But if the revelation was about an atonement that never happened, what good is it? I think that if what you're suggesting could be proven, it would be time to close up shop. I'm not saying that would actually happen, you know how bureaucracies are. But this faith seems tied to specific historical events in a way that others aren't. In Islam, for example, Muhammad may have delivered the message, but he didn't (or at least, isn't supposed to have) done anything to write the message himself, so the message would be the same even if he had never lived.


On another note, anyone have any opinions on the fatwa declared against Don Imus, or see any resemblance between this and the cartoon riots? I'm not a fan of Imus in particular or shock jocks in general, but I see a certain absurdity in hiring a shock jock and then feigning surprise when he says something shocking.

For many christians the historical existance and crucifiction of jesus are absolutely critical to their belief. Whenever doubt is expressed about the possible absence of an actual historical jesus they respond very negatively. Look at responses to The DaVinci Code to see how strongly some groups defend their verson of the faith.

But various incarnations of this thread have also brought out folks, like me, who consider themselves christians but are not in the least disturbed by the possibility that jesus did not exist or that the bible is largely a work of fiction.

Yes, such possibilities require rethinking precisely what it is we believe but it does not require giving up christianity completely only certain particulars of the faith.

I completely agree with Petrosianic - if anyone could use historical evidence to show that the New Testament is a work of fiction then Christianity is fatally undermined. For me, it is totally linked with historical events which either did or did not happen.

1 Cor 15:14-19

And if Christ has not been raised, then empty (too) is our preaching; empty, too, your faith. Then we are also false witnesses to God, because we testified against God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, neither has Christ been raised, and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is vain; you are still in your sins. Then those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are the most pitiable people of all.

1 Cor 15:14-19 is St Paul's teaching against the heretical thought that Jesus lived and died and he was good and just but was not raised again. For the school of thought that Jesus never really existed even; there is 2 John:7-11

For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, but that we may receive a full reward. Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.

Does anyone know of any Old Testament passages equating the serpent in Genesis with Satan?

Plus, LimeFlavored we also have another passage from the Bible that reads as follows:

Chess Fan

Neither of those make direct reference to Genesis, although the use of the term "serpent" could be regarded as a metaphorical reference.

I really can't remember off the top of my head, i've read the OT (or should I say tanach. Hi Inky! ) but it's been a few years. When I get a chance later i'll see if I can find some references in the handy dandy bible commentary/concordance i've got hiding around here somewhere.

No, maybe not a DIRECT reference; but, in my opinion, the word "ancient" in front of the word "serpent" in the two Bible passages above make a strong case for the probability that the serpent that is described in those two Bible passages is the serpent from the Garden of Eden back in the book of Genesis.


Chess Fan

It's a dicey situation. On the one hand, general courtesy makes it desirable to call people what they want to be called. On the other hand, you can get situations where the mind rebels. Like if I said (theoretically) "Hey, I'm a liberal, but I voted for Reagan, both Bushes, think Rush Limbaugh is the bees knees, and Hillary Clinton is insane", you might not want to be rude and argue with me, but you're probably going to be thinking to yourself "Fella, you're no Liberal." (Or likewise, if someone defends the plausibility of theism by saying "Hey, I'm an atheist, and I believe in God", you're not gonna let 'em get away with that, are you?)


General usage of words can change, of course. Like, a century or so ago, it was common to use the word "Fundamentalist" to mean someone strongly opposed to drinking, smoking and swearing. You don't really hear it used like that any more, though. About that time, it was also sometimes in parlance to hear the word "Christian" used in a generic, non-religious way, to mean "a decent, fair-minded, honest sort of chap". That usage probably fell out of favor as a result of people asking "Hey, wait a minute, are you saying that Jews, Hindus, Muslims, et al aren't like that?"

The big question then is how exactly are we defining the word "Christian"? Are we simply using it in the old non-religious generic-term-of-approval sort of way, or are we using it as to describe a religious viewpoint? If we're using the word religiously, but the word can be used to describe someone who doesn't believe in Christ, the next question is what about his viewpoint (whatever it is) is specifically Christian?

If he says "Well, I believe in God", we run into the same sort of problem as in the earlier definition. Just as there are lots of non-Christians who are really nice guys, there are lots of non-Christians who believe in God. That, by itself isn't really enough to make one a Christian, unless Jews, Muslims, Deists, et cetera, are Christians.

In other words, let's approach this from the other direction. If we work on the assumption that all that business about Christ, death, resurrection, Trinity, Bible, et cetera is an optional extra, then what's the bare minimum that one has to believe in order to be a Christian? Belief in God alone doesn't seem to be enough to make the Minimum System Requirements. What more is necessary?