Prayer is useless?

[Marvel]

actually, Matthew used Mark and another source (usually called "Q") to
write his gospel, as well as information unique to Matthew.

Mark was written first.

Like Matthew, Luke used Mark, Q, and information unique to Luke.

by the time John was written (the last of the Canonical Gospels to be
written), things were all over the place, and John isn't even considered
a synoptic gospel (like Mark, Matthew, and Luke).

Read Mark in a sitting, and then John in a sitting, and you will see
the tremendous leap in the "Jesus Message" that has taken place,
already within the first 70 years of Jesus' death.

one of the earliest gospels, Thomas, is not a cannonical gospel
because by the time the canon was decided upon, Christianity had charged
so much that the church fathers felt the early gospel was "alien"
to Christianity.

now, the gospel of Thomas handn't changed. what had changed
was the views of Christianity around.

a fascinating subject, and one i wish i knew more about

Andy, you're taking a theory, actually a hypothesis, proposed by some Biblical scholars, notably the Jesus Seminar as well.... gospel. There are many, MANY Biblical scholars who refute that theory & put forth some very valid arguments against it. There is no real evidence for the existence of Q but the theory of its existence has been bandied about for a decade or so & has been presented to (and accepted by) the public as fact. The existence of Q is theoretical only & does not even begin to take into account some of the letters of the New Testament, which predate the writing of the Gospels. As to the Gospels themselves, many scholars believe that they were all actually written before 70 AD. They base this on references to the Temple, which was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD. None of the Gospels refers to the Temple in the past tense- all references imply that it was still standing at the time that the Gospel was written. There's also a description in John of the healing at the pool of Bethesda which describes the architecture in present tense "is surrounded by five porticos, or covered colonnades" (John 5:2). That was also destroyed in AD 70 & the way in which this passage was written points to it still being intact. So, when one looks at the possibility of that dating &, again, the early dates of the letters that make up the majority of the NT, one can see that there has not be enough passage of time for myths to be created. Also bear in mind that we are speaking of an age with an oral tradition that relied heavily on accuracy.

OK, lots of the posters here have issues with taking things on faith. Well, let's talk about the Bible & what is says. There's a lot of agreed upon evidence of it's veracity:

First, the accuracy with which it has been transmitted Scholars agree that the Bible (both New & Old Testaments) has been reproduced independently, in many areas of the known world, over a span of about a thousand years with an accuracy rate of over 95%. There is also its historical accuracy. For example, the Bible mentions 29 kings & multiple cities & countries. The existence of all of them has been substantiated by modern archaeological discoveries. The places that Jesus & His Disciples visited in the New Testament have also bee substantiated overwhelmingly by archaeological evidence. If a ruler or king is mentioned in either the OT or the NT, it has been verified that they did, in fact, exist & at about the time that is referenced in the Bible. Even the Jesus Seminar scholars agree on this. So, if the documentation of people, places, & events is so startlingly accurate in so many instances, does that not make the probability of the documented events of Jesus' life, death, & resurrection a distinct probability? For that matter, does it not make the existance of the God that is talked about in the Bible a distinct possiblity?

Second, let's look at what has not been discovered about the New Testament & the life of Jesus. There are no writings by either the Romans nor the Jews of that time that refute the claims of His followers- that He died & rose from the dead. Yes, His followers were persecuted but even so, there was no denial of the empty tomb & the resurection that followed. I find that pretty telling- this group of men who fought so hard to have Jesus put to death suddenly fell silent on the subject of the resurection. One might almost believe that they didn't know how to stop the truth frrom spreading, wouldn't one? There are very few references to Jesus in our known historical documents of around that time. The first & most famous one is Flavius Josephus' reference to Jesus in his Antiquities (& no, I'm not going to cite the questionable version):

"At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of the people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out."

Oddly enough, Flavius, who was notorious for saying that "they had it coming" when writing about people executed by the Romans, did not say that about Jesus &, instead, seems rather sympathetic to Jesus & His teachings. This, from an historian kinown for taking the "party line" in his writings.

I'm jumping around a little but I just want to give you all some food for thought. The Jewish culture of that time was very patriarchal society & women were not held in very high regard. So, why do you think that the Gospel writers, if they were making things up, would have the discoverers of the empty tomb women? Perhaps because they were telling the truth? And again, where was the denial of the tomb by any of the authorities?

Along those lines, one last thought. Why do you suppose that a bunch of people who ran & hid when Jesus was arrested & crucified suddenly gathered the courage to go out & publically proclaim that He rose from the dead, that He was the Messiah? Why would His brother, who had earlier denied Him suddenly join His followers & later be martyred for his faith? Not to mention all of the other followers who lived & died proclaiming that Jesus was the Son of God. Instead, this group of cowards & petty little men suddenly had the courage to live the rest of their lives spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ, most dying horrible deaths because of what they believed to be true.

There's a lot of evidence out there for the existance of a Creator, for proclaiming that Jesus is the Son of God. I don't pretend to be a scholar by any means. What I am is a life-long agnostic who, at the age of 45, finally recognized the logic that allowed me to believe.

 

[Fish_Whisperer]

Praying and hurling one's wants at a Cosmic Santa.... Hrmm...

How much better to shut up and focus on God, (or the All That Is, or The ONE... whatever) and try listening and seeing what guidance S/HE/IT has for you!

GOD still speaks. Too bad the art of listening has been all but lost.

P.S. The story of a messiah born of a virgin to humble circumstances, annointed by God, teaching, leading, and performing miracles, then being executed, resurrected, and then ascending to heaven is hardly unique to Christianity. Zoroastrianism, Mithraism, and one of the religions in India also have this theme, which pre-dates Christianity.

 

[Marvel]

have any of you read "Lamb: The gospel according to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal" ?

Give it a read, absolutely hilarious
Its by Christopher Moore

www.chrismoore.com

And, the ending? I admit, as irreverent as the book was, it was quite a surprise to me. Excellent book, BTW.

 

[H2Andy]

The existence of Q is theoretical only & does not even begin to take into account some of the letters of the New Testament, which predate the writing of the Gospels.

correct. Q has been inferred from the amazing similarities in sources.

the Pauline letters which predate the Gospels contain no Gospel material, generally
speaking (for example, Paul seems wholly unaware of the Mary-Virgin-Birth
tradition). unfortunately, the Pauline letters are not very good witnesses
as to the history and life of Jesus. they are, in fact, silent on this subject.

enter Q. Q is a (supposed) collection of "Jesus sayings," very similar to what the Gospel of Thomas ended up being. but let's assume no "Q." it doesn't
matter... the synoptics STILL have some very close passages that suggest
a similar source, call it what you will.

so, yes, Q is "made up." but the early Pauline letters simply have nothing to
do with the Jesus Narrative as found in the Gospels.

As to the Gospels themselves, many scholars believe that they were all actually written before 70 AD. They base this on references to the Temple, which was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD. None of the Gospels refers to the Temple in the past tense- all references imply that it was still standing at the time that the Gospel was written.

that's because all the Gospels take place during the life of Jesus, during which
the Temple was still standing.

Do note that Jesus prophecises that the Temple will be destroyed in Mark, Matthew, and Luke (but not JOhn, though John is not a synoptic gospel)

this tells me that Mark, Matthew, and Luke had a source that showed Jesus predicting the temple would be destroyed, and John did not (call it Q or whatever you like)

At any rate, even assuming pre-Temple destruction Gospels, you're still talking at
least 40-50 year gap time between the "traditional" life of Jesus and the first Gospels.

by the way, the historical Jesus probably lived late in the 1st Century BC
and died around 88 B.C.:

http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

(scroll on down to The Christian Era -- this is a historical perspective only,
but it has all the latest research)

 

[Marvel]

Hmmm... he throws a lot of dates & theories around but just glancing though some of the material that he bases his article on: here, I see a singular lack of scholarship:

The idea that Mary had been an adultress never completely disappeared in Christian mythology. Instead, the character of Mary was split into two: Mary the mother of Jesus, believed to be a virgin, and Mary Magdalene, believed to be a woman of ill repute.

The NT talks about Mary, the mother of Jesus & Mary Magdalene, who was possessed by demons that Jesus drove out of her. No where in the NT is Mary Magdalene referred to as an adultress. There is also Mary of Bethany & a few other unnamed women in the Bible, including the nameless adultress that Jesus saved from stoning. It was Pope Gregory the Great, in a sermon in 591 who lumped them all together: "She whom Luke calls the sinful woman, whom John calls Mary [of Bethany], we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark." The church has recently admitted that this was an error- & if you know anything about the Catholic Church, you probably know that that is almost akin to you or I standing on a street corner at noon yelling out our worst sins to passersby.

Another instance that I caught while skimming through the page is, ironically, a reference to the Flavious passage that I quoted. There is another version of that which was probably doctored by some scribe that adds "He was the Messiah" & "If indeed He could be called a man." Your author only references that version, which, in my opinion, throws his research & arguments into question. He's used the version that best suits his argument while ignoring the more commonly accepted version.

As I have said, I am by no means a Biblical scholar. I only skimmed the article & those two things popped out at me. I'm sure that there are more. But, for every argument I throw up, you can throw one up to refute me & vica-versa. I'm not going to get into a lengthy internet debate with you or anyone else on this subject. I just wanted to present an overview of some of the reasons that led me to the Lord. There is a series of books written by a former atheist by the name of Lee Strobel that you might find interesting:

The Case for Faith: A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianity

The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus

The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God

One last thing & then I'm off to bed. You're a pretty good guy, Andy & I think that you try to live a good & righteous life. I try to do the same. But, read John 14:6:

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

No other founder of any religion ever made such a statement- not Mohamed, not Buddha, not anyone. It seems as if you think there is nothing beyond death. But, what if you're wrong? According to the Word, we cannot buy our way into Heaven with good works. So, that means that no matter how well you live your life, without Jesus, you can't get to heaven when you find out it exists after you die. That wasn't an easy concept for me to come to terms with but I have. And, if I'm wrong....well, at least I will have lived a life that hopefully reflects the love that I believe God is, & has, for us.

Until the whole world hears.

 

[H2Andy]

The NT talks about Mary, the mother of Jesus & Mary Magdalene, who was possessed by demons that Jesus drove out of her. No where in the NT is Mary Magdalene referred to as an adultress.

right... he is talking about pre-New Testament sources. the origins, as it were,
of the New Testament stories

there's two approaches to the New Testament here: the traditional (yours) that
takes the New Testament as a whole, inspired revelation to man

and

his (and mine) that takes the New Testament as any other collection of writings
from that period. we're trying to figure out from a historical perspective
how the writings came about.

now, the two approaches are not necessarily contradictory, but i would agree
with you that they are hard to reconcile.

you are also correct that Mary Magdalene is not identified in the New
Testament as a "woman of ill repute." however, there is quite a lot of
early christian tradition linking Mary Magdalene with Mary of Bethany and the woman sinner, who anointed Jesus's feet in Luke 7:36-50:

"And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment, and stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment."

Though the woman remains unnamed, she is identified with Mary of Bethany, the sister of Martha and the resurrected Lazarus (Luke 10:38-42 and John 1:10).
The identification of Mary Magdalene with Mary of Bethany, also led to her being identified with "the woman who was a sinner". Church fathers of the 3rd and 4th centuries considered this sin as "being unchaste".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene

notice that he says "christian mythology." he does not claim that the New
Testament says Mary Magdalene was a woman of ill repute. he is simply saying
that Christian sources in the early church certainly thougth so.

Another instance that I caught while skimming through the page is, ironically, a reference to the Flavious passage that I quoted. There is another version of that which was probably doctored by some scribe that adds "He was the Messiah" & "If indeed He could be called a man." Your author only references that version, which, in my opinion, throws his research & arguments into question. He's used the version that best suits his argument while ignoring the more commonly accepted version.

well, he's talking about Josephus. and in fact, he does present the full story.
here's the whole quote:

Josephus was a historian who was so very thorough he would write a three page history of the trial and execution of a common thief, and wrote extensively about John the Baptist, but on Jesus, his two small references are seriously doubted by scholars as being genuine. Unfortunately, the writings of Josephus have come down to us only through Christian sources, none earlier than the fourth century, and are known to have been revised by the Christians. There are a number of reasons why the two references in Josephus are doubted: As summarized by Louis Feldman, a promient Josephus scholar, they are, first, use of the Christian reference to Jesus being the Messiah is unlikely to have come from a Jewish historian, especially from one who treated other Messianic aspirants rather harshly; second, commentators writing about Josephus earlier than Eusebius (4th Cent. C.E.) do not cite the passage; third, Origen mentions that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the messiah. There is a full account available on the Internet that describes the whole long list of problems with the "Testimonium Flavium" as scholars call it.

and he does cite to a fuller treatment of the passage:

http://members.aol.com/fljosephus/testhist.htm

the argument is that most (if not all) of the references to Jesus were
added later, and not written by Josephus.

you yourself admit that at least some of the Jesus material from Josephus
is suspect. he's just saying that most likely, all of it is suspect.

one last thing and i'll shut up (promise promise promise! ) is his apparent
lack of sources. He is actually taking most of the stuff he wrties from
The Messiah Before Jesus, by Israel Knoll and The Jesus Movement, by
Stegerman and Stegerman. You'll see those two books to the right of his
article (he could have been clearer about it).

i've read both books, and he basically gets his summary right (though he, of course,
omits a ton of information). now, of course (and i will be the first one
to grant this) there is debate as to whether these two books are accurate, etc.

the bottom line is that we will probably never know. but these are (to me)
interesting threads to weave together when i try to understand the historical
Jesus and how what we know about him came to us.

 

[mrobinson]

I believe that board members who feel compelled to start threads regarding prayer on a scuba-diving board should stifle themselves.
I don't go to boards that discuss theology and start threads relating to the benefits of helium for planning wreck dives to depths between 250' and 300' fsw.
It would be rude.
It would also quite likely be against their ToS.
It astounds me that people would come to a board designed to discuss scuba issues and begin a discussion regarding the benefits of prayer.
Other than finding myself at 250' with 50 minutes of deco remaining and having a deco regulator explode on me, I fail to see the connection between scuba diving and prayer.
No offense to anyone of any faith in any country on the planet, but keep your threads on ScubaBoard at least remotely related to scuba issues. I don't give a ratsass whether you think prayer is useless, useful, moderately beneficial, harmful, offensive, inoffensive, humorous, necessary, or glorious. It doesn't belong on ScubaBoard.
[/RANT] :doctor:

:10: ITA

there are worse things than hell... there is the possibility of spending eternity with some Christians i know

:bang: There's two devil horns way up for that one!

Wouldn't it be funny ... I mean REALLY FUNNY ... to someday find out that homosexuality is God's way of telling us that we've put too damn many people on this planet.Yes, I do believe that God has a sense of humor ... I'm not sure about most of humanity, though ... ... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Thank you!!!

well... a life-long fascination with Christian Scritpture as part of my
cultural heritage, then a minor in religion in college, and continued
reading on the subject.
i'm afraid most of my knowledge is quite basic; i don't have the
time to do the real serious research (or learn Greek to be
able to read the original sources).
here's a basic study sheet for the synoptics:
http://nike.heidelberg.edu/~bgrangaa/NT/Synoptic_Gospels_Review.html
here's some stuff on Thomas, including the text:
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl_thomas.htm
Thomas is particulalry interesting because of its early origins (thought
to predate the synoptics), its simple, "here's what Jesus said" approach,
and its lack of narrative, which indicates a source very close to the
historical Jesus (his audience knew jesus, knew what he had done,
and needed no explanation. they just wanted to know what he'd said)

It's weird. I've been out of the diving loop because I've become obsessive about babies/children. I know that's not so weird but what is weird is the detour on the spiritual journey I've been on, completely unexpected. Now I come back to find a thread like this, not yet closed!
I've been reading many different theories about things and since you've brought up some things.. I would like to make some recommendations on material to read as well:
The Pagan Christ by Tom Harpur He is a Rhodes scholar, and former Anglican priest and professor of Greek and New Testament at the University of Toronto. I'm going to track down more from his resume of 9 best sellers and other things I just don't want to list.
Denial of Death by Ernest Becker. This is next on my list because of the human conditioning we all do...

Growing up, the nuns used to warn me (along with the full class) about not chewing the round communion thing, because once it is blessed it IS the body of Christ. Just like the wine becomes the blood. Well, I didn't seem to have a problem with the blood which may explain a lot of my weirdness, but it sure was tough to deal with the so called "body".
It is funny now, but so many, many times I'd wished for a hand or elbow instead of an eye, stomach or kidney. For years 90% of my prayers were asking God not to let me get the liver. I think those prayers did work, don't recall ever getting a liver taste during communion.
Good thing the catholic faith is around to give a hand to the hopeless and all that mercifull jazz.

That's is just hilarous!
Take care all ~ I hope for all our sakes we don't find religion at 250' ykwim? Peace

 

[Kim]

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

No other founder of any religion ever made such a statement- not Mohamed, not Buddha, not anyone

I have learnt some things in this thread that I had never heard before. It's interesting to me that Jesus had 12 disciples but we only get to hear the story of 4 of them in the bible. Reading about Thomas's version I found this:

3 Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and it is outside you. When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

You see, the quote that you made Marvel can actually be interpreted in two ways. All of us have an "I" and a "me" inside. So was Jesus talking about his "I" and "me" or the one that we all have been given? Was he really telling me to believe in him - or in my own true self? (note I said "true" - there is also a lot of "untrue" when it comes to self).
Personally I don't think that what Jesus told us varies at all from what many of the other great religions also say. I do think that the church has been very selective in deciding what he is supposed to have said or not. For example he talked of children - this is Thomas's version:

22 Jesus saw some babies nursing. He said to his disciples, "These nursing babies are like those who enter the kingdom."
They said to him, "Then shall we enter the kingdom as babies?" Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]."

This idea of "one" that we are all part of - with the connection being deep within ourselves is a very common theme in other religions.

Make no mistake - I think that Jesus spoke the truth - I just have to wonder how Christianity has interpreted what was said.

One last thought. Of all things that Jesus hated the most it's Capitalism that heads the list. He really didn't like people doing things for profit!

 

[BIGSAGE136]

Religion is politics at it's finest. Money is the root of all evil. Just thoughts to consider?

I believe my strongest belief, and finest revelation is that of Jesus Christ.

The truth is out there, but its easiest found in YOU!

 

[H2Andy]

The existence of Q is theoretical only & does not even begin to take into account some of the letters of the New Testament, which predate the writing of the Gospels.

marvel, i didn't get around to this yesterday, but actually the early Pauline
letters (all written in the 50s) (1 Thessalonians, 1-2 Corinthians, Phillipians,
Philemon, Galatians, and Romans) are my favorite books in the New Testament.

first, because Paul (i believe) was the greatest Christian writer who has ever
lived. second, and most importantly, because they give us a historical look
at what Christianity was like in the 50's

1 Thessalonians (usually thought to be written in 50-51) is probably my favorite.

read that carefully, and ask yourself, what does it mean to be a Christian to Paul?

you'll see that the over-riding concern is waiting for the return of Jesus, which
is imminent (4:15 "those of us who are still alive when the Lord comes") and
of outmost importance: salvation means waiting for Jesus to return, at which
point the Christian dead will arise and the living Christians will meet Jesus
in the air (4:13-18)

also, i love what Paul tells them to do. it's great advice for a good life.

also, look at the picture of what the early church was like. they didn't have
local "pastors," but rather, itinerant missionaries like Paul went around
converting local populations, and then those local populations remained faithful
to the message they received from the particular preacher.

you'll see how Paul is relieved that the Thessaloinans are still faithful to him
and have not accepted the message from another itinerant.

of course, this means that there must have been a variety of Christian
messages going around. what most of those are, we will probably never
know, since Paul became "official" and cannonized, and his interpretation
of Christianity is what has come down to us.

anyway... thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk about this stuff.
i almost never get the chance.