maybe they were real and it just looks like they werent? maybe muhammad and jesus are both right. if you look at it like this or like that..
or maybe we can imagine an infinit enumber of possibilities for anything, trying to ignore the problems that thing has.
But the bible is supposedly delivered by a perfect and all powerful and all loving god, who’s often characterized and a good father. yet we must resort to maybes? we have to invent imaginary bridges between discrepancies and contradictions? we are asked to believe things like a man-god raising from the dead and flying into heaven, we’re asked to believe a virgin actually gave birth to a god-child? we’re asked to believe that zombies walked around jerusalem after christ died? we’re asked to believe in so many outlandish things, so many things that are contrary to observable and testable science, contrary to common sense – and all without any supporting evidence except some claims in an old book collection?
over something so important and so special, what good father presents such a vague and questionable instruction, to the point that it isnt even certain that he is the one who actually gave it?
Josh, the sermon on the mount is not a teaching about god but rather how they should live their lives. So it doesn’t even come closer to supporting your assertion.
And Josh, Jesus is reported to have spoken in parables so as not to be understood by the majority. Was it part of the plan that he be intentionally unclear?
Oh William, I like your questions
The Christian Resurrection story carries only a trace of respectability and believability based on one single Christian claim: that the tomb of Jesus was guarded round-the-clock by Roman guards, from the moment the stone was rolled in front of the door of the tomb sealing the body of Jesus inside, to the moment the angel came and rolled it away three days later.
I wonder how many Christians realize that this detail is only mentioned in ONE place in the entire Bible. Paul says nothing about guards (or even a tomb). Mark, the first gospel written, says nothing about guards. So guess who does mention it? I’ll give you a hint: it is the same person who also says that there were two earthquakes (that Mark never mentions) and that dead people came out of their graves and walked the streets of Jerusalem on the same day of Jesus’ alleged resurrection….Matthew! Yes, good ol’ Matthew…the Teller of Tall Tales.
No other gospel writer mentions this detail.
Let’s take a look at the facts:
1. The overwhelming majority of scholars believe that the Gospel of Mark was written first.
2. The overwhelming majority of scholars believe that Matthew borrowed up to 70% of Mark to write his own story.
3. If the Gospel of Matthew was written by the apostle Matthew, an alleged eyewitness, why would an eyewitness need to borrow so much material from an author who the majority of scholars do NOT believe was an eyewitness?
4. The majority of scholars believe that the original Gospel of Mark ended with the women finding an empty tomb, but no guards, and no post-resurrection appearances.
So, let’s go back in time. It is sometime in the 70’s, 80’s, or 90’s AD and Mark’s gospel is floating around the Christian world and no other gospel has yet been written. What are non-Christians, especially Jews, saying about the claims of this Christian book? Well, if Christians are saying that the tomb was empty on Sunday morning, who would most Jews believe were responsible for the tomb being empty? Answer: the disciples took the body to keep alive their claim alive that Jesus was the Messiah. “The disciples stole the body,” said the Jews.
So how would a tall tale teller like Matthew deal with this problem? Answer: You invent a solution! Isn’t this what we find Christians doing all the time when they are backed into a corner? Ask a moderate or liberal Christian about the Ascension: how could Jesus have made it to heaven ascending at a speed that his disciples could still see him ascend, when we know that even traveling at the speed of light, he would still not have made it to the next closest galaxy, let alone the edge of the universe, and these Christians will invent the concept that Heaven is in “another dimension”. Problem solved! Well, this is what Matthew appears to have done.
However, Matthew made a mistake. If you read the passage, the Pharisees do not ask Pilate for guards to guard the tomb until the following day! That means that Jesus’ body was unguarded the first night in the tomb! ANYONE could have stolen the body from an unguarded tomb!
To say that the best explanation for the empty tomb (if the “majority of scholars” are right and there even was a tomb, let alone an empty one) was that a rotting corpse was reanimated by an ancient Canaanite god and walked out of it to levitate into outer space is the LAST of all probable explanations to explain why the body was missing!
the sermon on the mount is not a teaching about god but rather how they should live their lives. So it doesn’t even come closer to supporting your assertion.
Wow. I couldn’t disagree more that it doesn’t address misconceptions about the Mosaic Law that was supposedly from God.
Was it part of the plan that he be intentionally unclear?
It seems that it was. Jesus was nothing like the Messiah the Jews expected. He is also probably nothing like the Messiah that we today would hope for. As you’ve pointed out, we’d want him to be crystal clear to everyone so there could be no mistake.
Well if I ever try to convince you that King Lear or Paul Bunyon are real, just to illustrate a point, feel free to call me on it.
I didn’t say anything about trying to convince anyone that King Lear or Paul Bunyon are real. I’m sorry, Arch, but you are taking what I wrote and blowing it way out of proportion to make your point.
over something so important and so special, what good father presents such a vague and questionable instruction, to the point that it isnt even certain that he is the one who actually gave it?
william-
Maybe the important part isn’t “knowing” that it was from God. Maybe the important part is loving each other, treating each other with compassion, trying to bring about a kingdom where all are accepted. Jesus said “I AM the truth, I AM the light, I AM the way”. Maybe he really meant that? Maybe, when we are so bent on believing in Jesus the person of history, we should be more concerned with Jesus as the truth that we are all deserving of love, and the light that scatters evil, and the way that leads to hope for our future?
“2. The overwhelming majority of scholars believe that Matthew borrowed up to 70% of Mark to write his own story.”
90% (Ehrman)
3. If the Gospel of Matthew was written by the apostle Matthew, an alleged eyewitness, why would an eyewitness need to borrow so much material from an author who the majority of scholars do NOT believe was an eyewitness?”
Further, when “Matthew” tells of the collection process of Yeshua’s band of Merry Men, he tells how Levi, the tax collector joined the group. “Matthew” is the Greek translation of Levi – why would he speak of himself in the third person? Wouldn’t it add a personal, eye-witness touch, had he simply said, “I”?
Lay two KJV Bibles side by side sometime and open one to Mark, the other to Matthew. It will quickly be seen that often Matthew copied Mark verbatim. He also often exaggerates – if Mark said that Yeshua healed a leper outside a city’s gates, Matthew tells us it was two! There are other examples, as well.
it’s just that when you view the bible in light of all other religions, it’s no more believable.
maybe this, maybe that, could’ve been this or might have meant that…
is there anything that cannot be “answered” in such a way?
well, the bible says jesus is real. and jesus seems to think that at least the OT is true, so jesus and the OT must be right. And who would ever imagine to say, “do unto to others what you’d like done to you?” I mean, only a god could have possibly come up with that.
Mak did a sterling job of answering. Nothing I could fault, yet I sense you are now trying to find a way to make the bible respectable and maintain a Christian fiction regarding the divinity of the character Jesus of Nazareth?
How much personal interpretation are you prepared to do to ensure you hold on to your belief that the character Jesus of Nazareth is the god you worship ( assuming you do of course?)
At what point does the bible simply become open to any interpretation one wants?
If the Transfiguration is fiction – as how can it not be? – a piece of allegory, then should we not also regard Saul of Tarsus’s vision in a similar light?
Moses was a fictional character. The Pentateuch is historical fiction.
This is recognised by all except those who are unaware/ignorant of the archaeology and scholarship
or are Fundamentalist.
And the larger issue you did not appear to address – the major ramifications of a fictional Pentateuch. Namely:
No Garden of Eden, No Fall, No need for of a saviour.
This now makes the character Jesus of Nazareth either simply human or being a narrative construct, like Moses.
What Josh is doing drives me absolutely nuts. He is using the classic Christian debate technique described below:
Ad Hoc is a debating tactic in which an explanation of why a particular thing may be is substituted for an argument as to why it is; since it is therefore not an argument, it is not technically a fallacy, but is usually listed as one because it is a substitution for a valid argument. It is similar in form to moving the goalposts, but protects the argument by adding additional speculative terms rather than changing the meaning of existing ones.
Users of ad hoc claims generally believe the excuses and rationalisations serve to shore up the original hypothesis, but in fact each additional speculative term weakens it. This is both due to the speculations being based simply on the faith that there might be an explanation, and because each additional term makes the hypothesis weaker according to the principle of parsimony.
In fiction writing the term “plot spackle” is used to describe the same method, where additional terms are made up to pave over the cracks in a plot. This is also common in Biblical inerrancy arguments, where speculative terms will be added as it becomes clear that the plain text is contradictory or otherwise undesirable. This rather obviously changes the Bible from “inerrant” to “inerrant if you make a great many assumptions in a precise way which follows no logical pattern.”
Many creationists and woo pushers use ad hoc explanations to magic away evidence that contradicts their underlying beliefs, rather than revising those beliefs.
Gary: For 2,000 years all Christians have believed that Jesus believed that Moses was a real person accurately described in the Pentateuch, that the Passover in Egypt occurred and that he, Jesus, was the fulfillment of that historical event, and that Jesus was descended from the giant slayer King David. Yet, Josh is his great wisdom, has declared every Christian of Antiquity as uninformed on this point, and asserts that it is now reasonable and rational to believe that Jesus was speaking of these mythical figures metaphorically.
william, and others-
I wonder why I get so overzealous in coming to God’s defense. I often find myself boiling down to the point that the way we treat others is of primary importance. I think, sometimes, I react to the implication that people who continue to believe Jesus are somehow less than. I don’t tend to think that’s the case, and that’s maybe why I react. I definitely hold a minority view in believing Jesus was God, but also holding that believing that particular piece of information may not have been the point of his teaching. And, with regard to other religious texts, I think God probably does speak through those texts as well. Though, as with Christian scripture, I believe human involvement always tends to much up the message.
josh, and I want to be clear that I’m not attacking you. And I firmly agree with you on the importance of love and decency.
but are you defending god, or are you defending the claims made about god in one particular book?
it is just a collection of claims about god. they said god did this or that. They merely claimed god said this or that. you don’t believe such claims from other books. You would be right to reject me if i told you that god told me to inform the rest of you that he wants me to write a new edition.
would you believe me if i added, “don’t believe me? well you aren’t rejecting me, but the Lord himself! as you’ve rejected him, he will reject you from the book of life!”
no?
so why does the bible with all it’s problems (or apparent problems, if you prefer), with all it’s confusion and vagueness, become believable on its man written claim that it’s from god? god hasn’t even said that he’d give a book called the bible, himself. It is 100% the claims of PEOPLE.
They even claim an all powerful god mocks (through Elijah) gods that cant do miracles, claims he used to do miracles himself… he just doesnt any more… but since he used to, and since they’re telling us about them… we should believe what they claim about god…
Gary, et al-
I think the “faith that there is an explanation” is the whole point. If you look at nearly any coverage of a mass tragedy, there is almost always overwhelming appeal to some sort of supernatural. People of all kinds and backgrounds are looking for explanations. I believe that God exists, and that Jesus was God. I do not believe he is the God that many people on this site are talking about – the one who would “perfectly” reveal himself to us all, the one who would never allow any person to suffer for any reason whatsoever, etc. The God of the Bible is a God who clearly does allow all people, including “his people”, to suffer great tragedy. Maybe we have truly “made God up” in our own image – that we cannot fathom one who would allow anything bad to happen. Ever. But, that is not the God of the Bible. When you argue against God because of those reasons, you are not appealing to how scripture reveals God. He does not make sure good happens all the time to everyone. He does not intervene in every situation to make sure that everyone believes him. You have made up a God to argue against, one that isn’t revealed in the Bible. Granted, many Christians will argue this is the case, but it is not. God promises to be with us in our tragedy, confusion, and hatred of him. There are so many places in scripture where God is questioned, blamed, sought after with no answer, ridiculed for allowing things to happen, etc. Many of you accuse me of bending the Bible to mean what I want it to mean. And, I’m sure that is probably the case in many areas. I am not perfect, I am hypocritical and confused at times, and I do not adhere to the theory that, if God perfectly revealed himself, I would perfectly understand and explain everything. However, I do believe it is actually many of you who have created a God to tear down, one who does not exist in the Bible. The God revealed in the Bible is, in my opinion, much more hands off than many here argue against. You may not like that God is hands off, and feel that God is morally abhorrent or not worthy of belief because he is hands off. But, you can’t argue that the Bible reveals him as the hands-on God who makes everyone believe and all good things happen, and then say he can’t exist because that’s not the way the world is. God isn’t hands-on. He doesn’t make all good things happen. He lets us make good things happen. And, he lets us muck everything up. He pokes his head in once in a while to remind us what is best, but does not force anything or anyone. The faith is the key, as you said Gary. I can’t prove that any of this is true, and that I have tried to on occasion is my problem of being defensive. The best I have is to hope. To have faith. And, to treat others the best I am able.
Josh, you are aware that in the same Mathew, Jesus claims he didn’t come to change the law but to fulfill it. It is inconceivable that he would want to contradict Moses.
Would you as Josh if you wanted to pass a really important message to your present audience and future listeners, how would you do it? Would your preferred method be parables that can be interpreted in whatever manner or directly like as saying do not suffer a witch to live. No ambiguity. It is clear. You see a witch kill her.
@Ark, sigh- I was afraid I may have misrepresented your question.
Ark to Josh: I sense you are now trying to find a way to make the bible respectable and maintain a Christian fiction regarding the divinity of the character Jesus of Nazareth? How much personal interpretation are you prepared to do to ensure you hold on to your belief that the character Jesus of Nazareth is the god you worship ( assuming you do of course?)
Ark, I thought that was a very nice way of putting it. I was starting to wonder the same thing. If the only purpose of Jesus was to remind us to love each other… then perhaps we should just call him a good teacher with some wise sayings and leave it at that. Put his teachings in the library next to Gandhi and Confucius.
Josh, I think you would come under a lot of fire from mainline Christians for watering things down too much. Although from my perspective it seems like you’re on the right track. You’ve aligned your doctrine with what makes the most sense to you.
What’s your take on these statements Jesus is said to have made: “There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” Matthew 16:28 and “I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come in power.” Mark 9:1.
“The faith is the key, as you said Gary. I can’t prove that any of this is true, and that I have tried to on occasion is my problem of being defensive. The best I have is to hope. To have faith. And, to treat others the best I am able.”
Thank you for this statement, UnkleE. If only all Christians would say this there would be no need for debate. Belief in a supernatural claim based on faith alone can never be disproved. If Christians want to believe by faith alone that Jesus rose from the dead, that is fine with me.
It is when Christians claim that they have “evidence” that supports their supernatural claim, that I take issue with. Even more, I take issue with Christians who say that not only do they have non-faith based evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, but, if I and every other human being on planet earth do not believe their supernatural claim and do not obey/worship their supernatural, invisible deity, we will be eternally punished in some fashion. This is the belief that we atheists and agnostics must work diligently to debunk as utter nonsense.
Unsurprisingly, when called out for what could be deemed being disingenuous your responses, which I suspect are as much for you own benefit as for others, are long and convoluted, incorporating a degree of personal interpretation, as I mention in my initial response – which you have yet to address.
Mak has once more highlighted that the gospel writer has the character Jesus of Nazareth claiming he is here to fulfill Mosaic Law.
Let us be clear.
As the Pentateuch is historical fiction there could not have been Mosaic Law.
There could not have been a meeting with Yahweh in the Sinai.
Thus , Jesus can not possibly be divine or god because the god that he is purported to be – Yahweh – is a piece of historical fiction.
Are you now able to see the problem?
This is one reason why apparent intelligent apologists avoid this issue like the fictional historical plagues of Egypt.
Remember, Marcion wanted to ditch the Old Testament god, but the Church would not have any of it.
Now we know the Pentateuch is simply a story, there are only two choices.
Jesus was either just a man or a narrative construct, like Moses.
Finding Truth 
maybe they were real and it just looks like they werent? maybe muhammad and jesus are both right. if you look at it like this or like that..
or maybe we can imagine an infinit enumber of possibilities for anything, trying to ignore the problems that thing has.
But the bible is supposedly delivered by a perfect and all powerful and all loving god, who’s often characterized and a good father. yet we must resort to maybes? we have to invent imaginary bridges between discrepancies and contradictions? we are asked to believe things like a man-god raising from the dead and flying into heaven, we’re asked to believe a virgin actually gave birth to a god-child? we’re asked to believe that zombies walked around jerusalem after christ died? we’re asked to believe in so many outlandish things, so many things that are contrary to observable and testable science, contrary to common sense – and all without any supporting evidence except some claims in an old book collection?
over something so important and so special, what good father presents such a vague and questionable instruction, to the point that it isnt even certain that he is the one who actually gave it?
LikeLiked by 2 people
There we go …
LikeLike
Matthew 5
LikeLike
Josh, the sermon on the mount is not a teaching about god but rather how they should live their lives. So it doesn’t even come closer to supporting your assertion.
And Josh, Jesus is reported to have spoken in parables so as not to be understood by the majority. Was it part of the plan that he be intentionally unclear?
Oh William, I like your questions
LikeLike
The Christian Resurrection story carries only a trace of respectability and believability based on one single Christian claim: that the tomb of Jesus was guarded round-the-clock by Roman guards, from the moment the stone was rolled in front of the door of the tomb sealing the body of Jesus inside, to the moment the angel came and rolled it away three days later.
I wonder how many Christians realize that this detail is only mentioned in ONE place in the entire Bible. Paul says nothing about guards (or even a tomb). Mark, the first gospel written, says nothing about guards. So guess who does mention it? I’ll give you a hint: it is the same person who also says that there were two earthquakes (that Mark never mentions) and that dead people came out of their graves and walked the streets of Jerusalem on the same day of Jesus’ alleged resurrection….Matthew! Yes, good ol’ Matthew…the Teller of Tall Tales.
No other gospel writer mentions this detail.
Let’s take a look at the facts:
1. The overwhelming majority of scholars believe that the Gospel of Mark was written first.
2. The overwhelming majority of scholars believe that Matthew borrowed up to 70% of Mark to write his own story.
3. If the Gospel of Matthew was written by the apostle Matthew, an alleged eyewitness, why would an eyewitness need to borrow so much material from an author who the majority of scholars do NOT believe was an eyewitness?
4. The majority of scholars believe that the original Gospel of Mark ended with the women finding an empty tomb, but no guards, and no post-resurrection appearances.
So, let’s go back in time. It is sometime in the 70’s, 80’s, or 90’s AD and Mark’s gospel is floating around the Christian world and no other gospel has yet been written. What are non-Christians, especially Jews, saying about the claims of this Christian book? Well, if Christians are saying that the tomb was empty on Sunday morning, who would most Jews believe were responsible for the tomb being empty? Answer: the disciples took the body to keep alive their claim alive that Jesus was the Messiah. “The disciples stole the body,” said the Jews.
So how would a tall tale teller like Matthew deal with this problem? Answer: You invent a solution! Isn’t this what we find Christians doing all the time when they are backed into a corner? Ask a moderate or liberal Christian about the Ascension: how could Jesus have made it to heaven ascending at a speed that his disciples could still see him ascend, when we know that even traveling at the speed of light, he would still not have made it to the next closest galaxy, let alone the edge of the universe, and these Christians will invent the concept that Heaven is in “another dimension”. Problem solved! Well, this is what Matthew appears to have done.
However, Matthew made a mistake. If you read the passage, the Pharisees do not ask Pilate for guards to guard the tomb until the following day! That means that Jesus’ body was unguarded the first night in the tomb! ANYONE could have stolen the body from an unguarded tomb!
To say that the best explanation for the empty tomb (if the “majority of scholars” are right and there even was a tomb, let alone an empty one) was that a rotting corpse was reanimated by an ancient Canaanite god and walked out of it to levitate into outer space is the LAST of all probable explanations to explain why the body was missing!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow. I couldn’t disagree more that it doesn’t address misconceptions about the Mosaic Law that was supposedly from God.
It seems that it was. Jesus was nothing like the Messiah the Jews expected. He is also probably nothing like the Messiah that we today would hope for. As you’ve pointed out, we’d want him to be crystal clear to everyone so there could be no mistake.
LikeLike
“communicating things to children or adults who have limited mental capacity” – Ah, Christians —
Well if I ever try to convince you that King Lear or Paul Bunyon are real, just to illustrate a point, feel free to call me on it.
LikeLike
I didn’t say anything about trying to convince anyone that King Lear or Paul Bunyon are real. I’m sorry, Arch, but you are taking what I wrote and blowing it way out of proportion to make your point.
LikeLike
Guy asks a friend, “How do you like Kipling?”
Friend says, “I don’t know, I never kippled —”
(Pa-dum-pumb!)
LikeLike
william-
Maybe the important part isn’t “knowing” that it was from God. Maybe the important part is loving each other, treating each other with compassion, trying to bring about a kingdom where all are accepted. Jesus said “I AM the truth, I AM the light, I AM the way”. Maybe he really meant that? Maybe, when we are so bent on believing in Jesus the person of history, we should be more concerned with Jesus as the truth that we are all deserving of love, and the light that scatters evil, and the way that leads to hope for our future?
LikeLike
“2. The overwhelming majority of scholars believe that Matthew borrowed up to 70% of Mark to write his own story.”
90% (Ehrman)
3. If the Gospel of Matthew was written by the apostle Matthew, an alleged eyewitness, why would an eyewitness need to borrow so much material from an author who the majority of scholars do NOT believe was an eyewitness?”
Further, when “Matthew” tells of the collection process of Yeshua’s band of Merry Men, he tells how Levi, the tax collector joined the group. “Matthew” is the Greek translation of Levi – why would he speak of himself in the third person? Wouldn’t it add a personal, eye-witness touch, had he simply said, “I”?
LikeLike
^ When I write “Maybe, when we are so bent on believing in Jesus the person of history”, by ‘we’ I meant Christians
LikeLike
Lay two KJV Bibles side by side sometime and open one to Mark, the other to Matthew. It will quickly be seen that often Matthew copied Mark verbatim. He also often exaggerates – if Mark said that Yeshua healed a leper outside a city’s gates, Matthew tells us it was two! There are other examples, as well.
LikeLike
Or possibly I’m taking something that was already out of proportion and bringing it into focus.
LikeLike
Josh, I can certainly agree in love and goodness and brotherly kindness.
i’ve witnessed such things and do see the value and benefit in them.
LikeLike
it’s just that when you view the bible in light of all other religions, it’s no more believable.
maybe this, maybe that, could’ve been this or might have meant that…
is there anything that cannot be “answered” in such a way?
well, the bible says jesus is real. and jesus seems to think that at least the OT is true, so jesus and the OT must be right. And who would ever imagine to say, “do unto to others what you’d like done to you?” I mean, only a god could have possibly come up with that.
LikeLike
@ Josh
Re: Your question.
Mak did a sterling job of answering. Nothing I could fault, yet I sense you are now trying to find a way to make the bible respectable and maintain a Christian fiction regarding the divinity of the character Jesus of Nazareth?
How much personal interpretation are you prepared to do to ensure you hold on to your belief that the character Jesus of Nazareth is the god you worship ( assuming you do of course?)
At what point does the bible simply become open to any interpretation one wants?
If the Transfiguration is fiction – as how can it not be? – a piece of allegory, then should we not also regard Saul of Tarsus’s vision in a similar light?
Moses was a fictional character. The Pentateuch is historical fiction.
This is recognised by all except those who are unaware/ignorant of the archaeology and scholarship
or are Fundamentalist.
And the larger issue you did not appear to address – the major ramifications of a fictional Pentateuch. Namely:
No Garden of Eden, No Fall, No need for of a saviour.
This now makes the character Jesus of Nazareth either simply human or being a narrative construct, like Moses.
LikeLike
What Josh is doing drives me absolutely nuts. He is using the classic Christian debate technique described below:
Ad Hoc is a debating tactic in which an explanation of why a particular thing may be is substituted for an argument as to why it is; since it is therefore not an argument, it is not technically a fallacy, but is usually listed as one because it is a substitution for a valid argument. It is similar in form to moving the goalposts, but protects the argument by adding additional speculative terms rather than changing the meaning of existing ones.
Users of ad hoc claims generally believe the excuses and rationalisations serve to shore up the original hypothesis, but in fact each additional speculative term weakens it. This is both due to the speculations being based simply on the faith that there might be an explanation, and because each additional term makes the hypothesis weaker according to the principle of parsimony.
In fiction writing the term “plot spackle” is used to describe the same method, where additional terms are made up to pave over the cracks in a plot. This is also common in Biblical inerrancy arguments, where speculative terms will be added as it becomes clear that the plain text is contradictory or otherwise undesirable. This rather obviously changes the Bible from “inerrant” to “inerrant if you make a great many assumptions in a precise way which follows no logical pattern.”
Many creationists and woo pushers use ad hoc explanations to magic away evidence that contradicts their underlying beliefs, rather than revising those beliefs.
Gary: For 2,000 years all Christians have believed that Jesus believed that Moses was a real person accurately described in the Pentateuch, that the Passover in Egypt occurred and that he, Jesus, was the fulfillment of that historical event, and that Jesus was descended from the giant slayer King David. Yet, Josh is his great wisdom, has declared every Christian of Antiquity as uninformed on this point, and asserts that it is now reasonable and rational to believe that Jesus was speaking of these mythical figures metaphorically.
Ad hoc ad nauseum.
LikeLike
Arch-
Maybe. I’m frequently unfocused.
william, and others-
I wonder why I get so overzealous in coming to God’s defense. I often find myself boiling down to the point that the way we treat others is of primary importance. I think, sometimes, I react to the implication that people who continue to believe Jesus are somehow less than. I don’t tend to think that’s the case, and that’s maybe why I react. I definitely hold a minority view in believing Jesus was God, but also holding that believing that particular piece of information may not have been the point of his teaching. And, with regard to other religious texts, I think God probably does speak through those texts as well. Though, as with Christian scripture, I believe human involvement always tends to much up the message.
LikeLike
josh, and I want to be clear that I’m not attacking you. And I firmly agree with you on the importance of love and decency.
but are you defending god, or are you defending the claims made about god in one particular book?
it is just a collection of claims about god. they said god did this or that. They merely claimed god said this or that. you don’t believe such claims from other books. You would be right to reject me if i told you that god told me to inform the rest of you that he wants me to write a new edition.
would you believe me if i added, “don’t believe me? well you aren’t rejecting me, but the Lord himself! as you’ve rejected him, he will reject you from the book of life!”
no?
so why does the bible with all it’s problems (or apparent problems, if you prefer), with all it’s confusion and vagueness, become believable on its man written claim that it’s from god? god hasn’t even said that he’d give a book called the bible, himself. It is 100% the claims of PEOPLE.
They even claim an all powerful god mocks (through Elijah) gods that cant do miracles, claims he used to do miracles himself… he just doesnt any more… but since he used to, and since they’re telling us about them… we should believe what they claim about god…
right
LikeLike
Gary, et al-
I think the “faith that there is an explanation” is the whole point. If you look at nearly any coverage of a mass tragedy, there is almost always overwhelming appeal to some sort of supernatural. People of all kinds and backgrounds are looking for explanations. I believe that God exists, and that Jesus was God. I do not believe he is the God that many people on this site are talking about – the one who would “perfectly” reveal himself to us all, the one who would never allow any person to suffer for any reason whatsoever, etc. The God of the Bible is a God who clearly does allow all people, including “his people”, to suffer great tragedy. Maybe we have truly “made God up” in our own image – that we cannot fathom one who would allow anything bad to happen. Ever. But, that is not the God of the Bible. When you argue against God because of those reasons, you are not appealing to how scripture reveals God. He does not make sure good happens all the time to everyone. He does not intervene in every situation to make sure that everyone believes him. You have made up a God to argue against, one that isn’t revealed in the Bible. Granted, many Christians will argue this is the case, but it is not. God promises to be with us in our tragedy, confusion, and hatred of him. There are so many places in scripture where God is questioned, blamed, sought after with no answer, ridiculed for allowing things to happen, etc. Many of you accuse me of bending the Bible to mean what I want it to mean. And, I’m sure that is probably the case in many areas. I am not perfect, I am hypocritical and confused at times, and I do not adhere to the theory that, if God perfectly revealed himself, I would perfectly understand and explain everything. However, I do believe it is actually many of you who have created a God to tear down, one who does not exist in the Bible. The God revealed in the Bible is, in my opinion, much more hands off than many here argue against. You may not like that God is hands off, and feel that God is morally abhorrent or not worthy of belief because he is hands off. But, you can’t argue that the Bible reveals him as the hands-on God who makes everyone believe and all good things happen, and then say he can’t exist because that’s not the way the world is. God isn’t hands-on. He doesn’t make all good things happen. He lets us make good things happen. And, he lets us muck everything up. He pokes his head in once in a while to remind us what is best, but does not force anything or anyone. The faith is the key, as you said Gary. I can’t prove that any of this is true, and that I have tried to on occasion is my problem of being defensive. The best I have is to hope. To have faith. And, to treat others the best I am able.
LikeLike
Josh, you are aware that in the same Mathew, Jesus claims he didn’t come to change the law but to fulfill it. It is inconceivable that he would want to contradict Moses.
Would you as Josh if you wanted to pass a really important message to your present audience and future listeners, how would you do it? Would your preferred method be parables that can be interpreted in whatever manner or directly like as saying do not suffer a witch to live. No ambiguity. It is clear. You see a witch kill her.
@Ark, sigh- I was afraid I may have misrepresented your question.
LikeLike
Ark, I thought that was a very nice way of putting it. I was starting to wonder the same thing. If the only purpose of Jesus was to remind us to love each other… then perhaps we should just call him a good teacher with some wise sayings and leave it at that. Put his teachings in the library next to Gandhi and Confucius.
Josh, I think you would come under a lot of fire from mainline Christians for watering things down too much. Although from my perspective it seems like you’re on the right track. You’ve aligned your doctrine with what makes the most sense to you.
What’s your take on these statements Jesus is said to have made: “There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” Matthew 16:28 and “I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come in power.” Mark 9:1.
LikeLike
“The faith is the key, as you said Gary. I can’t prove that any of this is true, and that I have tried to on occasion is my problem of being defensive. The best I have is to hope. To have faith. And, to treat others the best I am able.”
Thank you for this statement, UnkleE. If only all Christians would say this there would be no need for debate. Belief in a supernatural claim based on faith alone can never be disproved. If Christians want to believe by faith alone that Jesus rose from the dead, that is fine with me.
It is when Christians claim that they have “evidence” that supports their supernatural claim, that I take issue with. Even more, I take issue with Christians who say that not only do they have non-faith based evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, but, if I and every other human being on planet earth do not believe their supernatural claim and do not obey/worship their supernatural, invisible deity, we will be eternally punished in some fashion. This is the belief that we atheists and agnostics must work diligently to debunk as utter nonsense.
LikeLike
@ Josh
Unsurprisingly, when called out for what could be deemed being disingenuous your responses, which I suspect are as much for you own benefit as for others, are long and convoluted, incorporating a degree of personal interpretation, as I mention in my initial response – which you have yet to address.
Mak has once more highlighted that the gospel writer has the character Jesus of Nazareth claiming he is here to fulfill Mosaic Law.
Let us be clear.
As the Pentateuch is historical fiction there could not have been Mosaic Law.
There could not have been a meeting with Yahweh in the Sinai.
Thus , Jesus can not possibly be divine or god because the god that he is purported to be – Yahweh – is a piece of historical fiction.
Are you now able to see the problem?
This is one reason why apparent intelligent apologists avoid this issue like the fictional historical plagues of Egypt.
Remember, Marcion wanted to ditch the Old Testament god, but the Church would not have any of it.
Now we know the Pentateuch is simply a story, there are only two choices.
Jesus was either just a man or a narrative construct, like Moses.
Take your pick.
LikeLike