PaulS

Thormas, Really short, cos this is starting to get a little boring. Sorry, I don't mean to sound rude - more an observation that it looks like we're repeating stuff and not adding much new to the conversation. By 'your version' I simply meant the view of Jesus form the Gospels that you find compelling. This is different in a myriad of ways to other people's versions and interpretations. History shows us that people have viewed Jesus in all sorts of different lenses as a result of the Gospels (and often the remainder of the NT) among other things like societal and cultural influences of their day. Yes, we can be wrong. The authors that wrote long after Jesus was gone could also have things wrong. The scribes and copyists after them could also have things wrong. You don't seem to agree that different people do indeed interpret Jesus differently with any justification for themselves You say they are getting it wrong - I say they have a different interpretation that can be justified via scripture and I think Christians have done throughout history. No harm in harmonizing the birth narrative of Jesus? Maybe in your view but there is a significant change to the nature of Jesus (and what one might preach or pursue) if one believes Jesus was born of a virgin from the seed of God (as an external heavenly being) to if one who sees Jesus as completely human born from a mother who had sex with a man. My only concern about there being no originals is that we are talking about something that is not original, not necessarily accurate in everything it says, that has had a huge influence over human behavior throughout history (often negative) and that people will argue till the cows come home, must be interpreted a certain way (whilst often these arguments differ). You yourself are arguing the Gospels MUST be interpreted a certain way. Whilst your view may be harmless enough, others who insist things should be viewed differently in many circumstances can be dangerous. You simply say "they are wrong". Well, that didn't help the many millions of people who have suffered throughout history. And to think this harm can occur simply because a verse or verses that one Gospel author writes, or a scribes later included or amended, is mistakenly interpreted. I really don't have the time to document the multitude of legal cases where Christians have harmed abortion clinics in the name of Jesus or committed other acts of harm because the Gospels and Jesus 'speak to them' a certain way.. If you think that hasn't happened, so be it. Similarly, if you think Popes blessing Christian knights in the name of Jesus to carry out the Crusades was simply based on their misunderstanding of Jesus, so be it. But to acknowledge that stories in the Gospels are confusing and we're unsure what they mean (the temple, the fig tree, etc) but to then go on and say that Jesus can only be interpreted one way, seems staggering to me. I'd even go further and questions elements of say the Beatitudes (what does the meek will inherit the earth mean? - I'm raising that rhetorically) have been interpreted differently buy different Christians who all feel they are right in their views. But somehow it seems you can harmonise it all together to present this 'one, true' understanding of Jesus and those who have seen it another way are simply wrong. In any event, we are just going around in circles. My 'issues' with the Gospels are that whilst people interpret them for themselves and do no harm, for anybody to say that they are 100% about the person of Jesus and his 'gist' is dangerous, as we have seen throughout time. Have the last word on this if you would like, but I think I'm finished on this topic.

Thormas, You have a version of Jesus that works for you and speaks to you. I am not trying to take that away from you or anyone else and as I have said, if your understanding of Jesus causes no harm, then cool. Yes, there are the stories, parables, the beatitudes, the sermons of Jesus etc which do go to a way to live and treat others. Maybe Jesus said all of these things, maybe he didn't. But there are certainly a number of other stories in the Gospels to confound this view of Jesus, or at the very least to give some Christians a number of interpretations about what Jesus would do today which seems contrary to the understanding you hold. Jesus was love a lot of the times, except when he took to the money changers in the temple with a whip and overthrew tables and generally lost his cool. Many have found that a justification for aggression from a Christian perspective (if it's okay for Jesus to get angry and harm others, then why shouldn't Christian followers today bomb abortion clinics?). Or what do you make of Jesus cursing the fig tree - is it okay for Jesus to behave like a petulant child because figs were out of season? What about the miracles in the Gospels - do you believe Jesus raised dead corpses, sent demons into innocent pig herds, walked on water? Do you believe all of the miracles or just some. If the gospel authors were wrong about some bits they wrote, then which bits do you know are right or wrong? The bits that 'speak' to you? You answers some of my questions about Jesus' words with questions yourself - I would argue that is because the interpretation is not clear cut....and we've had nearly a couple of thousand years to mull it over and most Christians still can't agree on the precise understanding. We simply don't know for sure what Jesus meant (or if he even really said it). Again, this has provided for many a Christian to interpret Jesus differently to you - turf their children out because they're gay, for children to abandon their families because the parents aren't coverts to Christianity, to commit acts of harm because that's what they believe Jesus wants. There have been Christian wars ever since Jesus played fullback for Jerusalem! I'm astounded that you can't see that the interpretation of Jesus and his words simply do 'speak' to people differently. You might not like it that way, but history shows us that is what happens.

Which is essentially what I am trying to say Thormas about 'interpretation'. I know you're joking, but millions aren't when they say others need to understand the NT 'properly'. There are numerous voices all giving their opinion about what Jesus and God want. Did Jesus really intend for women to be silent in Church (and cover their heads, etc)? Does Jesus really want us to hate our families? If Jesus says he didn't come to bring peace but to bring a sword does that mean we should fight others? Should we really abstain from blood? Are slaves really not above their masters? Should Christians only pray in their closet and never in public? Etc etc etc. These are a mere sample of the teachings of Jesus which are either attributed as direct words of Jesus or conveyed by other writers as what Jesus wants. They are all subject to interpretation and disagreement. By all means says that people misinterpret these - my point simply is that we do not know which of these Jesus really said and in many cases whether or not he would have approved of this message. Nonetheless, the same verses 'speak' to people in different ways and affects their actions in many cases. Read about St. Bernard of Clairvaux. He was a strong advocate for the crusades and truly believed that they were what God wanted. Clearly he interprets the bible different to you but I have no doubt what he believed about the scriptures spoke to him truly, just as strongly as it does to you but in a different way. I don't think if we had one single document that'd necessarily be the answer. But what I do say is that there are numerous voices in the NT. We only read the surviving ones from those times. There is no single agreed interpretation of all of the NT. There is much speculation about what certain verses say and mean. We can't know for sure if they are original sayings or if they were amended over the decades between being written and the earliest copies. None of this is a problem to me when people take the NT personally and apply it to themselves only, or perhaps say to others this is I understand it and it works for me. But when Christians say this is what Jesus definitely said and wanted, this is how one MUST understand Jesus and the other writers of the NT, this is THE 'truth' as laid out across the NT, that's when I say they have no basis for that argument. At best it is opinion.

No argument from me. I fully agree with the Buddha (or whoever wrote that). And there are lots of good messages attributed to Jesus and others in the NT which speak to people and do much good for and in their lives and that of others.

I truly wish I had a dollar for every time one Christian has told me that another Christian's understanding of Jesus & his message was wrong. This 'misinterpretation' may be obvious to a number of those of other faiths, no faith and the Christian faith, but I would hardly suggest everyone has seen it as wrong. Maybe our modern minds do, but I doubt that has always been the case over the past 2000 years. This is a problem with the New testament - it is open to a zillion different interpretations and understandings (which could possibly be eliminated if we had the original documents, but then again, who knows precisely what they said [nobody!]). Worse, it is a bigger problem with organised religion which teaches its adherents that this is what they need to understand about Jesus and his message because 'they know the truth as it speaks to them'! I know you think your interpretation is the right one (and I'm sure you gain much confidence from the many others Christians that are in a similar ballpark), but I am pretty certain that the Catholic church in its day of campaigning and war, the world's slave owners, certain politicians, various Christian leaders throughout history and right through to modern day soldiers who are painting bible verses on bombs, ALL have had and maintained different interpretations of the words, portrayal and alleged messages of Jesus as it 'speaks' to them. I don't have any problem with you telling them they've got it wrong. I'm just saying that the reality is there is a wide variety of interpretations about the Bible which has significant implications for our world, often. I also find it very, very credible that the Christians in the 150 years following Jesus (when the bulk of what we have in the NT was written) had similar varieties of interpretations and understandings of Jesus, especially from authors who never even met Jesus or any of the disciples. And whilst eventually a certain number of letters and writings were considered the 'best' ones to run with, I see a very human hand in this selection and I respectfully suggest that this could just as much be the driver for what we have today rather than other interpretations and understandings of Jesus that existed through that period but were drowned out or discarded by the 'winners'.

Unfortunately the 'gist' of Jesus' alleged message has been interpreted by millions to mean all sorts of different things. Personally, i think people land where it suits them. Not necessarily by choice but by experience, culture, circumstances, and numerous other factors. I don't see why this wouldn't also happen soon after jesus, particular when the understanding of his message started getting conveyed by people who had never met Jesus. But my main point and that which Erhman does acknowledge (not sure about Allison) is that we simply don't have anything to accurately verify Jesus' message and we most definitely rely on other people's interpretations and understanding (and then further on later interpretation, scribing and copying of this information too). This is a harmonised version of the particular documents that were selected to represent Christianity. No argument. Does it include all of the voices and understandings of Jesus from the early times - No. Maybe that doesn't matter to some and people who feel 'spoken to' by all that we have left of that period are good with that. I'm simply trying to point it out for what it is, that's all. Claiming that this is validation of the gist doe snot further the discussion. You are simply saying we don't need to know about the views that didn't win through because they were the minority. And I'm guessing you feel that way because what we do have 'speaks' to you. Just because something is at extreme odds with the approved cannon does not make it incorrect. What if early followers got it wrong (or even just moved off track a little) in say 40 or 50 or 80 CE and then Christianity took an entirely different direction, later supported by all the following writings? It's not at all implausible. There is certainly arguments that Pauline Christianity went in a different direction to Jesus' message. What if Paul hadn't existed - I wonder what writings may have become prominent in Christianity then? Clearly biblical scholars don't rely on the best intentions but they do ONLY rely on the available evidence - not the unavailable evidence like talking to an author and understanding WHY they say the things they do. I think it would be interesting to interview some of the original writers and ask - why are you saying these things? As a minority of NT writers are actually supposed to be people who physically spent time with Jesus, it doesn't take much imagination to think that a lot of these others authors are speaking from their heart and not necessarily accuracy about Jesus and God. If you want to feel certain they are onto the right 'gist' then that (and I'm certain biblical scholars will agree) is an opinion and cannot be regarded as evidence. I have no doubt they believed sincerely, but in finalising what doctrines Christianity should 'agree' on moving forward they finally silenced many different voices and views about Jesus' message. Had those different views been allowed to exist, who knows what direction Christianity may have taken. I don't disagree with you that the majority may have had a view of Jesus' message, I'm just saying all of the finer detail that was interpreted, written, imagined after Jesus and that later was sealed for eternity into THE canon (and which the majority of Christianity today take to be fact about Jesus). We don't have any minutes from the Council of Nicae but I am skeptical that the Council, who operated under the approval of an Emperor who believed the Prince of Peace sent him a sign to win a war, weer not in any way biased about what they wanted people to believe. Actually Erhman (I don't have the reference to hand) gives a better example of what I am trying to say and which also counters Allison's point. It relates to the reliability of our earliest sources. Say a writer writes two identical letters and sends them to two different early Christian churches in the realm and never sees those churches again. Now lets say one Church goes by the wayside after a few years and that letter is lost, but the other Church succeeds and grows but later adds to and builds upon that letter based on their own experiences and interpretation Now we can have a new understanding of Jesus and a new 'reporting' of his message and as that Church and message grows, much of the original message is lost or overtaken. That and we have Paul, who never even met Jesus when he was alive, writing books about the Jesus he met in a vision, long before any of the alleged 'disciple' letters. I have more questions than answers, but where were all letters from the disciples, written on their behalf or other, in the immediate years following Jesus' death. The only alleged stories we have from them start to emerge from writings dated some 20-50 years after Jesus' death! It just doesn't seem convincing to me that the NT is telling us the entire truth but rather other people's interpretations and understandings. If that 'speaks' to people then fine, but if it 'speaks' to people in ways that are harmful to others, then it's not fine and I'm not satisfied for people to preach with authority that this is what Jesus said and/or wanted, because the facts are they simply don't KNOW that. Wrong. That is your interpretation, not theirs. They clearly DO think that is what Christ wanted. They use NT bible verses to support their views. This is the problem now and through the ages - the cannon and views of Jesus are open to interpretation and people usually land where the they feel the text 'speaks' to them. People have used the NT throughout history to validate their actions. Paul says to 'fight the good fight' and there's much debate about whether his words condemned homosexuality or not - nonetheless, many Christians do use his words to support condemnation of gays. Jesus says many statements that have been considered approval for violence. Now you'll say that people should read those differently and probably refer to other verses which seem to counter that view, but many don't agre with you and interpret those verses to okay agression or war etc. Some of these include "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his castle, his property is safe" (Luke 11:21), I did not come to bring peace to the earth; I did not come to bring peace but a sword" (Matt. 10:34), Jesus wielded a whip to drive the money changers out of the temple (Matt. 21:12-13), "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God" (Rom. 13:1-2) - so if they say go to war, you go to war. It goes on and on. Sure, say they are interpreting it incorrectly but the fact is millions and millions and millions of Christians in the past have not felt 100% like you concerning how the NT 'speaks' to them. One other quote you mentioned from Erhman that I missed addressing above - "Ehrman said that 'history is all a matter of greater and lesser probabilities." If Erhman did say that (I'd be very surprised if he did or meant it in an absolute context), he is wrong. History is NOT probable, it is actual. There is only ONE actual version of a historical event. We don't get to guess, even if based on what's 'likely'. I think what Erhman is referring to is that we have what we have and that because of time and the lack of validating evidence we are forced to deal with probabilities. I'm good with that as long as we acknowledged they are probabilities and not 100% verified history.

No argument. I'm not saying the story and message of Jesus may have only been edited/interpreted by bad guys. Good people can promote a wrong direction too, even with the best of intentions. I doubt most of the scribes and people who amended scripture over time had bad intentions. I'm sure whoever added or removed those extra verses to the end of Mark thought they were doing a good thing. My only point is that these writings (the one's that survived anyway and which seem to have won the day) cannot be validated against what was actually happening at the time because we simply have no record. We have no original writings and we have no original alternate voices that most biblical and historical scholars think existed around then (or in some cases even copies of their POV, as the strongest voices drowned out and destroyed the alternate voices). Best of intentions doesn't cut it for me because I know what humans are like - myself included. Just like there are no originals from that era, nor are there any 'other' writings. Even the 'copies' we have of the earliest NT docs are dated to be some +150 years after Jesus. Yes, the textual criticism dates elements of some NT writings back to only several decades after Jesus' death, but even then, there is no way of verifying the 'theological' side of these writings with anything that could be original. If it speaks to you or resonates with you, no problem. I'm just saying there's room for such being simply a misunderstanding, is there not? "A canon that only speaks of a part revelation of God is useless to those living later unless it can speak to them and 'reveal' the same God (Meaning) that was revealed or discovered by our ancient ancestors." Precisely my point - the authors/editors of the Canon and its various writings had agendas, albeit maybe agendas with the best of intentions. Nonetheless, we're all human and I'm sure they were too and I'm sure they probably added their spin on things because of how it 'spoke' to them. That's all fair enough. All I'm saying is that it doesn't necessarily mean they're accurate with what they're saying or the message of Jesus they are recounting. I have no issues with what we call Christianity today (and the thousands of variations and interpretations), 'speaking' to people or it being called a 'revelation', as long as we're understanding that is a personal opinion and point of view. Most of it is not agreed to as 'fact' (which is actually one part of the definition of revelation) but rather it is simply 'considered' a "divine or supernatural disclosure to humans of something relating to human existence" (Oxford dictionary). Now I could say one thing about the nature of God whilst somebody else could say something entirely contradictory about the nature of God, yet different people in the world may receive either of those messages and believe that only one is a true 'revelation', because it speaks to them, but clearly both can't be right. So I agree with you, it comes down to a personal feeling. No issue with that. "So, a determination is made that it is 'right for me' and most serious people would think it is also, 'right' for all: it gets at Truth" - No, it doesn't necessarily. Pretty much the whole world used to believe the earth was flat. Intense reading, study, reflection and physical 'proof' they could see for themselves revealed the 'truth'. Yet that 'truth' changed thousands of years later with new intense reading, study, reflection. Again, if certain revelation works for you, that's good, but it simply does not mean it is an accurate interpretation of what Jesus or others said/wrote. Harm caused by Christianity - You haven't heard of The Crusades, or the Spanish Inquisition, of the numerous other wars that have Christian revelation at their roots? Soldiers painting bible verses on bombs they dropped in Iraq etc? You don't think Christianity as it is 'revealed' and interpreted by millions has any potential to cause further harm in the world? Look, if all Christianity was how you felt (or how I believe you feel - that is that it is personal, it is opinion, you could be wrong but it speaks to you, etc) then no issue. But when Christian teachings are used to support ostracizing and isolating people (e.g. homosexuals), making laws against people (e.g. abortion), etc, then harm is being caused. Sure, you're going to say that such Christian's misunderstand Jesus. But the thing is, they don't. They too have received revelation from the bible that speaks to them. They're just as certain in this 'truth' as you are. It speaks to them in a different way than it speaks to you I would suggest. So for me, it boils down to this - at best, most interpretation of the NT is personal opinion and feeling, and that's where it stops. When we talk about the ancient authors we have to acknowledge that we don't have their original writings and that there could be significant human intervention in between their original writing and what we have today. Furthermore, we can't know exactly what was being said in the immediate aftermath of Jesus' death, or even confirm he died for that matter - we simply have no conclusive evidence. Clearly some people thought some things about this character Jesus to go to the effort of writing but at best, these writings didn't even start until long after Jesus existed and most likely weren't the only version or account of things, but we simply don't have the evidence of either them or the alternate voices. I'm all good with anything 'speaking' to somebody if it works for them and society. But we have to acknowledge that it is all just personal opinion and not necessarily 'truth', no matter how old a proposed POV is.

Thormas, You seem to have a lot of faith in the powers that be at the time who you say seemingly did their best with what was judged to be most 'correct.' I'm not sure how you can know that at all. At what point in early Christianity was it decided that John's view was the 'most correct'? Whom made that decision? Were they Jew or gentile? Where did they live - Rome or Jerusalem? How do you know they were the 'correct' powers? Maybe there were more 'correct' views but the community didn't like those enough and so time and authority saw belief and Christianity (now as becoming something more 'organised) move toward other views? Sure, there might be some similarities between John and the synoptics but I wouldn't call them 100% aligned by any stretch, so clearly there was thought and opinion (maybe many wrong ones) going into this 'community'. Then on top of that, what gives you the confidence that those gospel books are read today as they were written at the time or that they are in fact the most authoritative and accurate writings of the day that existed about Jesus. Because they 'speak' to you? I'm sure the myths and priestly leadership of Valhalla spoke 'true' to the Vikings as well, but I don't imagine that thought speaks to you in the same way? Please, I am not trying to sound rude but just to point out that because something speaks as 'true' to somebody should in no way be regarded as the 'right' view. I know you don't insist that people must hold your particular view but partly why I write what and the way I do is to provide a balance against this "it feels right so it must be true to some extent' point of view. There is simply no validity in that other than personal feeling for the individual (which as I have said, I have no problem with when it does not harm others). Sure, in some loose way the books of the bible might align somewhat (and often not) but what else would you expect from a group of priests who got together and DECIDED what would be in the bible and what wouldn't? You really have that much faith in a group of men in positions of power some nearly 300 years after Jesus lived, and in light of evidence that alternate views existed but were destroyed? What we do know is that there were numerous texts, letters and views about Jesus swirling around in the decades after his death. There were different Christian communities with different takes on Jesus' message - some focused on living a certain 'Jesus' way, some focused on rules and what it meant to be a Jewish Christian, others focused on what it meant to be a non-Jewish Christian, and it would seem some focused on an after-life or new world to come, etc. Jesus interpretation was a melting pot of views and opinions - but only one view and opinion won through in the end and that is why we have the bible as we do today and not a bunch of other letters and scriptures (which for all we know might have spoken even 'truer' to you, but you didn't get that chance of hearing them). About the only thing clear to me is that there simply was not a single consensus view of what Jesus and his life meant and how Jesus/Messiah/God fit together. Most scholars would agree that dozens of various voices on Jesus were finally silenced at the Council of Nicaea that enforced what would be regarded as 'the truth' going forward. But I understand how that detail may not be that important to many. If what they read 'speaks' truth to them, then that becomes what is important to them. And I have no problem with that (unless it causes harm to others). But for me personally, I have little faith that just because somebody 'feels' something is right to them, that it has any more validity than a different view that a different person just as validly 'feels' is right for them. However I completely accept it as a personal view and if it works for you/others, all good. It does make for interesting discussion though and it is a subject I enjoy discussing and speculating on, as it would seem to be also with you and others. I like that we can all hold totally different points of view but still agree to disagree and care for each other in the process. No condemnation, no ridicule, no belittling, no saying "you have to believe it this way or else" - Clearly not something that Christianity has a very good track record of.

It's valid for John and others to come up with their ideas of divinity, Jesus, etc . I don't think that makes their explanations valid though (but I'm not sure you are saying that. Maybe you are?) John reflects a 'particular' communal understanding, but the earliest Christian groups were squabbling over doctrine and rules and how to interpret the life and death of Jesus from day one. You've read your Erhman - there were quite a number of different Christianities in the early days following the death of Jesus. John's version simply became the 'orthodox' one and the rest is history. Nobody seems to have carried on the view of the Ebionites for instance in the New Testament, but we know they existed and didn't believe in Jesus to be divine for instance. John is a class above the rest as far as theology goes. Yes John invites belief, after all, he's trying to sell a message. I have no problem with theology, as long as we know we're talking 'speculation' and not fact. Not right or wrong, a particular presentation of Jesus, not on a completely different track, personal interpretation - I don't disagree. Skye's question was "whether an external God exists at all or whether it was just humanities expression of the sense of God within". I am suggesting that John is one such expression. I don't think that makes it valid as in true, but rather it is an opinion by John and others, but not necessary all early Christians. Indeed, I think his work is a human expression of the sense of God within. 170 years after the death of Jesus yet many claim it is the documented and literal word of God, unadulterated and untouched since its original writing. I have serious doubts as I think you do. Like I said - If poetry speaks to people and does good, bravo. If it speaks to people and causes harm, then thumbs down. John 3:16: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeith in him should not perish, but have everlasting life". Whilst the poetry itself is not necessarily to blame, the interpretation of John's alleged writing has caused death, heartache and pain throughout history. Now, did John mean for his work to be interpreted like that or was there another Christian voice? If there was another voice, I would suggest it was largely silent in what became the bible, from that point on.

I'd have to agree with you there Thormas. I think their respective takes on God/Jesus/the Bible are influenced by their desire/choice to hold onto Christianity. That said, I find their views a completely feasible alternative to much that is taught to be 'true Christianity'. I certainly found both of them very, very comforting when I was dealing with hell anxiety (a hangover from fundy Christianity). They and Bart were my introduction to an alternate view of Christianity that I never even knew was possible. Whilst I'm yet to formally read any of her works on biblical scholarship, I've been watching some talks and debates involving Francesca Stavrakopoulou whose specialty is the Hebrew Bible. She's not a very subtle atheist when it comes to bible commentary, but her work seems very interesting to me.

"Vaild" in what sense - Their efforts? I don't disagree that John and others are welcome to build on Jesus and say something more about the Divine and the Human, but what degree of accuracy do you assign to their writings and why? Because it 'speaks' to you and/or others? What evidence verifies John's opinions and point-of-view on God - the and words he attributes to Jesus? Is John leading people down the garden path? Is he accurate or miles off from Jesus' teachings? Why does it matter? I'm just saying John could be right, wrong, or a combination of both (Jesus could be too, even if we did have an accurate account of his words). John might be on a completely different track than the majority of the original followers of Jesus were for all we know. His Book is certainly a giant leap forward from the synoptic Gospels so I can't help but think there is a fair amount of 'personal interpretation' in his writings and we have all seen how personal opinion is so wide and varied in Christianity. So much so that I think one should be naturally suspicious of anybody who believes they have accurately and correctly interpreted the 'word of God'. But also, how do you even know these are the original words of John? At best, the earliest evidence we have of this book is a mere fragment (Rylands Library Papyrus P52 - measuring only 3.5 by 2.5 inches and which incidentally differs from the version which appears in the first complete copy of John we have). It's not until around 200CE that we see anything like a complete copy of John (P66 - which is still not complete). My point simply is that poetry is lovely. If it speaks to people and does good, bravo. If it speaks to people and causes harm, then thumbs down. But I think it's valuable to keep in mind that this author (and many others in the Bible) may be completely wrong in what he/they describe and which so many people take to be the 'truth'. Often that truth relies on individual interpretation of the text as well. Play with it, delve into it, meditate on it, verify it - they are all good things in my opinion and if it 'resonates' as true for people, all power to them. I appreciate that my comments may confuse Skye even further about the boundaries between Him in them and whether an external God exists at all. But like Skye questions - "is it just humanities expression of the sense of God within?". I think this is very likely, which means it could be right, wrong or somewhere in between. Which is the whole reason there is any debate whatsoever about religion I guess.

I think it is most likely that Jesus saw God as external, but also thought that the relationship between God and human could be more personal (and cut out the middleman bureaucracy that Judaism had developed). So not so much God being 'in you' actually but much like how we feel about another we love who we 'hold in our heart'. I think it is some of Jesus' later followers and bible writers that have made Jesus and God two separate entities combined and written things portraying Jesus as they saw him, including things that they would like Jesus to have said (I think John is notorious for this).

Welcome to the forum Skye, I hope you find the forum an enjoyable place to dialogue and participate. There's also lots of archived forum threads too covering all sorts of questions and discussions about God, Jesus the bible and christianity (in its many wide and varied forms and interpretations). Cheers Paul

I think the world would be a much better place if this was the dominant type of Christianity.

Or later writer's attribute these words to him but he never actually prophesy such at all.

I think a lot of it can be a waste of time, but can't an idea of a kingdom to come simply be an aspiration rather than a concrete prediction? Personally I think Jesus was somewhat aligned with Jewish expectations of his time AND a proponent of some original thought, but not necessarily only one or the other.

That does seem to be an egoistic way of looking at it I think (no insult intended). Clearly we are animals that have evolved, along with the rest of the animals on earth, but we have evolved to a point that we think we are the planet's superior species in both intelligence and achievement. Perhaps we are. But then to say we are 'more' simply seems to me our own ego patting us on the back. It would be so interesting to know what other animals think about us (but alas, I am no Dr Dolittle).

Fully aware how some modern Aborigines have taken to Christianity. What i am questioning is that if Jesus really was 'Good News' why did God not share that news for nearly 2000 years with any of the Aborigines that lived between now and your video participants? Maybe Jesus simply wasn't needed for those 2000 years?

Which is why I continued on in the next sentence to specifically cite a US example.

Except if you were perhaps Australian Aboriginal - indigenous people to Australia who for nearly 2000 years had no idea that Jesus or His God existed. Not sure their relationship with God changed one iota following Jesus' life and death during that 2000 year period.

The biblical context of a bible assembled by man - with numerous religious texts omitted, hardly any writings available that are less than 200 years old after they were written (some fragments and pieces maybe), proven additions made after the fact (the bogus ending of Mark 9-19 that was regarded as the word of God until it was established that it wasn't), and the entire New testament written AFTER the death of Jesus (very easy to narrate Jesus as predicting his future when your are writing about the event AFTER that future has occurred). Most likely Matthew has a bias towards Judaism that is reflected in his preferential regard of the disciples.

Actually most recognise us as animals but just at the higher end of the spectrum concerning intelligence. I don't think we are more than animals but rather the top of the line of animal species in many ways.

I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying that it appears to me this 'sin' is a continuation of our animal instincts. So whereas animals have certain instincts, we have further involved into a more intelligent species yet still have those hallmark animal instincts, but because of our higher intelligence and sophistication we have elaborated on these instincts and made them into more.

I can understand why you say that but really, do any of us know what goes on in a lion's head? I say not. My p[problem wit that is that I don't think there's any knight in shining amour (i.e. divinity) waiting in the wings to set things right. We either take action ourselves or nothing changes.

See - another 'sin' shared between us and the animal kingdom!