1st Book -- Is Jesus Enough?

nightwing4 · Sun Jan 30, 2011 3:44 pm

Hello
I have just released my first book "Is Jesus Enough?. It is available for the Kindle, Nook and IPad and I am waiting on the proof copy of the print version. Hopefully it will be in print by late February. In the book I ask 2 important questions: "Do you love Jesus for who He is or for what He has done for you?" and "If Jesus took everything away from you would He alone be enough?"
Join me in my journey as I share both my life and my learnings on these questions with you.

Chris OConnor · Sun Jan 30, 2011 5:29 pm

Do you address the question of whether or not Jesus ever really even existed?

lady of shallot · Sun Jan 30, 2011 8:23 pm

I wish you luck with your book, but I am an atheist and would not be interested in reading it.

As Chris says there is no historical proof of Jesus. So of course I don't love Jesus anymore than I love Santa Claus and "Jesus" who is non-existent could not take anything away from me. Do you place the blame on him for the hurricane in New Orleans and the tsunami's and the earthquakes and other such terrible destructive forces? I doubt very much that you do, so of course you would not think he would take everything away from you.

nightwing4 · Sun Jan 30, 2011 9:20 pm

I do not address the issue of His existence because more competent writers and theologians have dealt with that issue. A good reading of ancient historians such as Josephus,Tacitus,Suetonius, second century Greek satirist Lucian, and Syrian philosopher Mara Bar-Serapion is recommended. I write from my perspective, which is that He does exist and that He does demand the allegiance of those who would claim to follow Him. My book is primarily written for a particular audience, although it might surprise even those who would consider themselves atheist. As far as what has been taken from me ... you'll have to read the book

stahrwe · Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:43 am

Evangelicals are rare here but there are a few, well mostly just me. You will find that the company line is that all of the extra-Biblical mentions of Jesus were the result of a highly organized plot by the early church to insert proof of the mythical Jesus into secular material and so they reject the authors you mention as forgeries with respect to Jesus.

I find your premise very interesting. Of course Job immediately comes to mind and the question, in his place how would I have behaved.

nightwing4 · Mon Jan 31, 2011 2:53 pm

Thank you. Amazing how even enemies of the early church had their writings corrupted by them. I suppose anyone can rewrite history and find an audience. Mostly I find out here in the West that people simply reiterate old, tired arguements from others and haven't actually read source material first hand. Of Caesar's Gallic Wars, we have today only nine or ten good manuscripts, none copied earlier than 900 years after Caesar. For the Histories of Tacitus, we have only 4 of his 14 original books, none copied earlier than the 10th century A.D. For Aristotle's works, we possess only five manuscripts of any one volume, none copied earlier than A.D. 1100 (14 centuries after the original).
However, we possess today some 5,000 ancient Greek copies of the New Testament, and 10,000 copies in other ancient languages. Latin and Coptic copies go back to the second century; fragments of papyrus documents go back to AD 130. Quotations in the writings of early church fathers date to A.D. 100. Complete versions of the Gospels, Acts, Paul's letters and Hebrews date to the early part of the third century; Revelation to the latter half. Complete volumes of the New Testament date to the 4th century. Note that each predates Constantine.

Anyway thank you for your words of encouragement. Kindle and Nook sales have been good and the print copy comes out in a few weeks. Reviews have been positive so I know that the book is encouraging others. I hope you also have success with your writings

Interbane · Mon Jan 31, 2011 3:49 pm

Authenticity isn't measured by the number of copies made.

nightwing4 · Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:30 pm

The point was that we accept as authentic histories of which we have few copies and no way to verify the accuracy of those we have. Yet, to dismiss the accuracy of those which have many copies in different languages seems to me quite the double standard.

Interbane · Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:50 pm


	Quote: The point was that we accept as authentic histories of which we have few copies and no way to verify the accuracy of those we have. Yet, to dismiss the accuracy of those which have many copies in different languages seems to me quite the double standard.

There is a way to verify the accuracy of those other documents. Every day, I learn more of human nature, and of the way the world around me works. I do this through critical analysis and an impartial assessment of claims and observations. From all I've seen, many ancient documents accurately accord to the way the universe works. If one of them errantly claimed that all men on Earth had only evil thoughts, or that donkeys talked, it wouldn't accord with the way the universe works. Not to say it is then false, but I certainly need much more information if I am to believe something that is different from what I see every day.

There is enough evidence from the bible and other secular sources to say that a person named Jesus "may" have existed. We can also say some other biblical characters existed. We can also say that these characters did some of the things the bible claims they have done. In most of these cases, things accord with the way the universe works. I have no reason not to believe these things. However, there are parts that go far beyond the natural. Now, I'm not assuming such "supernatural" things don't happen. It is not an assumption. It is a conclusion, arrived at after having never seen a supernatural occurance. I wish I would, I consider myself a spiritual person. But I also will not succumb to wishful thinking and misinterpret a natural event for a supernatural one.

So to be quoteworthy, there is a double standard. One standard for ancient documents which accord with the way the universe works, and another standard for ancient documents which don't accord with the way the universe works. To satisfy the disparity in the double standard, you would need to show me that the bible actually does accord with the way the universe works. However, conveniently for your delusion, absolutely everything involved in your worldview is invisible or undetectable. Can you blame me for thinking you believe in a fantasy?

nightwing4 · Mon Jan 31, 2011 5:32 pm

No, I can't blame you. I can feel sorry for you and even pray for you but to cast blame isn't for me to do. Should your worldview fall apart, however, look me up and I'll be glad to share mine when you're receptive.

johnson1010 · Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:35 pm

I'm sure that is much appreciated.

And likewise, if your world view were to suddenly seize it's chest, keel over comically grabbing at the furniture, pulling down the blinds and sharting it's last gasps of credulous zeal, do look us up.

We would be glad to help you when you are more receptive.

Frank 013 · Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:39 pm


	Quote: nightwing4 The point was that we accept as authentic histories of which we have few copies and no way to verify the accuracy of those we have.

Actually those other stories are checked against other contemporary historical records, artifacts and geography (looking for battle sites and so forth). The reason that those other histories and people are considered authentic is because they check out… like those of say… Caesar’s and his journals… even though the gap between the original writing and the earliest transcript is vast… in short they are verified by multiple types of contemporary evidence.

The tales in the Bible have no outside historical documentation; no contemporary artifacts, no corroborating evidence of any kind … none at all… even where there should be, especially considering some of the events described… all we hear are excuses why there is no evidence to be had… no evidence is ever actually offered.

So no there is not actually a double standard… the Biblical claims are claims of faith… which is why faith is so valued by the church… because they know that there is no evidence behind their claims.

Later

lady of shallot · Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:54 pm


	nightwing4 wrote: No, I can't blame you. I can feel sorry for you and even pray for you but to cast blame isn't for me to do. Should your worldview fall apart, however, look me up and I'll be glad to share mine when you're receptive.

Not that it really matters but it would be nice if you religious people were not so condescending. You always act like we who do not have the "right" message are somehow deficient in understanding, intelligence and most of all experience and education. Much, much more likely Your world view will fall apart before ours does. I have yet to meet a dying person who, formerly in their lives, had declared strong religious convictions, care at all as their lives ended.

Chris OConnor · Mon Jan 31, 2011 9:22 pm


	Interbane wrote: So to be quoteworthy, there is a double standard. One standard for ancient documents which accord with the way the universe works, and another standard for ancient documents which don't accord with the way the universe works.

Extraordinary claims should require extraordinary proof.

nightwing4 · Mon Jan 31, 2011 9:36 pm

But one has to believe the proof given or at least believe the person claiming to have recieved that proof which leads one around in circles. In the end it comes down to faith in whatever belief system one has. I'll keep mine.

Forum rules

1st Book -- Is Jesus Enough? Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!