Christianity is not defined solely by the Bible

[sojourner]

Sorry, but you were not the inspiration for this particular blowfly. However, in the future, I will strive to include you in my little metaphors. I don't want to hurt any feelings.

Sorry, but I never implied that I thought I was. Was merely providing a funny response to a disturbing post, in an effort to generate some levity.

Somebody thought it was funny...

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That's simply not as problematic in an oral culture as it is for us. The information passed along was surprisingly (to us) accurate.

That’s a fine personal opinion. A mistaken one, but thanks for offering it.

So do you have any evidence for your claim? A series of recordings perhaps – showing that a story told orally 2,000 years ago had not changed by 1,900 years ago? If not that, what evidence do you have? Is it simply something your teachers told you?

You certainly seem to think highly of yourself and your biblical opinions, but you present nothing to back any of it up.

Goodness, I’ve really offended some of your sacred beliefs, haven’t I?

In my experience, no one jumps so quickly to insult as when his sacred beliefs have been challenged.

You come off as intelligent with regard to literary criticism, and yet you misuse terms such as "mythic," showing yourself to be nothing but a fraud.

How curious. I ask you for evidence that I misused the term, and you ignore that request while continuing to insist that I really and truly and truly and really-really did misuse the term. (Along with the obligatory insults, of course.) Pretty curious.

Here’s an idea: Why don’t you think of me as a professional? That may help your mental state when I probe your certainties. I don’t have an actual license to practice metaphysical medicine, but if you’ll think of me as The Proctologist of Holy Certainties, simply doing my job of probing your (somewhat soiled) sacred beliefs, it may make our relationship more comfortable for you. I mean, you don’t curse your doctor when he’s just doing his job, do you?

So what do you think? Good idea?

So far, all you've done is spout some strongly-stated opinion in such a manner as to present them as "fact," when it's nothing more than a poor attempt at hubris.

Attempt at hubris? I don’t mean to offend, but do you reckon you could calm yourself down at least enough to compose sensible insults?

So far, Blood's winning this debate hands down.

My heart, my heart. You break it into such pitiful pieces. I hope you intend to contribute to my counseling fundraiser. It will take some years for me to recover my self-esteem after such a savaging as you give me here.

More hubris.

As I say, I don’t like to be critical, but if you really love me – and for your own personal growth – shouldn’t you work to improve the quality of your insults? Words are such powerful tools. Think of them as colorful oils and this forum as your canvas. Use your words to create art. Love yourself enough not to fall into mere rote insult-writing. Love me. Love our audience. Insult me with flair and uniqueness. Put your whole self into it.

Please?

Since you're such an expert, and supposedly older than God's hemorrhoids...

Actually I’m not so old. I’ve just assumed that you are perhaps a college freshman, pushing yourself to sophomoric levels of debate, as when you delivered me that cute little lecture on ‘myth.’

(See what I mean? Put some thought into your insult-making. Respect our audience. If you must make them endure an insult-rant, at least entertain them as you do so. It’s the loving path, you know.)

To summarize this entire message: Why not drop the insult-rant and see if you can actually deal with me on the issues themselves? Life is short. God is watching. Behave yourself and try to be productive in your debates.

 

[outhouse]

If we look at resurrection in a historical context, specifically that of first century Palestine, in the specific context of Judaism; resurrection was believed to be something that would happen (at least among certain sects). It wasn't magical thinking, it was something that would happen.

Bud, you and I know they were not stupid and were intellegent people. yes they lived in a different time but you can only guess at how much the believed and the context of their delivery and the motivation for said material.

you cannot deny motivation and ressurection was mythical in nature


same for Paul, he had motive

A great recent example can be seen in David Blaine's TV special

except jesus wasnt pulling tricks or magic in front of anyone

no eyewitnesses wrote a word about the man, because he wasnt doing magic.

if he had pulled a real trick off he would have been noted and a scibe would have gathered and his percieved magic would have been written about and recorded right then and there. his popularity would have exploded had he done 1 magic trick opr so called miracle.

but we dont find a sentence about him in that time because as you say he was part of a small unknown group. unknown for a reason, he was not a "star" of the time

There is no reason to assume that the Gospel writers did not believe those magical occurrences happened, or could happen.

just the strong evidence of no evidence as noted above.

I understand your point, I also understand deitys and wild claims popped up on every corner and they went unoticed. Again they were not as stupid as you think or they would not be able to write such a indepth collection of books with some brilliant writing.

 

[fallingblood]

Bud, you and I know they were not stupid and were intellegent people. yes they lived in a different time but you can only guess at how much the believed and the context of their delivery and the motivation for said material.

you cannot deny motivation and ressurection was mythical in nature


same for Paul, he had motive

Believing in resurrection doesn't make a person dumb. Today, many intelligent people believe that it is possible. I have read various NT scholars, who are very intelligent, who still believe that the resurrection is possible. It is a faith thing.

You can even go to some more primitive cultures, and the idea of resurrection exists there as well. Various "god-men" in India have, from time to time, been said to be able to raise the dead.

And as far as we know, first century Pharisees (as well as other Jewish groups) believed in resurrection. We can read Paul, and see that he argued that resurrection does occur. And the people who I Corinthians was written to obviously believed the the resurrection was possible.

All of this information converges on one idea; people believed that the resurrection was possible. Thus, there is little reason to assume that Paul was writing fiction when he described the resurrection, and no reason to assume the Gospel writers were writing fiction. The evidence points to the idea that they believed that the resurrection was possible, and in fact had happened.

except jesus wasnt pulling tricks or magic in front of anyone

no eyewitnesses wrote a word about the man, because he wasnt doing magic.

if he had pulled a real trick off he would have been noted and a scibe would have gathered and his percieved magic would have been written about and recorded right then and there. his popularity would have exploded had he done 1 magic trick opr so called miracle.

but we dont find a sentence about him in that time because as you say he was part of a small unknown group. unknown for a reason, he was not a "star" of the time

That isn't true. Josephus writes of various miracle workers who were never mentioned by contemporaries. The NT even writes about supposed magicians, after the fact. We have later accounts of people such of Apollonius of Tyana, were considered to have done miracles, but were not written to after the fact. We have various accounts of miracle workers, but only after the fact.

Being a miracle worker was not unique. It did not mean that one would have a great following. Here is a simple question though. Have you heard of any miracle worker from India? I would assume not. However, in India (I used India simply because that is where I have done my research) there are various miracle workers. There are people who are considered gods. Yet, we have never heard of them. Why? Because their importance does not expand past a certain group.

A better comparison even. Have you heard of Banachek? He is an American mentalist who was fooled scientists into believing that he had supernatural powers. This was big news, at one point; however, few actually remember it now, and even more never heard about it. Why? Because for them it wasn't important. For others, they just were not aware of it because they were busy with other things. In fact, even today, in America, we have various so called miracle workers. Yet, many people have never heard of them, and fewer follow them. And we are now in a digital age in which this information is spread extremely fast.

Now, in the time of Jesus, information was spread much slower. They still have various miracle workers running around (we know this from different sources such as Josephus), yet just as today, many never heard of them, and many who did, simply didn't care. They were too busy with their own lives. Those who did care, for the most part, couldn't write anyway (in the case of Jesus, we are told that he primarily went to peasants, the poor. This group generally were illiterate).

As for scribes, even if they heard about such stories, they had no reason to write them down. Jesus wasn't the only so called miracle worker. He was just one more, and scribes, for the most part, didn't need to be bothered by some lowly "miracle" worker.

As for being a star, we can look at the so called "Egyptian" who is mentioned in Josephus, as well as in Acts. We are told that he had a very large following, numbering in the thousands. Yet, we only have an account of him after the fact. Josephus actually mentions various large time miracle workers, as well as other religious leaders during the first century. However, no scribes ever wrote about them (or at least we don't have records of them). Even more, Josephus is our sole writer about the first Jewish revolt (at least from that time period). Yet even there, he didn't write about it until quite some time after wards. And that was a huge event.

Just because it wasn't written about by others (or because we don't have those records), really means little in this case. We are talking about an oral culture, where few could read, and less could even write.

Just as a side note, there is no reason to think that doing one miracle would have made the popularity of Jesus explode. Especially when there were other miracle workers during that time, who we know even less about.

just the strong evidence of no evidence as noted above.

I understand your point, I also understand deitys and wild claims popped up on every corner and they went unoticed. Again they were not as stupid as you think or they would not be able to write such a indepth collection of books with some brilliant writing.

I don't think they are stupid. Thinking that resurrection is possible does not make one stupid. It makes them a product of their culture. Paul obviously thought that resurrection was possible. He argues in his letters that the resurrection did in fact happen. He was a Pharisee (or at one point was), and they believed that the resurrection was possible. That doesn't make them stupid. It means that they have faith in an idea.

 

[Pegg]

it's really not a matter of proving it's a matter of probability of it ever happening....

mark 16:17
And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

i don't see these things happening either...

if the probability of those things happening are so small you doubt they happened, what do you say about the probability that life and the universe, with all its laws, could have happened without intervention?

 

[outhouse]

Believing in resurrection doesn't make a person dumb. Today, many intelligent people believe that it is possible. I have read various NT scholars, who are very intelligent, who still believe that the resurrection is possible. It is a faith thing.

we have faith ingrained since birth, they however did not.

makes a huge difference.

also many take that how we believe is how they believe. Im certain our context is no where near theirs.

We can read Paul

I dont think paul could ever be trusted, ive been told he would roll over in his grave if he knew how his letters would end up.

you can package the unknown all you like, that doesnt make the authors astute historians with %100 conviction.

We have various accounts of miracle workers, but only after the fact

but do you know if they ever performed magic or was it a fictional account???

we know miracles are exaggerated or if not, made up events.

no matter how you try and I believe the burden is on you to prove they believed not just one sentance. But all the gospels.

And I do thank you for sharing your time with me. I am learning.

Have you heard of any miracle worker from India?

Oh yes

still fooling people to this day and think he's a deity.

Have you heard of Banachek?

nope.

Just because it wasn't written about by others (or because we don't have those records), really means little in this case

point noted

miracle workers during that time

what do said miracle workers do as far as their miracles.???

because many of jesus said miracles seem more like fiction then a parlor trick or an exaggerated healing. The healing I could understand. Some of the other material they report to me is made up to sensationalize the story.

Paul obviously thought that resurrection was possible

take paul, did he dream up the vision of AD jesus? heres a guy that cant be trusted and I would say it was not a dream or heat stroke but a made up fictional account to give himself credibility.

For me pual is a guy who saw the opening to take control of the movement and ran with it all the way into history

He argues in his letters that the resurrection did in fact happen

all the more reason for him to not be trusted

It means that they have faith in an idea

faith was sold back then, it was not ingrained in society yet. They offered a way for common poor men to have a afterlife reserved for deitys kings only pharohs. But only if they sucked up the fiction without question and of course, led a good moral life.

Its brilliant work of epic porportions that has lasted thousands of years. Amazing really. [not that it lasted, the work itself]

 

[Kathryn]

Breaking news - it's official - FallingBlood wins the match!

A side note. Ambiguous Guy, I think the correct phrase would be "gadfly," not "blowfly." I mean, you may be talking about

blowfly [ˈbləʊˌflaɪ]
n pl -flies (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Animals) any of various dipterous flies of the genus Calliphora and related genera that lay their eggs in rotting meat, dung, carrion, and open wounds: family Calliphoridae Also called bluebottle.

But you probably really meant:

gad·fly (g

d

fl

) n. 1. A persistent irritating critic; a nuisance.
2. One that acts as a provocative stimulus; a goad.
3. Any of various flies, especially of the family Tabanidae, that bite or annoy livestock and other animals.

I'm sure you'd say that either applies, but generally the term "gadfly" is used in the context which you used the word "blowfly."

If you meant "blowfly" you must be referring to yourself as the dung or rotting carrion, so I believe you must mean "gadfly."

Think about it - and then mentally thank me the next time you use the term "gadfly" correctly.

Glad to be of service!

 

[Caladan]

My argument is that Christianity is not defined solely by the Bible. That in fact, a Christian never even has to have read the Bible in order to be a Christian. That a Christian can still be a Christian even though they may pick and choose what they believe in the Bible, because it is not a demand that they follow the Bible to the T.

My evidence: When Christianity first began, there was not a such thing as a Bible. When Paul was preaching his message, the New Testament had just began loosely forming in the aspect that he was writing letters (which were not scripture). Even the OT canon was not closed until after Paul was dead. And during the time of Paul, different groups subscribed to different works of Hebrew scripture.

The Christian canon was not even fully closed until many centuries later. The canon had not even started to be put together until around a century later. This means the the first Christians did not have a Bible. They may have had works that they believed to be scripture, but various groups subscribed to different scripture. Even today, we see various scripture being held above others.

So obviously something else defined individuals who claimed to be Christians. And the same is true for today. A Bible does not define who a Christian is or what they believe. Just because it is in the Bible, does not mean that a Christian must follow it, or has to be defined by it. I think this has to be understood.

Too many people criticize Christians because they "pick and choose" what they want to believe. However, they have every right to do so as they are not defined by the Bible. Christianity evolved without the Bible. It began without the Bible. And for centuries, it existed without the Bible. In fact, for the vast majority of the history of Christianity, the vast majority of Christians have not had the chance to even read the Bible.

Christianity has never finished defining itself. it went from a sect in the Judean province, one hour drive from where I am currently at, to a sect in other provinces in the Roman state. it later went on to become a state religion, became divided into the christianity of Rome and the christianity of Byzantium, it has expanded, has been conquered and has conquered others, has existed through political turbulence and engaged political systems ranging from a feudal system of middle ages europe, to surviving the age of enlightenment in the 18th century.
if any single christian can define a christianity to me. I am all ears. armed with my scriptures, my hammer and nails.

 

[mohammed_beiruti]

Jesus was speaking about the good news. Gospel means good news.

well, thanx for answering.

please another question, what is the genuine word for "Good news"

is it "Enjeel"?

have you heard this word before?

on the other hand, does that means that the covenant was brooken by "jews", therefore a new kingdom of God will be given to "another nation".

Mat 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof

another nation necessarily means "Gentiles",right?.

I am not an expert, I am just asking .

 

[Wombat]

Believing in resurrection doesn't make a person dumb. Today, many intelligent people believe that it is possible.

That's true....there are also many intelligent people who believe that when humans are struggling to convey a deep emotional/spiritual truth they tend to resort to metaphor, analogy, poetry.....and that "resurrection" may well be a case in point.

Please consider...If there is an omnipotent God whos messanger has been
crucified then "resurrection", raising that body up, is from the perspective of the true believer- no biggie. God has command over the material universe and physical 'resurrection' is well within the ability of the omnipotent.
Is there any realm/aspect that God has relinquished control/authority to command over?
The hearts of humanity. Free will. No compulsion to believe in God.
So what would be the greater miracle?
God raising a dead body to life?
Or a religious movement that had been crucified, crushed, denied by its few scattering believers...all over, dead..........and then 'resurrected' and brought back to life by the faith of one/two believers in the message?
That's a miracle.......and from my perspective the greatest resurrection of all.

 

[jtartar]

My argument is that Christianity is not defined solely by the Bible. That in fact, a Christian never even has to have read the Bible in order to be a Christian. That a Christian can still be a Christian even though they may pick and choose what they believe in the Bible, because it is not a demand that they follow the Bible to the T.

My evidence: When Christianity first began, there was not a such thing as a Bible. When Paul was preaching his message, the New Testament had just began loosely forming in the aspect that he was writing letters (which were not scripture). Even the OT canon was not closed until after Paul was dead. And during the time of Paul, different groups subscribed to different works of Hebrew scripture.

The Christian canon was not even fully closed until many centuries later. The canon had not even started to be put together until around a century later. This means the the first Christians did not have a Bible. They may have had works that they believed to be scripture, but various groups subscribed to different scripture. Even today, we see various scripture being held above others.

So obviously something else defined individuals who claimed to be Christians. And the same is true for today. A Bible does not define who a Christian is or what they believe. Just because it is in the Bible, does not mean that a Christian must follow it, or has to be defined by it. I think this has to be understood.

Too many people criticize Christians because they "pick and choose" what they want to believe. However, they have every right to do so as they are not defined by the Bible. Christianity evolved without the Bible. It began without the Bible. And for centuries, it existed without the Bible. In fact, for the vast majority of the history of Christianity, the vast majority of Christians have not had the chance to even read the Bible.

fallingblood,
You are correct, for there are two ways a Christian learns about God and principles of Christianity, NATURAL RELIGION and REVEALED RELIGION.
By looking at the wonderful way God created or planet, and mankind, we understand what a Great God, Jehovah, the Almighty Creator of Heaven and Earth is.
God did not have to make a beautiful blue sky for us, snd such diversity of life for our enjoyment. He could have even made our eyes to see only black and white and shades of these. What good is music to God?? He could have made us to eat the same thing for just our sustenance, but He has made millions of things for our enjoyment.
David recognized the wonderful way God created man, Ps 139:13-16.
Any reasonable person can see that God is a loving God and Father who enjoys giving and making His creation happy. The fact is God says that it is inexcusable not to recognize His righteousness, and His invisible qualities, by His creation, Rom 1:16-20.
Then there is His REVEALED RELIGION, is His WORD, The Bible. In the Bible there is revealed many things about God and life, about ourselves, that we could never know by just looking at creation.
In His word, He reveals that He, just like almost everything, He had a PERSONAL NAME. In Hebrew it was YHWH, or JHVH. Hebrew is a consonontal language, not having vowels only Consonants. Hebrew people knew the right sounds to put in place as they read. In time many words lost their correct pronunciation, because of being forgotten over time, not being written down. Today, the most recognized pronunciation of god's name in English, is JEHOVAH. This pronunciation has been known for centuries, and has been put on many old edifices and also many ancient and relatively modern coins.
Without the Bible we would not have known about our creation, and we would not know why we die, Gen 1:26-28, 2:7, 2:17, 3:1-13, 3:17-19. We would not know what our future is, and how we can get back into God's good graces, John 3:16, Matt 20:28.
We would never have known that God has decided to give to everyone who has faith in His son and his sacrifice will, in time receive the same blessings that Adam and Eve could have received if they had not rebelled against God and chosen Satan to be their leader, Rom 5:6-12, 18,19.
We would never know that these troublesome times are near to their end, about the Great Judgement Day of one thousand years,after which all living mankind will gain everlasting life on a paradise earth, Rev 21:3,4, 20:12-15, 2Pet 3:13.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I'm sure you'd say that either applies, but generally the term "gadfly" is used in the context which you used the word "blowfly."

If you meant "blowfly" you must be referring to yourself as the dung or rotting carrion, so I believe you must mean "gadfly."

Thanks for making the suggestion, Kathryn. I love language and never mind being corrected.

But in this case, I did mean blowfly. Gadflies are my favorite animals. I've considerd using Gadfly as my forum name but figured that would look too much like hubris.

A blowfly, on the other hand, is like a vulture. He soars around high above the battle, pointing down and discussing with his buddies which soldier is beginning to stink. It's why I referred to myself as having been judged as rancid by the blowfly in question.

But thanks again for making the suggestion.

 

[fallingblood]

we have faith ingrained since birth, they however did not.

makes a huge difference.

also many take that how we believe is how they believe. Im certain our context is no where near theirs.

Who says they did not have faith ingrained since birth? So they all just decided to believe in God without any influence? I would say that their faith was also ingrained from very early on. And one of the beliefs of various sects was that resurrection was possible. The OT even talks about resurrection. So it is not unlikely that they were raised with a faith that resurrection was possible.

I dont think paul could ever be trusted, ive been told he would roll over in his grave if he knew how his letters would end up.

you can package the unknown all you like, that doesnt make the authors astute historians with %100 conviction.

You can't just dismiss Paul like that. He was an important figure in the movement, and he did reveal to us some of the beliefs of the early movement. He obviously believed in the resurrection, as did the church to which he was writing to. That is quite clear in his letter.

but do you know if they ever performed magic or was it a fictional account???

we know miracles are exaggerated or if not, made up events.

no matter how you try and I believe the burden is on you to prove they believed not just one sentance. But all the gospels.

And I do thank you for sharing your time with me. I am learning.

The first account of a magician (that we currently know of) is a magician by the name Djedi from Egypt. There is little doubt that the account is authentic. The effect that is described was made to look like real magic; however, modern magicians perform similar effects. The belief though was that Djedi was truly a magician.

Moving forward, we see in the Hebrew scripture the belief of magic. The story of Moses is a great example.

What this shows is that there was a belief that magic was possible. We go through the centuries, and we can see signs that people believed magic was real (even up to our current time).

There is little reason to assume that all of this magic was just fictional accounts, especially when so much time and effort was put into the "art" of magic (I mean the creation of spells, the various rituals, etc). And since the idea was that magic was real, the accounts of magicians makes sense.

Magicians have existed from the earliest times of civilization. They exist today as well (when I say magicians, I mean those who claim to be able to do real magic). In my opinion, there are always logical explanations for these miracles, and for the magic; however, just as today, people believed it was real.

what do said miracle workers do as far as their miracles.???

because many of jesus said miracles seem more like fiction then a parlor trick or an exaggerated healing. The healing I could understand. Some of the other material they report to me is made up to sensationalize the story.

Sensational stories follow magicians. As stories are passed down, new ones are formed. Others are exaggerated. Other stories are pushed together, and then created to have some magic in them.

The actual miracle, or anything similar to it, did not have to happen. That doesn't keep people from believing that it happened. If Jesus was seen as a miracle worker, there would have been some additional stories that would form and be attached to him.

We see the same things occurring today. Take the Indian rope trick. This is an effect that has never been performed as it is accounted. The effect is that an Indian (someone from India), plays a little turn, and a rope rises out of a basket. A little child crawls up that rope, which is disappearing into the clouds. The magician crawls up the rope after the child, while carrying a large knife. The Magician disappears beyond the clouds, and all of a sudden, the audience sees bloody body parts falling from the sky. The magician crawls down the rope, place the body parts in a basket, and the child is seen restored.

Again, this trick has never been seen. However, during the late 1800's and early 1900's, countless professional magicians (illusionists) traveled to India and tried to figure out how the effect was done. There was even rewards for anyone who could reproduce this trick. No one ever has been able to (illusionists did find ways to reproduce it in theaters, but that is very different from the open ares that the Indian magicians supposedly perform this). Yet, the idea that this trick exists still prevails. Why? No one has been able to actually produce such a miracle, yet there are those people who believe they have seen this done.

I use this effect specifically because it occurred in a more primitive culture (not saying India is a primitive culture; however, there are parts of India that are away from the modern country). It primarily occurs in more of an oral culture (again, India isn't an oral culture as a whole, but there are sections, away from the modern cities, that are still in an older time). So even though it is not exactly the same as the first century Palestine, there are various similarities, primarily the oral culture of the area.

take paul, did he dream up the vision of AD jesus? heres a guy that cant be trusted and I would say it was not a dream or heat stroke but a made up fictional account to give himself credibility.

For me pual is a guy who saw the opening to take control of the movement and ran with it all the way into history

So he made up a vision, to gain credibility among a group he had previously persecuted? There is something missing there. And he never took control of the movement anyway. The Jerusalem church (with James, Peter, and John), was the leader of the movement. Paul knew this.

And one can not just dismiss Paul. He had a conviction. More so, he believed the end was near. His primary goal wasn't for power, it was to spread the message.

all the more reason for him to not be trusted

Because he believed something you didn't? There is no reason to doubt that he believed in the resurrection. He was a Pharisee. The Pharisees had a belief in resurrection.

faith was sold back then, it was not ingrained in society yet. They offered a way for common poor men to have a afterlife reserved for deitys kings only pharohs. But only if they sucked up the fiction without question and of course, led a good moral life.

Its brilliant work of epic porportions that has lasted thousands of years. Amazing really. [not that it lasted, the work itself]

Faith wasn't sold. The Jews had faith in their beliefs. They had faith in their God. Pagans had faith in various gods. Faith was ingrained in society.

As for offering an afterlife, various other groups did so as well. The Christians were not unique in their beliefs. They borrowed much of it from the Jews.

 

[waitasec]

if the probability of those things happening are so small you doubt they happened, what do you say about the probability that life and the universe, with all its laws, could have happened without intervention?

stay on target pegg...
there are plenty of other threads we can discuss the origins of the universe.

from what i know for myself, and i'm sure i am not alone (in fact it is very probable i'm not ), these signs do not happen like jesus said it would...that is the reality of it. that is what we empirically experience, hands down.

and i find it interesting that when hands are laid on sick people and they are not healed, it is understood it has to do with the sick persons lack of faith, when the act is supposed to be a sign to give reason to have faith...

 

[sojourner]

what evidence do you have? Is it simply something your teachers told you?

My "teachers" happen to be some of the preeminent Bible, cultural and oral communication scholars working today, thanks. Their "word" and "opinions" are good enough for the scholastic community, and certainly count for more than your (by camparison) uninformed opinions do.

Goodness, I’ve really offended some of your sacred beliefs, haven’t I?

In my experience, no one jumps so quickly to insult as when his sacred beliefs have been challenged.

In my experience, no one jumps so quickly to play head games as when he has not a leg to stand on.

Here’s an idea: Why don’t you think of me as a professional? That may help your mental state when I probe your certainties. I don’t have an actual license to practice metaphysical medicine, but if you’ll think of me as The Proctologist of Holy Certainties, simply doing my job of probing your (somewhat soiled) sacred beliefs, it may make our relationship more comfortable for you. I mean, you don’t curse your doctor when he’s just doing his job, do you?

Here's an idea: Doctors are licensed to practice and have earned the title "doctor."

If bona fide credentials were to be presented that some here are what they advertise themselves to be, I'll be satisified that someone hasn't helped himself uninvited to my religious backside just to violate me for some sense of personal satisfaction.
So what do you think? Good idea?

I don’t mean to offend

BZZZZT! Thanks for playing.

My heart, my heart. You break it into such pitiful pieces. I hope you intend to contribute to my counseling fundraiser. It will take some years for me to recover my self-esteem after such a savaging as you give me here.

Everyone's a comedian. I wouldn't quit my day job though.

As I say, I don’t like to be critical, but if you really love me – and for your own personal growth – shouldn’t you work to improve the quality of your insults? Words are such powerful tools. Think of them as colorful oils and this forum as your canvas. Use your words to create art. Love yourself enough not to fall into mere rote insult-writing. Love me. Love our audience. Insult me with flair and uniqueness. Put your whole self into it.

Please?

And yet some here are just using it as a virtual highway overpass to spray paint pointless graffiti that does nothing except sully the landscape with two-dimensional "billboards" advertising their own pitiful, overfocused worlds...

Actually I’m not so old. I’ve just assumed that you are perhaps a college freshman, pushing yourself to sophomoric levels of debate, as when you delivered me that cute little lecture on ‘myth.’

(See what I mean? Put some thought into your insult-making. Respect our audience. If you must make them endure an insult-rant, at least entertain them as you do so. It’s the loving path, you know.)

Oh, I see! You're feeling embarrassed at having gotten caught with your academic pants down, and are, therefore resorting to any means possible to redeem yourself at my expense. You know what happens when you assume. You also should know what happens when you project. That's all I have to say about that...

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That is where I pointed out the lack in your argument. I have pointed it out several other times, but the link I provided shows my post in which I broke it down for you

OK. In return, I direct you to every message in this thread from me to you. In all those messages, I pointed out the lack in your arguments, breaking them down for you.

But I’m not sure why it seems so important to assert our victories. I don’t even believe in such a thing as debate victory. Truth can’t be proven to the universe, can it? It can only be proven to individual human minds. A declaration of victory doesn’t convince one’s opponent. It doesn’t convince the lurkers. So why might a debater be driven to assert over and over again his own victory? Who is he trying to convince?

Curious question, I think.

Until you actually read the information, and offer a logical rebuttal, I will not respond to anymore of your comments about the god-man idea. As it stands, it has been successfully refuted.

I’ve read various arguments and essays on the Jesus-as-godman business. And every one of those articles has debunked the idea that Jesus should be seen as anything other than a godman.

If you’d like to convince me otherwise, I’d like to hear your arguments, but I’m not interested in reading another essay on the subject.

As for why there are so many gospels. Why are their so many books about Harry Houdini? Why are there so many books about Ghandi? Figures you are deemed important by people have a lot written about them. And most of these accounts are written long after the event, by people who never knew the person.

Good point. I would say that there’s a strong disjoint between the two cases. No one writes theology about Gandhi or Houdini. And if you read the bios of those two men, you won’t find the sort of wild disagreements over the events of their lives as you find with Jesus. (I’m including here all the non-canonical gospels.) Modern biographers do research. Jesus biographers couldn’t and didn’t, since there are no records of his life other than, well... previous gospels.

But think about a fictional character like Dracula. The first elements of his story are established by the first novel. From there, other fictionalists embellish as they rewrite. They take Dracula and put him in new places, new situations. To me, that’s how the Jesus stories seem... except most of it is theological variation.

And since different people are writing the books, different ideas come in. All you described here is what we see with many important figures. There are still many different books coming out about Abraham Lincoln. That doesn't mean he didn't exist. Just that people thought he was important.

If Lincoln books varied as wildly as do the gospels, and if they were filled with magical claims and theology, then I would tend to believe that either Lincoln never existed or else that I was living in an insane culture in which historical truth was unimportant.

Augustus actually did catch on. And then after Augustus, there were the subsequent emperors.

I don’t know what you mean. We were talking about Great Salvation Heroes, weren’t we? Godmen. And Augustus did not catch on as one of those, did he?

Jesus was not a successful hero. He was just one more failed Messiah, and the Jews had an abundance of them.

Jesus is a failed messiah? If you look around the world we inhabit, I think you might find otherwise. There’s a Bible everywhere we look. It contains the Jesus Story. People take it seriously. People go to church en masse every chance they get.

Jesus is a failed messiah? If so, I hope we never encounter a successful one.

If the stories of Jesus are fiction, then it would seem as if you are arguing that Jesus is fiction. However, there is no reason to create a figure like Jesus if you understand the background.

I’m sorry, but I still really don’t know what you’re talking about. As I said earlier, there is every reason for humans to create Heroes. It seems to be an innate lust within the human heart. Especially a hero who explains why we are here and promises us ultimate justice and everlasting life.

Jesus was born a Jew. The earliest followers of his movement were Jews. Even after his death, his followers were Jews. Now, why would Jews create a failed Messiah?

No idea what you are asking. The Jews did not create a failed messiah in Jesus. They created the most successful messiah in human history... if we go by the raw number of his believers.

Really, I just can’t understand your argument here. I’m lost.

Now, being that the earliest followers of this movement were Jews, why would they create a fictional character called Jesus, who fails so much at being the Messiah?

He didn’t fail. Look around.

If you’re arguing that Jesus didn’t wind up looking like an actual Jewish messiah, I’d agree with that. The godmen gospel-writers won out. It’s just too sexy – that godman business. Compelling. So compelling that a tiny group of Jews – seduced by those hero features – were able to win out over more traditional Jewish thinkers.

Why would they create a story that simply is not needed for them, as it does not show that their supposed Great Hero was a great hero?

I have no idea what you mean. To my ears, it’s as if you’re insisting that the moon is not round -- therefore why did early astronomers instruct us that the moon is round.

Jesus is the greatest Hero every created by the human mind, isn’t he?

Jesus was not a successful Messiah. He failed as soon as he died. And Jews in the first century were aware of this.

No, not if Jesus was a fictional character.

For many people, a Great Hero was not needed (which really weakens your point as well. If people don't need a Great Hero, there is no reason to create one.

Early in our debate, you asked me why I disagreed with mainstream scholarship on the question of Jesus. I replied that one reason I disagree with them is that many biblical scholars seem to misunderstand human psychology.

If you believe that humans do not lust after Great Heroes, I think that you yourself may misunderstand the human heart.

Just my opinion, of course.

 

[fallingblood]

OK. In return, I direct you to every message in this thread from me to you. In all those messages, I pointed out the lack in your arguments, breaking them down for you.

Not really an argument. You stated that I hadn't pointed out where your argument lacks. I supplied a link to where I had pointed out where your argument lacks. You have yet to offer a rebuttal to my argument.

I didn't ask you to search this thread, I gave you a specific link to a post. You can either offer a rebuttal, or just leave it alone. It's your choice. However, if you continue to make your assertion, without backing it up, you are just making a baseless assumption that really is supported by nothing.

I’ve read various arguments and essays on the Jesus-as-godman business. And every one of those articles has debunked the idea that Jesus should be seen as anything other than a godman.

If you’d like to convince me otherwise, I’d like to hear your arguments, but I’m not interested in reading another essay on the subject.

I provided you two links in which I offer my argument. If you want to hear my argument, look at those links. We can even continue this discussion, if you want, in one of those threads. However, since I have already gone through the trouble of making my argument clear, I see no point to do so once again here.

If it works better for you, you can also start a new thread and present your evidence that Jesus is a god-man. I will be happy to offer a rebuttal to your specific points. However, for this particular discussion, I have given links to my arguments that Jesus is not a god-man. If you don't want to make an effort to read them, that is your prerogative. However, you might as well drop the idea then.

Good point. I would say that there’s a strong disjoint between the two cases. No one writes theology about Gandhi or Houdini. And if you read the bios of those two men, you won’t find the sort of wild disagreements over the events of their lives as you find with Jesus. (I’m including here all the non-canonical gospels.) Modern biographers do research. Jesus biographers couldn’t and didn’t, since there are no records of his life other than, well... previous gospels.

But think about a fictional character like Dracula. The first elements of his story are established by the first novel. From there, other factionalists embellish as they rewrite. They take Dracula and put him in new places, new situations. To me, that’s how the Jesus stories seem... except most of it is theological variation.

There were other sources beside previous Gospels for writers to base their ideas on. Again, we are talking about an oral culture, with a prevalent oral tradition. Luke tells us specifically that he utilized both previous written accounts, as well as oral accounts.

More so, you can't write off the Gospels simply as theology, as they are not. However, if we would assume they are theology, then you would have to admit that they are nonfiction, as theology is nonfiction.

Also, there is a huge difference between Dracula, and Jesus. Jesus is always in the same place and time. The gist is always the same.

If Lincoln books varied as wildly as do the gospels, and if they were filled with magical claims and theology, then I would tend to believe that either Lincoln never existed or else that I was living in an insane culture in which historical truth was unimportant.

And here is the problem. You refuse to recognize that the Gospels are a product of an oral culture, in the first century Palestine. Here, I will give an example of a historical figure from that time. Augustus. Read some of the ancient sources on Augustus. You will see widely varying ideas. Alexander the Great is even a better case. Or even a better case is Apollonius of Tyana. All three are accepted historical figures who had divergent writing about them that contain magical claims, miracles, and sometimes theology.

I don’t know what you mean. We were talking about Great Salvation Heroes, weren’t we? Godmen. And Augustus did not catch on as one of those, did he?

Augustus was called the savior. He was considered a god by some, the son of god. He was a great Hero. We even have the cult of the Emperor emerging. Yes, he did catch on.

Jesus is a failed messiah? If you look around the world we inhabit, I think you might find otherwise. There’s a Bible everywhere we look. It contains the Jesus Story. People take it seriously. People go to church en masse every chance they get.

Jesus is a failed messiah? If so, I hope we never encounter a successful one.

You need to understand what the Messiah is. The Messiah is a Jewish idea. If you look at what was expected of the Messiah, Jesus simply does not fulfill those expectations. So yes, Jesus is a failed Messiah.

Jesus, later on, becomes a very successful Christian Messiah; however, that is a new term, and we can't retroject that idea onto the idea of the Jewish Messiah during the first century.

I’m sorry, but I still really don’t know what you’re talking about. As I said earlier, there is every reason for humans to create Heroes. It seems to be an innate lust within the human heart. Especially a hero who explains why we are here and promises us ultimate justice and everlasting life.

Take what I said in context. By taking just one statement, and separating it from the explanation, simply doesn't work.

No idea what you are asking. The Jews did not create a failed messiah in Jesus. They created the most successful messiah in human history... if we go by the raw number of his believers.

You need to have an understanding of what the Jewish Messiah is. If you did, you would see that Jesus in fact was a failure as the Messiah, as he never fulfilled the expectations. He is not a successful Messiah, unless you create a new term: the Christian Messiah. However, then you have to also realize that such an idea, the Christian Messiah, did not originate until after Jesus was dead.

So again, with an understanding of the Jewish Messiah (one who Jesus never fulfills the expectations of), why would the Jews create a failed messiah when all they had to do was pick any one of the various Messianic claimants?

Really, I just can’t understand your argument here. I’m lost.

He didn’t fail. Look around.

If you’re arguing that Jesus didn’t wind up looking like an actual Jewish messiah, I’d agree with that. The godmen gospel-writers won out. It’s just too sexy – that godman business. Compelling. So compelling that a tiny group of Jews – seduced by those hero features – were able to win out over more traditional Jewish thinkers.

My argument is not complicated. Jesus did not fulfill Messianic prophecy. He is a failed Messiah. It is quite simple.

As for the godman business, you have never shown why we should believe that Jesus was a godman. Thus, your point is moot. If you want to make such an argument, provide some evidence. I have already provided you my arguments against such an idea.

Also, Paul came before the Gospels. He never calls Jesus a godman, and gives us no reason to think of him as such.

I have no idea what you mean. To my ears, it’s as if you’re insisting that the moon is not round -- therefore why did early astronomers instruct us that the moon is round.

Jesus is the greatest Hero every created by the human mind, isn’t he?

Not for a vast amount of the society. Especially when there was no need for such a hero. Again, the Jews could have picked any number of religious figures from that time. Greeks could have looked to the Emperor, or a number of already formed heros.

And if you read Paul, Jesus does not come out as a great hero, at least not the type you imply.

You can't use modern times, and pretend that has anything to do with first century Palestine. You continue to retroject modern ideas onto a time they don't fit.

No, not if Jesus was a fictional character.

However, he is an accepted historical figure. If you want to argue otherwise, you need to provide some evidence.

Early in our debate, you asked me why I disagreed with mainstream scholarship on the question of Jesus. I replied that one reason I disagree with them is that many biblical scholars seem to misunderstand human psychology.

If you believe that humans do not lust after Great Heroes, I think that you yourself may misunderstand the human heart.

Just my opinion, of course.

If it just your opinion, that's fine. However, if you want to argue your opinion, then you need to provide some evidence. You haven't.

Also, you haven't shown how Bible scholars misunderstand human psychology. You need to support your opinions with evidence, or just accept that they are your opinions, and don't argue them.

Now, your claim is that humans lust after Great Heroes. Prove it. More so, prove that in the first century, in Palestine, they were lusting over a great hero. Lusting over it so much, that they had to invent one. Because really, there was no reason to invent one when they had various religious figures that they could turn to. Or they could turn to the Emperor. Or they could turn to God.

 

[outhouse]

So it is not unlikely that they were raised with a faith that resurrection was possible.

I was laying in bed last night thinking about this, despite how modern they were in 1bce, you look today and what people believe so I have to give you that one.

doesnt mean everyone believed as today many dont. That may have included authors.

If belief or the lack of is directly influenced by education as it is today, then the authors or scribes and redactors might not hav efollowed like sheep.

just as today, people believed it was real.

key word is some, not all.



On a side note, I watched a documentary last night on a fishing port and 5 sunken roman ships from roughly 1bce, the time of augustus and the island he put his daughter on. Pretty amazing how advanced they were. They work they did was amazing. I used to think they were a bit more primitive. Not so.

there would have been some additional stories that would form and be attached to him.

understood and this doesnt point to fiction at all as beleif is the key word. Sadly it doesnt point to nonfiction either.

And one can not just dismiss Paul.

I dont dismiss him entirely, just have to pick and choose careful what I pull from him.

And he never took control of the movement anyway

no but he took ahold as much of the steering wheel as he could.

They borrowed much of it from the Jews.

who i believe, pulled much from sumerian and egyptian cultures. [in the begining]

Faith was ingrained in society.

thats a bit of a stretch, one can only guess. Hebrews I do believe had faith, pagans not so much. My point was this was a new movement and i dont think people just rolled over. I believe they used fiction to capture the open market of pagan souls

 

[outhouse]

would not storys written in allegory give the author freedom to stretch the story at his will without compromising the message????

 

[outhouse]

also would not the 40 days jesus was sighted, what 6 times after his death. be fiction??

as well as the 40 day length be fiction?