The main tenet of Christian doctrine?

Really ,

Really, Nonu?

Getting soooo tedious now .

You are right, jingl let it go. But nevertheless....

I get this thread muddled up with the John Rutter one!

dorset. I think. [shrug]

I think those of us who aren't christians, just regard the Jesus 'story' like any other fictional story, certainly not more than a legend based on a known fact or two which have been embroidered over the years – just like other legends and myths. One doesn't believe or disbelieve them, exactly, because belief doesn't come into it, just as it doesn't come into most fictional writing. Does one 'believe' a novel? Or does one just read it for the story?

'There are no Roman writings from the time...' Josephus (1st century AD) does refer a couple of times to Jesus. There is no reason why Roman writers should comment on a such a minor Jewish figure with a small following and no reason why Jewish sources, not followers, should comment either. On the question of logicality, why believe any of the story?

Bags I didn't know that jingl and Jo5 are one and the same - that explains all

Just as we don't know, and never will know, what other, even more ancient religious myths were really about. They are all myths, including the ones in the bible. People interpret them how they choose.

Lilygran said:

Joan I can't understand why you prefer your own version of the events described in the Gospels! There is absolutely no evidence of any kind for yours, and it is the lack of evidence for the official version that makes you doubt it. confused

There is no contemporary evidence of the life, death or resurrection of Christ: it was all written down decades later, so I go with the least illogical. As resurrection demands a belief in supernatural events, I'll go with more likely probabilities - he was cut down before death, his wounds were treated, and he recovered. There would have been a great deal of secrecy about his fate and whereabouts: he did have a death sentence after all.

The gospels do contradict each other in parts, which makes sense considering they were written long afterwards.

I take it all with a rather large pinch of salt, and go with the least illogical scenarios. What really happened, we'll never know.

Wow I thought that was a brilliant deduction and quote VQ why does God refuse to prove He exist ? or does He want us to see it through creeation?

Why doesn't God prove his existance? I think Douglas Adams summed it up...

^ "I refuse to prove that I exist", says God, "for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing." "But", says Man, "the Babel Fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It proves you exist, and so therefore you don't. QED." "Oh dear", says God, "I hadn't thought of that", and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. ^

GA I read all through your 'interesting' article in the middle of the night but the author lost me when he postulated that the disciples, being only fishermen and tax collectors, were too thick to come up with a fake resurrection. After all Jesus was 'only' a carpenter! I am afraid that I find it unbelievable that it is necessary to have a degree in Theology to interpret the basic tenets of a religion and even armed with that, when illogical bits crop up in the story, the fall back position is to say 'Ah, well, you must have faith'.

Surely the 'son of god' was capable of coming up with irrefutable evidence that he lived, died and was raised from the dead, something spectacular that would be recorded in history. Failing that a plain to see sign could have been sent later. I could not countenance wasting half my life looking for the 'truth' when I could be getting on with living it.

I may be mistaken, but I find it hard to believe you don't know jingle and jo5 are the same person.

Why not, dorset? People do have reasons for it.

Jingl who is that I wasn't referring to Jingl but to JO5- why the name change?

Belief in the resurrection is based on faith. If you have faith you believe, if you don't then you don't believe.

Apart from the Gospels, which are hearsay as they were not writen by people who were there but were only based on the words witnesses, there is no evidence of the resurrection either.

Same goes for VQ. Why should the witnesses lie? And how are you in a better position to determine the facts when you only have the version you don't agree with to speculate about?

Joan I can't understand why you prefer your own version of the events described in the Gospels! There is absolutely no evidence of any kind for yours, and it is the lack of evidence for the official version that makes you doubt it.

I don't know the truth about whether or not Jesus died on the cross but crucifixion was designed to terrorise the populous and humiliate and torture the victim so death could take a number of days. Jesus was crucified on a Friday. In ancient Judea no one could be crucified on the Sabbath which started at sunset on Friday evening. So it is possible that he was unconcious but still alive when he was cut down.

I'm not saying this is correct just giving another explanation as to how he might have appeared to come back to life.

I think the 'resurrected' Jesus WAS seen, but my own view remains that he did not die in the first place.

I hesitate to get embroiled in some of the debates about faith, simply because it's so easy to get the tone or nuance wrong, or because people have been hurt by the actions of Christians and may still feel wounded, or because I'm really rather more interested in what unites than separates us; but I do believe that if the resurrection didn't happen then the Christian faith is based on a completely false foundation.
Joan, I too have known people to study theology and lose their faith, but have also known others who have come to faith through studying theology. My own husband has studied extensively (and vicariously so have I) and not only has our faith been challenged and strengthened by what what we've learned, but our lifestyle has changed radically as a consequence. There is an interesting article about the resurrection here which pretty much sets out my own thoughts on the matter. (But using longer words and many more references than I could muster!! )

Don't worry, marthanne we all have problems and make mistakes in our postings, especially as there is no edit function once we've posted.

Regarding religious beliefs, I think you will find there are many non-believers on here, but by and large, we try to be kind to one another, while expressing our own views.

My own belief is that Jesus was a charismatic young Rabbi who probably lived and preached along the shores of Galilee, and may well have been executed by the Romans as a perceived trouble maker. Unfortunately there are no Roman writings from the time to back this up. I do not believe in the virgin birth nor the resurrection. I think there is a possibility Jesus' friends cut him down from the cross and hid him for a while, until his wounds healed. Many of his teachings are important and valuable, even to non-believers in his divinity.

I live in Queensland Australia, and used to attend the University of Queensland. I met some fellow students who were studying theology, and found out that the entire student body in that department ended up atheists, because of the academic research and rigorous study they were doing, about the historic facts. This is also why some high-up clerics desert the faith - their factual research becomes undeniable.

But I accept that faith helps many people cope with what life throws at them. I simply lost mine - tried various times to get it back, but now accept my atheism.