our written history they had their oral history. It was very accurate and very much emphasized. and yes we see references from Neros time where people talk of the followers of Jesus and so forth

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Another question (the Nero thing got me thinking): Was Jesus written about in any secular literature during his lifetime (and the lifetime of his followers)?

No, there are no contemporaneous accounts of Jesus living. There are accounts of Christians, but not of Jesus himself.

[SilentSnow 1]

Well so far no one has even attempted to answer by far the most importantquestion in the OP(and also the MOST important religious question period).Assuming conservatively that at least 90 percent of people that have lived have never been exposed to christianity in any meaningful manner, then what happens to them?We'll assume that even a Christian is not going to immediately condemn them to hell, though some of them seem quite fond of condemnation.Since the vast majority of people cant be saved through christianity then God will have to let them choose in the next life. But if the large majority of people get to choose in the next life, doesnt that make this life meaningless from a religious perspective?Also, wouldn't they have an unfair advantage by waiting till they can actually see that there really is an afterlife? If so, wouldnt the cruelest thing you could do in this life be to expose someone to christianity? If they rejected it, they would go to hell. Whereas those 90 percent would be insane to reject Christianity since by them not dying all human knowledge and reason had just been overturned. So in order not to be wildly unfair, God would have to givethe other 10 percent another chance also.Maybe God could keep sending us back to this life until weve been properly exposed to Christianity. We could call it something catchy. Maybe reincarnation?So back to the same dilemma that NEVER gets answered. One of these statements must be true.1- God is insanely cruel.2-By most everyone choosing in the next life, Christianity or any other religion simply does not matter in this life.3-Christianity must add in a fundamentally different concept such as reincarnation in order to reconcile this problem in a way that is in any way acceptable to your average Christian.

[brvheart 1,752]

No, there are no contemporaneous accounts of Jesus living. There are accounts of Christians, but not of Jesus himself.

wrong.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_J...onium_Flavianum

[crowTrobot 2]

wrong.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_J...onium_Flavianum

wrong.http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/contemporaneous

[Canada 0]

wrong.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_J...onium_Flavianum

Thank you for that. I especially liked the section on the authenticity.So you're left with a non-contemporaneous document that is highly questionable. Good argument.

[brvheart 1,752]

wrong.http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/contemporaneous

Since it was written in the same time period as most of the new testament, I think it probably applies. Unless of course he meant written before Jesus died.. which of course means the Bible isn't contemporaneous either.

Thank you for that. I especially liked the section on the authenticity.So you're left with a non-contemporaneous document that is highly questionable. Good argument.

I thought it was pretty nice of me to post a link from a site that gives both sides of the story. you're welcome.

[DonkSlayer 1]

Meh. I find it hard to believe that non-Christians who would prefer that Christianity wasn't around would somehow perpetrate a "myth" that Jesus existed.

[crowTrobot 2]

Meh. I find it hard to believe that non-Christians who would prefer that Christianity wasn't around would somehow perpetrate a "myth" that Jesus existed.

what non-christians are you referring to? if you mean josephus then maybe you missed this part of the article:"The extant copies of this work, which all derive from Christian sources, even the recently-recovered Arabic version, contain two passages about Jesus. The long one has come to be known as the Testimonium Flavianum. If genuine, it is the earliest record of Jesus in Jewish sources, and as such is sometimes cited as independent evidence for the historical existence of Jesus. However, most scholars view the Testimonium Flavianum as dubious - not only does the text read more continuously without it, but despite Josephus being a life long Jew, who portrayed Vespasian as the Messiah (Vespasian was Josephus' patron), the Testimonium Flavianum has Josephus state that Jesus was the Christ, foretold by the prophets, and a worker of wonders"the implication being "christian sources" may have added the jesus references to his work after the fact.

[DonkSlayer 1]

what non-christians are you referring to? if you mean josephus then maybe you missed this part of the article:"The extant copies of this work, which all derive from Christian sources, even the recently-recovered Arabic version, contain two passages about Jesus. The long one has come to be known as the Testimonium Flavianum. If genuine, it is the earliest record of Jesus in Jewish sources, and as such is sometimes cited as independent evidence for the historical existence of Jesus. However, most scholars view the Testimonium Flavianum as dubious - not only does the text read more continuously without it, but despite Josephus being a life long Jew, who portrayed Vespasian as the Messiah (Vespasian was Josephus' patron), the Testimonium Flavianum has Josephus state that Jesus was the Christ, foretold by the prophets, and a worker of wonders"the implication being "christian sources" may have added the jesus references to his work after the fact.

Ok. Too many "may's", "probably's", "might'ves", etc. for my taste, especially stemming from Wikpedia articles. Not a debate I'll get into anymore.

[crowTrobot 2]

Ok. Too many "may's", "probably's", "might'ves", etc. for my taste

yes, we should assume 2000 year old text confirming unprecendented metaphysical occurances is accurate until proven otherwise

[DonkSlayer 1]

yes, we should assume 2000 year old text confirming unprecendented metaphysical occurances is accurate until proven otherwise

No. Neither a free online encyclopedia that anybody can write in.

[brvheart 1,752]

the implication being "christian sources" may have added the jesus references to his work after the fact.

The Jewish hierarchy wanted Jesus dead. Why would they want him written about?

[LongLiveYorke 38]

No. Neither a free online encyclopedia that anybody can write in.

Okay, now you've gone too far. Tell Wikipedia that you're sorry.

[crowTrobot 2]

No. Neither a free online encyclopedia that anybody can write in.

the difference being everything in wikipedia is easily checked from numerous other sources

[MDXS 0]

what non-christians are you referring to? if you mean josephus then maybe you missed this part of the article:"The extant copies of this work, which all derive from Christian sources, even the recently-recovered Arabic version, contain two passages about Jesus. The long one has come to be known as the Testimonium Flavianum. If genuine, it is the earliest record of Jesus in Jewish sources, and as such is sometimes cited as independent evidence for the historical existence of Jesus. However, most scholars view the Testimonium Flavianum as dubious - not only does the text read more continuously without it, but despite Josephus being a life long Jew, who portrayed Vespasian as the Messiah (Vespasian was Josephus' patron), the Testimonium Flavianum has Josephus state that Jesus was the Christ, foretold by the prophets, and a worker of wonders"the implication being "christian sources" may have added the jesus references to his work after the fact.

Josephus is considered quite the chump in the classics crowd I roll with. It makes this Latinist giggle anytime anyone considers anything written as a history in that time period as hard and fast fact.

[Canada 0]

I thought it was pretty nice of me to post a link from a site that gives both sides of the story. you're welcome.

So instead of posting "Wrong" with the link, you should've actually posted"You are 100% correct. There are no contemporaneous records of Jesus, despite the Romans of the time being meticulous record keepers and His life supposedly affecting 1000's of people at the time.However here is an irrelevant link regarding a non-contemporous document that is dubious at best. I've included it because, well, I don't understand English too well...www.nottoocleverami.com"

[Loismustdie 0]

Okay, now you've gone too far. Tell Wikipedia that you're sorry.

Both of these lines had me laughing. Thanks, fellas.