Cyclical authority of holy books

SubjectSean

Talon1977 wrote: »

As Obo rightly noted from the start, my assertion is that the books of the bible in their ORIGINAL TEXTS were inerrant.

Where are the original texts? I thought they were misplaced long ago. How can you determine that something is true to the original text if you do not have that text?

Talon1977

SubjectSean wrote: »

Where are the original texts? I thought they were misplaced long ago. How can you determine that something is true to the original text if you do not have that text?

Good question. What we have, as I'm sure you know, are a large quantity of various-sized chunks of text from several different regions of the world, in what we call textual 'families.' By studying the texts from each family, and how the differ, and how they are the same, we can decipher with reasonable accuracy what the original texts said. That's not to say that I'm 100% convinced that we've got it all perfect, but what we DO have is useful enough to make a judgment about the original writings, in my opinion.

SubjectSean

Talon1977 wrote: »

Good question. What we have, as I'm sure you know, are a large quantity of various-sized chunks of text from several different regions of the world, in what we call textual 'families.' By studying the texts from each family, and how the differ, and how they are the same, we can decipher with reasonable accuracy what the original texts said. That's not to say that I'm 100% convinced that we've got it all perfect, but what we DO have is useful enough to make a judgment about the original writings, in my opinion.

Surely the differences and similarities being measured are just between copies and only the source could possibly be deduced in the manner you describe. If however the source was itself a copy then there is no way of knowing the original. I see no reason to believe that the bible is the Word of God, it is clearly the words of men.

Talon1977

You are, of course, entitled to your own conclusions. But for me, an honest examination of the texts and the facts surrounding them, leads me to the opinion that they cannot be simply "the words of men." That being the case I am left with the question, "What then, is it?" Then we are confronted with the answer it provides for itself - that it is the Word of God. If it is not the Word of God, and I have ruled out the possibility (for myself at least) that it is simply the words of men, due to a great number of reasons, what then is it?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

they cannot be simply "the words of men.

why not? have you ever looked at the fantasy section of a large bookshop? People are very imaginative writers and can come up with a story about anything.

Talon1977

Were I to go into all the reasons, and explanations of those reasons, it would be a very lengthy book. But there have already been several books written on the subject that I can refer you to, if you're truly interested in an answer to that question. Josh McDowell's book Evidence that Demands a Verdict is a fairly good one. Lee Strobel has also written several books that speak to the subject.

One major point that comes up is how incredibly unique the Bible is, in many different ways, such as:
its impact on history,
its popularity since its assembly,
its consistency despite being penned by so many different authors over such a large period of time,
the amount of persecution it has faced and withstood,
and so on and so forth.

I could keep listing ways in which the Bible is unique among books, but as I said, they've already written books on the subject. I'd suggest reading them if you really want an answer to your question.

Apart from its uniqueness, historically speaking, the Bible is incredibly accurate. Kings and kingdoms that for a long time, mankind had no record of except for the Bible's record of them, have since then been confirmed by archeology to have existed exactly where and when the Bible says they did. The Hittites are but one example of this.

Its uniqueness and accuracy are only 2 reasons I could give for my statement. But as I said, it's best if you'd read the books I suggested. That's just my opinion.

robindch

Talon1977 wrote:

its impact on history,

Mao's little red book had a huge impact on history. Didn't mean that a word of it was true.

Talon1977 wrote:

its popularity since its assembly,

Popular = true? That's the third time that a religious person has said that on boards since last week!

Talon1977 wrote:

its consistency despite being penned by so many different authors over such a large period of time,

Consistency? Good heavens, have you ever read it?

Talon1977 wrote:

historically speaking, the Bible is incredibly accurate

A few old texts might have listed kings and kingdoms accurately, but that doesn't mean that anything else is true. Look at the hopelessly fabricated creation myth in Genesis, for example.

Talon1977 wrote:

the amount of persecution it has faced and withstood,

Christians have persecuted and burned non-christians and their literature far more often than the other way around. Ask any Aztec...

Your reasons so far are startlingly unconvincing.

Talon1977

Mao's little red book had a huge impact on history. Didn't mean that a word of it was true.

Popular = true? That's the third time that a religious person has said that on boards since last week!

I never said anything of the sort. You're putting words in my mouth chap.

I said it was unique in the above ways, not true because of them. And I said because of it's uniqueness, combined with several other characteristics, it makes it impossible for me in my own mind to accept it to be "just a book" like any other book.

Consistency? Good heavens, have you ever read it?

Have you? Perhaps you'd like to discuss particular instances where you think it isn't.

A few old texts might have listed kings and kingdoms accurately, but that doesn't mean that anything else is true. Look at the hopelessly fabricated creation myth in Genesis, for example.

You say that with such certainty. It's almost as if you believe you were there.

Christians have persecuted and burned non-christians and their literature far more often than the other way around. Ask any Aztec...

I'm not disputing the less than admirable history of the church and how they've confronted things they fear. But my point was that no other book in history has faced AND SURVIVED so many attempts at stamping it out and for such a prolonged period of time, making it unique. The main emphasis of the point was that despite this, it has flourished. Why is that, when so many other writings under much less persecution, were wiped out completely or at least mostly?

Your reasons so far are startlingly unconvincing.

I'm sure it would seem so to someone who is more interested in turning what I said into something it wasn't.

I was simply giving a few examples out of a possible hundreds that I personally have found to be reasons to at least take the Bible into consideration, rather than dismiss it entirely.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

because the bible and christians didn't face nearly as much persecution and censorship as christians dealt to their 'inferiors'

Schuhart

Talon1977 wrote: »

One major point that comes up is how incredibly unique the Bible is, in many different ways, such as:
its impact on history,
its popularity since its assembly,
its consistency despite being penned by so many different authors over such a large period of time,
the amount of persecution it has faced and withstood,
and so on and so forth.

Surely all of that, except for the penned by many authors bit, goes for the Quran too. And instead of the penned by many authors bit, Im sure some similarly circumstantial point could be made for it. For example, many Muslims claim the Quran anticipates scientific knowledge that could not have been known to Mohammed.

So what makes your holy book more "unique" than theirs.

Talon1977

Talon1977 wrote:

Why is that, when so many other writings under much less persecution, were wiped out completely or at least mostly?

Everybody loves the underdog
the more persecuted it is, the more special it must be

Talon1977

Schuhart wrote: »

Surely all of that, except for the penned by many authors bit, goes for the Quran too. And instead of the penned by many authors bit, Im sure some similarly circumstantial point could be made for it. For example, many Muslims claim the Quran anticipates scientific knowledge that could not have been known to Mohammed.

So what makes your holy book more "unique" than theirs.

As I said, it would be best for you to read the books I suggested, where the topic is dealt with more clearly and more in-depth than I possibly could here.

But from what I know, the Bible is much more unique than the Quran or any other book for that matter. And the Quran doesn't claim to be the Word of God, to my knowledge. It is supposedly the words of the prophet Mohammed collected and compiled years later. I could be wrong, but that's my understanding of it.

It just seems to me that a book that has garnered so much attention throughout history, and by so many people would at least be worth consideration and some serious examination.

Schuhart

Talon1977 wrote: »

As I said, it would be best for you to read the books I suggested, where the topic is dealt with more clearly and more in-depth than I possibly could here.

I'm totally happy to just explore your statement a little, which doesn't seem to take much technical knowledge. I've recently (in the past few months) read a very brief book about the Bible and a history of Christianity, which hopefully means I'll have some clue of what you are talking about.

Talon1977 wrote: »

But from what I know, the Bible is much more unique than the Quran or any other book for that matter. And the Quran doesn't claim to be the Word of God, to my knowledge. It is supposedly the words of the prophet Mohammed collected and compiled years later. I could be wrong, but that's my understanding of it.

As I understand it, Muslims maintain that the Bible has become corrupt as a result of passing through so many hands and versions - and that, in any event, it is simply an amalgam of different texts never intended to form one book. So God sent the Angel Gabriel to recite the Quran into Mohammed's ears and give us the definitive account, once and for all. Hence, the words Mohammed spoke they believe to be the exact word of God. They set great store in the accuracy of the written Quran, and stress the care that went in to recording and collating the verses, which included Mohammed personally validating the text. As Mohammed's visions were delivered in Arabic, only the Arabic version is regarded as the exact word of God.

Muslims would contrast this with the haphazard manner in which the Bible texts were preserved - as we know, the first Gospels were written at least decades after the events they describe.

So your 'unique' book really isn't so unique, is it?

Talon1977 wrote: »

It just seems to me that a book that has garnered so much attention throughout history, and by so many people would at least be worth consideration and some serious examination.

Surely exactly the same statement applies to the Quran.

From left field, on another thread here there was mention of Alanis Morrisette's 'Ironic' not actually being ironic.

However, if you come to the Atheism forum as a Christian and leave it as a Muslim, would that be ironic? Or simply weird?

Talon1977

Both!

As I understand it, Muslims maintain that the Bible has become corrupt as a result of passing through so many hands and versions - and that, in any event, it is simply an amalgam of different texts never intended to form one book. So God sent the Angel Gabriel to recite the Quran into Mohammed's ears and give us the definitive account, once and for all. Hence, the words Mohammed spoke they believe to be the exact word of God. They set great store in the accuracy of the written Quran, and stress the care that went in to recording and collating the verses, which included Mohammed personally validating the text. As Mohammed's visions were delivered in Arabic, only the Arabic version is regarded as the exact word of God.

I certainly don't claim to be any sort of expert on Islam, but I'm fairly sure Mohammed was dead by the time the Quran was assembled.

Also, it is one of the 5 tenets of the Muslim faith that there are 4 inspired writings 3 of which are contained in the Bible - the other one being the Quran itself. And the fact that the Quran contradicts all three of those writings in the Bible (Moses's writings, the Psalms, and the gospels of the New Testament) doesn't lend much to its credibility.

...as we know, the first Gospels were written at least decades after the events they describe.

Yes, they were written decades after, but by eyewitnesses to the events in question (with the exception of Luke's gospel, and he was an historian who drew on the other sources as well as interviews with eyewitnesses).

So yes, I'd say it IS quite unique, if for no other reason but its extraordinary cohesiveness and non-contradictory nature, despite being written over a period of thousands of years and by very numerous authors in various stations of life (from kings to slaves and prisoners) under various conditions (during times of war and times of peace, times of wealth and times of poverty). And the message is uncannily the same throughout - the "Paradise Lost" of Genesis (the 1st book of the Bible) becomes "Paradise Regained" in Revelation (the last book).

Originally Posted by Talon1977
It just seems to me that a book that has garnered so much attention throughout history, and by so many people would at least be worth consideration and some serious examination.

Surely exactly the same statement applies to the Quran.

Surely it does! I agree. I think we SHOULD at least examine seriously the claims of these books. "Let the Truth compete in the free market of ideas."

And thanks for the honest discussion Schuhart. You're a gentleman and a scholar.

Obo

Talon1977 wrote: »

And the message is uncannily the same throughout - the "Paradise Lost" of Genesis (the 1st book of the Bible) becomes "Paradise Regained" in Revelation (the last book).

Talon, have you ever read Joseph Campbell's "Hero with a Thousand Faces"? It looks at the common themes among myths from around the world.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with other mythologies, but I'd be curious to see how you think your perception of the biblical account stands up in comparison to others.

Now I'm sure a theist might conjure up the argument that the reason they are all similar is because they are all recounting the same actual events, but just from different perspectives, and the one they follow happens to be the really real version.

Talon1977

Obo wrote: »

Talon, have you ever read Joseph Campbell's "Hero with a Thousand Faces"? It looks at the common themes among myths from around the world.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with other mythologies, but I'd be curious to see how you think your perception of the biblical account stands up in comparison to others.

Now I'm sure a theist might conjure up the argument that the reason they are all similar is because they are all recounting the same actual events, but just from different perspectives, and the one they follow happens to be the really real version.

Quite right. This is where the archeological evidence comes into play. The fact that we have all these stories that are similar leads credence to the idea that one version (or at least a version that is a combination of all or most of them) is a real event that occurred. So leaning on archeology, we see time and time again that the timeline and the events of the Bible are validated.

The disputed Genesis claims of Creation are impossible to validate (as well as the claims of evolution). So for the sake of avoiding a huge argument, lets not even discuss that, and take the rest of it as a whole. The histories of nations and kings is incredible. The archeological evidence for the things claimed in the Bible are overwhelming. - Take the enslavement of the Hebrews in Egypt and all the things surrounding that, for just one example.

Here is a list of books written on the subject. I haven't read them all, so I can't testify to their worth, but it would be some educational reading anyway. http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/books/archaeology.htm

robindch

Talon wrote:

I said it was unique in the above ways, not true because of them. And I said because of it's uniqueness, combined with several other characteristics, it makes it impossible for me in my own mind to accept it to be "just a book" like any other book.

Agreed then, its uniqueness has nothing to do with any truth value it might have. But what other characteristics make it worthy of consideration? There are plenty of other books from around the same time which are thought to be historically accurate -- what's special about the bible?

Talon wrote:

I'm not disputing the less than admirable history of the church and how they've confronted things they fear. But my point was that no other book in history has faced AND SURVIVED so many attempts at stamping it out and for such a prolonged period of time, making it unique. The main emphasis of the point was that despite this, it has flourished. Why is that, when so many other writings under much less persecution, were wiped out completely or at least mostly?

I think your main error here is in thinking that the bible was ever seriously persecuted. On the contrary, the bible's promoters, certainly from the fourth century onwards and no doubt before that too, made continuous and strenuous efforts to stamp out all beliefs except their own.

And even when things did survive in monastic libraries, they were frequently treated to the point of being destroyed -- the Archimedes Palimpsest being one of many examples of christians recycling ancient parchments for their own sacred texts.

Talon wrote:

The disputed Genesis claims of Creation are impossible to validate (as well as the claims of evolution).

Unless you look down a microscope at evolving bacteria, of course. Though the topic of creationism is probably best left to the ongoing creationism thread.

Hivemind187

5uspect wrote: »

Hivemind might reopen his one for you

I'm still waiting for be "forgiven" apparently.

Wicknight: you were banned for asking this question? Dude, there was an argument over my comments but something like this earning a ban is nuts!

/rant over and returns to the enforced corner of penitence

Regarding the op, isnt the argument that all prophecy is self fullfilling and therefore indicative of justification for cyclical references in theism part of the answer you usually get?

Schuhart

Talon1977 wrote:

I certainly don't claim to be any sort of expert on Islam, but I'm fairly sure Mohammed was dead by the time the Quran was assembled.

Indeed, I understand that the Quran is meant to have been assembled after his death both from written records made during his life and portions of his revelations that others had committed to memory (I recall reading that part of the tradition is that the memorisers had their verses checked and confirmed by Mohammed each year). Hence, it is presented as being an accurate account of Mohammed’s revelations with as much claim to be what it claims as the Bible.

Talon1977 wrote:

And the fact that the Quran contradicts all three of those writings in the Bible (Moses's writings, the Psalms, and the gospels of the New Testament) doesn't lend much to its credibility.

You would not expect it to agree with what went before as the Quran is meant to be correcting the errors in the Bible texts.

Talon1977 wrote:

no other reason but its extraordinary cohesiveness and non-contradictory nature, despite being written over a period of thousands of years and by very numerous authors in various stations of life

But hold on, those authors would have been aware of the work of previous authors. Hence, for the sake of argument, its no surprise that Gospel writers depict Jesus in terms that are meant to fulfil the Biblical prophecy. Also, is it not true to say that there are some strange inconsistencies in the Bible – including one of the proofs of Jesus’ divinity being that his birth was predicted by astrologers.

Talon1977 wrote:

I agree. I think we SHOULD at least examine seriously the claims of these books. "Let the Truth compete in the free market of ideas."

There we both agree.

Scofflaw

Hivemind187 wrote: »

I'm still waiting for be "forgiven" apparently.

Wicknight: you were banned for asking this question? Dude, there was an argument over my comments but something like this earning a ban is nuts!

To be fair, though, Asiaprod immediately overturned the ban, and Brian both retracted it, and set up a thread specifically to apologise.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Memnoch

Wicknight wrote: »

How can a holy book be justification for its own authority?

This is a genuine question.

If someone actually knows a logical answer to this, even if it requires belief in the supernatural, that's fine. My understand (because I was told this by theists) used to be that God confirms to theists, through some kind of spiritual communication, that the Bible/Qur'an is in actual fact, his book, thus giving it authority.

Naturally I don't believe God speaks to people in their own head, but that did at least make sense as an argument, in the same way that Mick Jagger saying "This biography of me is al'ight" would give authority to a biography of Mick Jagger, even if someone believes Mick Jagger is actually a robot.

Because of that understanding of divine communication I thought we were all well passed the argument that faith in the Bible is cyclical, and based on this (apparently false) understand I had I used to defend theists against charges that their faith in the Bible was cyclical, a charge that I saw as the result of lack of understanding of atheists. Oh how foolish I feel now

So anyone, believers or not believers, explain this?

There seems to be a lot of arguement here about nothing.

People believe whatever it is they want to believe. The reasons they do this vary greatly but ultimately boil down to the human ego and human survival.

What method they use (which is your question) to rationalise and therefore justify their belief is irrelevant because that is the nature of belief and challenging its rationalisation from an external source is unlikely in the extreme to yield any results.

Talon1977

challenging its rationalisation from an external source is unlikely in the extreme to yield any results.

I could not disagree more. I've had 3 major shifts in my beliefs in my life over the last 15 years (and this is all well after becoming a Christian). One of which was political, one was theological and one was ecclesiastical in nature. All resulted from someone taking the time and effort to share their own rational and logical arguments that shook the foundations of what I had believed prior. What I thought had been a solid foundation turned out to be pre-conceived notions that when I honestly considered the evidence I was presented with, were painfully laid aside.

You would not expect it to agree with what went before as the Quran is meant to be correcting the errors in the Bible texts.

We're not talking about nitpicky differences and typos, we're talking about major theological understanding... things you can't call errors, but major mega-themes. Which leads me to reply to this:

But what other characteristics make it worthy of consideration? There are plenty of other books from around the same time which are thought to be historically accurate -- what's special about the bible?

There are plenty of other "holy books" that contain some sort of description of the character of God (or whatever deity that book proclaims), and describes the state of man. But the MAJOR difference between the Bible and all other books lies in the concept of Redemption, or how man accomplishes his end or purpose or some sort of unity with the deity/afterlife in question.

With all other books and religions that I'm aware of, it lies in the hands of the individual to accomplish his end. Whether it is following a certain amount of tenets, saying a certain amount of Hail Marys and Our Fathers, or taking some long pilgrimage to some great shrine, or whatever you might have. The point is, it's always a set of do's and don'ts of some kind or another. And if we do the right things in the right way then there's hope of redemption in the end.

Now take the Bible. The over-arching Mega theme of the whole thing is that there is absolutely nothing we can do as individuals to earn the favor of God. Nothing, nada, zip. Forget about it. It doesn't matter one bit how good of a person you are, or how many times you go to Church.

The work that had to be done in order for man to be at peace with God (according to the Bible), was done by Jesus. It was a blood sacrifice paid by God Himself, rather than requiring us to make the sacrifices/bring the offerings/make the pilgrimages or what have you. Get it?

That's the big difference between the Bible and all other books or religions.

And one other reason I think it's worthwhile to examine, is because to me at least, it's most compelling, simply BECAUSE of the reason above (God did all the work for man).

Does that make sense? If not, I might try to explain it a bit better. But it does seem to me to be very unique in that aspect. If there's another book or religion out there that you think is the same in this way, I'd be interested.

Lastly...

Also, is it not true to say that there are some strange inconsistencies in the Bible – including one of the proofs of Jesus’ divinity being that his birth was predicted by astrologers.

I'm not following you how that is inconsistent.

Schuhart

Talon1977 wrote: »

We're not talking about nitpicky differences and typos, we're talking about major theological understanding... things you can't call errors, but major mega-themes.

Indeed, but is the point not that we could turn that argument right the way around and say this proves the Bible is corrupt and the Quran is right.

Talon1977 wrote: »

The work that had to be done in order for man to be at peace with God (according to the Bible), was done by Jesus. It was a blood sacrifice paid by God Himself, rather than requiring us to make the sacrifices/bring the offerings/make the pilgrimages or what have you. Get it?

Probably not, because that sounds to me like saying Christianity is a great religion if we're lazy and don't want to take responsibility for the consequences of our actions.

Talon1977 wrote: »

I'm not following you how that is inconsistent.

Because, as I understand it, Christianity doesn't preach that astrology is valid.

Hence, its more than a little strange for Matthew's Gospel to say that Zoroastrian astrologers verified that Jesus' birth was heralded by the stars.

Hivemind187

Scofflaw wrote: »

To be fair, though, Asiaprod immediately overturned the ban, and Brian both retracted it, and set up a thread specifically to apologise.

cordially,
Scofflaw

no comment.

Zombrex

Memnoch wrote: »

What method they use (which is your question) to rationalise and therefore justify their belief is irrelevant

Irrelevant to whom?

Zombrex

Talon1977 wrote: »

The work that had to be done in order for man to be at peace with God (according to the Bible), was done by Jesus. It was a blood sacrifice paid by God Himself, rather than requiring us to make the sacrifices/bring the offerings/make the pilgrimages or what have you. Get it?

That's the big difference between the Bible and all other books or religions.

I suppose this is a whole other thread, but seriously how does something think that makes sense?

Its like a magic trick, one of those Escher pictures where if you look at the bottom you see the one stick and if you look at the top you see two different sticks.

Jesus was God. Having just come from the Christianity forum discussing Jesus with BC and the Mormon belief of the Godhead, Christians believe Jesus was not even a separate being, he was totally God.

So what exactly did God do? God paid himself, with himself, to himself, for a debt we owed.

That doesn't make sense. If God simply forgave us, that would make sense (well it wouldn't actually, since why go through the whole thing in the first place if he was just going to forgive us), but it would make more sense than this.

The only reason there exists a debt at all is because God says there is a debt, since everything comes from God. So why exactly does God need to turn himself into a man and have himself executed?

Getting back the Escher picture, the issue as far as I can see it is two conflicting ideas that Christians seem to keep well apart from each other as to not cause their heads to explode

On the one hand Jesus paid the debt for society. Fair enough, that would be like the famous priest in the Holocaust who begged the Nazi shoulder to take him instead of a child. A debt must be paid to God for our sins, and Jesus decide that he would take the debt of the whole world and have that paid in his suffering and execution.

Then on the bottom of the page you have the small issue that Jesus is in fact God, the person that the debt has to be paid too in the first place.

Its when you join the two up you get, well, nonsense.

It would be like the Nazi guard saying " Well someone has to be executed" and then shooting himself in the head instead of either the priest of the Jew. Would we all be going "Wow, that was such an amazing thing he did?" Doubtful.

The only reason anyone had to be executed in the first place is because the Nazi guard wanted to execute someone. Him executing himself is pointless. He could just not execute anyone.

Or another example, a man catches two kids breaking into his house and stealing stuff. He goes to get his belt and says "Right lads I'm going to whip the crap out of you with my belt"

The first boy valiantly steps up and says "No sir, it was all my idea. I made him do it, he didn't want to. You should beat me and let him go"

There, an example of someone taking the debt on himself. Fair play to him.

But would it make any sense if this happened?

The man goes "I am so moved by that boy that I'm going to let the both of you go. I hope you learnt your lesson. But in the interests of justice, someone has to be whipped with my belt. So if you will excuse me I will just pop into the sitting room and beat the sh*t out of myself"

I would imagine if anyone heard of someone doing that they would laugh at the absurdity of it.

But for some reason we are supposed to think that God doing just that was some amazing act that we should all be amazed at.

pH

Wicknight wrote: »

It would be like the Nazi guard saying " Well someone has to be executed" and then shooting himself in the head instead of either the priest of the Jew. Would we all be going "Wow, that was such an amazing thing he did?" Doubtful.

Remember that Jesus didn't stay dead, he only was 'dead' for 3 days, but whether part of God died for 3 days or all of God is not clear.

Also you've got to ask yourself, given that heaven is a wonderful place where God/Jesus lives, how exactly are a few days dead any form of sacrifice at all? Especially since even after being brought back to life Jesus then headed off to heaven anyway (which wasn't a sacrifice). Yea I know he was flayed and the whole cross thing isn't that pleasant but as far as I can figure out that's the sum total of this massive 'sacrifice' he made.

So in your analogy it's more akin to the nazi guard slapping himself a couple of times and then carrying on as before

Splendour

Wicknight wrote: »

Nearly all religions and religious holy books put forward explanations as to why wickedness and evil exists in the world. If you think the Bible is unique in this regard you simply have not been exposed to other religions.

For example, Hesoid described the Ancient Greek belief that evil exists in the world because of the curiosity of Pandora, the first woman.

Prometheus, a Titan, stole fire (commonly understood to mean knowledge or technology) from the gods and gave it to the race of men (humans).

In a rage, Zeus decided to give men another "gift", the gift of woman. Pandora was created and bless by the gods with beauty and music. In an act of curiosity Pandora opened a jar of the gods (a common interpretation of the jar is the female womb) that she was told not to open. Out of the jar came all evil, and it rushed over the land. Pandora closed the jar just in time to trap hope (Elpis). The meaning of translation of elpis is still debated today, whether that is a good or bad thing that it is in the jar.

That to me makes as much sense as a woman eating a fruit because a talking snake in a garden told her to.

How can this be an explanation if evil coming into the world. If Prometheus stole fire, then wickedness and evil already existed.

pH

Splendour wrote: »

How can this be an explanation if evil coming into the world. If Prometheus stole fire, then wickedness and evil already existed.

Evil coming into the world refers to the world of man (ie us mortals) - Prometheus after all was a Titan/God. Also 'stole' maybe is the wrong word, after all I can take a flame from a fire without anyone losing anything - and while many call it the 'theft' of fire, another interpretation is the 'gift' of fire to man.

As conventionally reconstructed, this trilogy reimagines the myths of Prometheus found in Hesiod's Theogony and Works and Days. In the first play, Prometheus Bound, the Titan is chained to a rock and tortured for giving fire to humankind, as well as teaching them other arts of civilization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_the_Fire-Bringer

Splendour

Scofflaw wrote: »

Schuhart is presumably giving his interpretation of how each of them would answer your question.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes, I realise this,but given he put Sam Harris in the same box as religion, I don't find his statement making sense. What I read was thus, 'there is no one who can explain the evils of the world'.Yet, I know from you guys that you put emphasis on Sam Harris and his ilk, so by putting him in the same genre as religion, Schuhart's statement just isn't plausible to me.

Splendour

Schuhart wrote: »

For my own part, I suspect religion persists for practical social reasons. (I should explain that the question of religion’s persistence is of great interest to me, but it’s a question I have not reached a final position on).

My feeling (as distinct from Sam Harris’) is people are attracted to religion as it fulfils needs such as a sense of identity and validation of what is a good life. For example, I read a book a while back on the psychology of religion which (inter alia) quoted research that suggested American women converts to Islam were at least partly attracted by an ideology that values the homemaker role. I think that’s how religion works in general – people accept the unlikely stuff as a consequence of the good stuff that attracts them in.

I’ve said this a few times on posts, and even recently on another thread here, that I think discussion of religion between believers and unbelievers can be skewed as we talk about different things. Atheists can tend to concentrate on the credibility of the God concept, where believers probably see belief in God as a consequence of deciding to pursue a faith, rather than as a cause of faith. Put another way, I expect people like yourself don’t pursue religion because you think God is a compellingly believable concept.

Agreed, there are many people who are attracted to religion for social reasons.(There are a few in my church). However in my own situation, I 'converted' from Catholicism to Christianity. Socially not much difference.Same Christian God. I was not pursuing faith, as I already had it.
So why did I bother?

Schuhart

Splendour wrote: »

How can this be an explanation if evil coming into the world. If Prometheus stole fire, then wickedness and evil already existed.

I’m not clear on how this scenario is essentially different from the Garden of Eden story. Details and the exact situation might be different, but surely the position is much the same?

Splendour wrote: »

What I read was thus, 'there is no one who can explain the evils of the world'.Yet, I know from you guys that you put emphasis on Sam Harris and his ilk, so by putting him in the same genre as religion, Schuhart's statement just isn't plausible to me.

I’ve a feeling the gap between us on this may lie elsewhere in some difference in perception that we haven’t identified yet (and I don’t know what that difference is yet). As far as I was concerned, you were putting forward two illustrative questions that you felt are answered by the Bible and cannot be satisfactorily answered elsewhere. In response, I gave three other explanations for those illustrative questions all of which to me seem to be plausible from the perspective of those belief systems. I’m just taking Sam Harris to be a representative of atheism – we all understand, I assume, that there’s no ‘Church of Harrisdom’.

So, indeed, from my perspective the kind of question you put forward can be answered both by other religions and without religion. But there seems to be some gap in the communication between us as I’m honestly puzzled by your subsequent statements. This is why I suggested that perhaps you need to expand on what you envisage as being an ‘explanation’ as I have a dim feeling that we are misunderstanding each other and, hence, each failing to communicate our views to the other.

Splendour wrote: »

Agreed, there are many people who are attracted to religion for social reasons.(There are a few in my church). However in my own situation, I 'converted' from Catholicism to Christianity. Socially not much difference.Same Christian God. I was not pursuing faith, as I already had it.
So why did I bother?

Clearly I don’t know what moved you from one branch of a faith to another. Perhaps Catholicism had too much of a mass produced McReligion feel to it and you wanted a more convincing experience. However, you’ll understand that what’s on my mind is more why religion as a phenomenon persists. In fact, one of the thoughts that I wonder about is how in the face of increasing knowledge, some people seem to be attracted to more fundamentalist positions.

It’s almost as if our growing awareness of our true nature and place in the universe is a truth so awful that the response is to deny it totally. I find the explanation advanced by Ken Miller for why some responsible scientists support creationism persuasive in this space. Summarising, if someone thinks more knowledge means less religion and less religion means an inhuman society then you’ll advocate ignorance even if you know it to be false.

Now, that’s a general society argument for why religion persists and not an explanation for individual motivations. But I don’t expect there is only one motivation for practicing religion. You’ve identified yourself that some people do it for social reasons. So certainly, people pursue religions for reasons other than a chain of logic commencing with certainty that God created the world and gave us this or that holy book.

Bear in mind, an amount of my view on this is fuelled by seeing the way discussions here between atheists and theists can frequently misconnect, as atheists assume that religion must collapse once we pull the God rug from under it. However, that is (IMHO) just not the entry point for theism. I think the recent post by PDN in this thread makes a not dissimilar point from a theist perspective.

Zombrex

Splendour wrote: »

How can this be an explanation if evil coming into the world. If Prometheus stole fire, then wickedness and evil already existed.

Well how can Adam and Eve have been without sin when the first thing they did was disobey a pretty straightforward commandment from God not to eat from a fruit tree he placed smack bang in the middle of Eden? And why did he put the fruit tree there in the first place when he knew they would eat from it? And since when do snakes talk?

Splendour there is no point going Well that doesn't make much sense to someone else's creation myth.

I agree with you, its nonsense. But its just as much nonsense as your creation myth which you take very seriously. In fact the Greek creation myth makes far more sense than the Judeo/Christian one.

Talon1977

So what exactly did God do? God paid himself, with himself, to himself, for a debt we owed.

That doesn't make sense. If God simply forgave us, that would make sense (well it wouldn't actually, since why go through the whole thing in the first place if he was just going to forgive us), but it would make more sense than this.

To me, it makes perfect sense. If you consider that the whole point of it all is for God to communicate who he is to his creation, the whole thing is masterfully and perfectly designed.

If we're to know who God is, and what he's all about and intimately know his character, just telling us won't quite get it. It's the whole "actions speak louder than words" thing. If he just forgave us, then there would be no communication of his Holiness (The part of God that is perfect and cannot even be in the presence of imperfection). And so if there were no expression of a penalty for sin, we would miss that characteristic completely.

The part you miss with the Nazi illustration, is that the Nazi was carrying out an UNJUST action, in wanting to kill the boy. God's judgment on mankind for our sin is completely just (if one believes that God created man for His own purposes, that is).

The other side is, if the thing never happened at all, we would miss out on knowing how deep God's love for his creation is. Knowing that we can never fulfill the penalty that is owed because of our imperfection to begin with, God gives himself (which is perfect) on our behalf. With the Nazi story, again the Justice principle is missing. But because of what true justice is, there was ACTUALLY a true penalty to be paid.

I say that in this sense... It all hinges on what one believes about creation, so I don't expect you to believe this, but only to understand why Christians say it all makes sense to them. Here it is: IF we believe that God created us for HIS purpose (in contrast to a purpose of whatever we want life to be about), and for HIS glory, then our decision to "do our own thing" and purposely forget God is even there, is a crime of the highest order. So God would be completely JUST in his judgment and anger against us - the death penalty.

The whole thing presented a "problem" for God (if God could ever have a problem), because God loves his creation so deeply. He does not want to punish us with the death penalty, but a death penalty must be paid, due to God's characteristic of being Just. If he were to simply let it go and forgive us out of hand, God would no longer be Just, but Unjust, which He refuses to be.

And so He pays the penalty himself, upholding the penalty of death, remaining Just. Yet displaying his mercy and love as well.

There are other characteristics we see in the whole display and the longer you look at it, the more you see and the more you know who God really is. That's the whole point for us, you see.

I don't know if this clears anything up for you, or just makes it more confusing. But at any rate, it's my attempt to at least explain to you why it doesn't seem illogical or irrational at all. In fact, quite the opposite. To me, it's a beautiful and perfect display of rationality and logic, remembering the point is for us, God's creation, to know and enjoy the character of the Creator.

I'm certainly not trying to convince you I'm right in all this, but hopefully you can at least see that starting from my premise (that God did indeed create us), the rest makes perfect sense.

Zombrex

Talon1977 wrote: »

To me, it makes perfect sense. If you consider that the whole point of it all is for God to communicate who he is to his creation, the whole thing is masterfully and perfectly designed.

I can think of a million better ways to communicate this to us.

An example often used on this forum is to simply re-arrange all the stars to spell "Hi, I'm God and I exist" in the sky.

The idea that creating a mortal version of oneself and sending it to Earth to be killed by Romans seems like a ridiculous way to communicate anything to anyone.

For a start its looks exactly as if God doesn't exist Jesus was pretty ordinary. We have vague descriptions of him doing miracles from his followers, none of which are recorded independently, and all of which could simply be a result of over eager fanatics.

Instead of appearing to all the leaders of the world and performing a series of testable miracles, Jesus/God instead decide to appear as one of a hundred cult leaders in a back water town. He acted like a cult leader, sounded like a cult leader, and died like a cult leader.

Its hard not to see this as simply the most plausible explanation, Jesus (or who ever he was based on) was a small time cult leader who was executed by the authorities, as so many were, and his followers panicked over the little problem of how can the son of God be executed. So they come up with the rather weak explanation that he in fact always wanted to be executed, and it was in fact part of his plan.

Talon1977 wrote: »

If we're to know who God is, and what he's all about and intimately know his character, just telling us won't quite get it.

But having himself executed like a mortal man will?

Talon1977 wrote: »

If he just forgave us, then there would be no communication of his Holiness (The part of God that is perfect and cannot even be in the presence of imperfection). And so if there were no expression of a penalty for sin, we would miss that characteristic completely.

But that is the point, God can't pay his own penalty to himself. That is ridiculous. Its the man who's house has just been broken into beating himself up because someone has to pay for his house being broken into.

Talon1977 wrote: »

The part you miss with the Nazi illustration, is that the Nazi was carrying out an UNJUST action, in wanting to kill the boy.

That is irrelevant. Replace Nazi guard with a judge in the courts sending himself to prison instead of a criminal because "some has to pay" to maintain justice.

The point isn't whether or not the action is just. The point is that the person who the penalty is owed to cannot pay his own penalty. That is pointless and ridiculous. He can forgive the penalty certain, but it makes no sense for him to inflict suffering on himself at the same time.

Talon1977 wrote: »

The other side is, if the thing never happened at all, we would miss out on knowing how deep God's love for his creation is.

Why would we miss out on knowing this? How does Jesus demonstrate how deep God's love is for his creation?

Firstly the idea that God experienced pain and suffering while Jesus is nonsense. God is omniscient. He knows everything. God already knows exactly what being executed on a cross feels like. He doesn't need to send Jesus down to do it.

Secondly God is, well, a god. The idea in the first place that he would suffer at the hands of humans is equally nonsensical.

Talon1977 wrote: »

Knowing that we can never fulfill the penalty that is owed because of our imperfection to begin with, God gives himself (which is perfect) on our behalf.

But the penalty is owed to him

The only reason we exist in our "imperfect" state to begin with is because he put us in this state as punishment for something Adam and Eve did. He punished all of humanity (not just Adam and Eve, which is a whole other thread), placing humanity in a fallen state.

So what is God doing by giving himself on our behalf? Giving himself to whom?

Talon1977 wrote: »

Here it is: IF we believe that God created us for HIS purpose (in contrast to a purpose of whatever we want life to be about), and for HIS glory, then our decision to "do our own thing" and purposely forget God is even there, is a crime of the highest order.

Well firstly God knew exactly what we would do when he created us. It makes little sense that he was some how shocked or upset or surprised when we did our own thing, since he knew we were going to do our own thing before he made us. He put the tree in Eden, he put the snake in Eden, knowing what would happen. And he cast Adam and Eve (and all humans that didn't yet exist) out, despite all this.

Secondly, it is a "crime" against God. God cannot pay a penalty to God. Again that makes no sense.

If someone robbed you then you might forgive the robber. But would you send yourself to jail to "pay" for the robbers crime? No, of course you wouldn't. Why would you? The crime is done to you. What purpose would you going to jail actually serve. Someone only has to pay because you have been put out. You going to jail can't make you any less put out, in fact it makes you far more put out.

Talon1977 wrote: »

The whole thing presented a "problem" for God (if God could ever have a problem), because God loves his creation so deeply.

So deeply that he put a tree in Eden knowing Adam would eat from it, and a snake in Eden knowing that it would talk to Eve.

So deeply that he decided to condemn all humanity as punishment for what Adam and Eve did.

Imagine locking up a robbers son because the robber was already dead. And then locking up the son's son (the robbers grandson). Would any society on Earth do that? Now imagine locking up all descendent of the robber until the end of time, as punishment of what the robber did.

Yes, "love" is the best way to describe that.

Talon1977 wrote: »

And so He pays the penalty himself, upholding the penalty of death, remaining Just.

He pays the penalty himself to himself

That is the exact opposite of "just"

It is the man who has been robbed locking himself up in prison in the name of "justice" while saying that he is paying the penalty himself.

I mean it is a perversion of the whole concept of "just"

If you truly believe that God is just and just is God then the whole idea of the death of Jesus is blasphemy since it is the exact opposite of just.

It is the worst example of "justice" I can thing of.

Talon1977 wrote: »

But at any rate, it's my attempt to at least explain to you why it doesn't seem illogical or irrational at all. In fact, quite the opposite.

Well no offence Talon but judging by your post you don't seem to understand it any more than I do, you are just repeating back the doctrine of the religion.

Anyone can say something is "justice", but that doesn't make it so. If something clearly isn't just, simply saying it is is pointless.

Even if one accepts that humanity owes God something because of our wicked sinful nature (which he created), the idea that God can pay a penalty to himself and retain a concept of justice is utter nonsense. I'm not talking about whether someone believes that happened or not, I'm simply talking about if it makes sense. It doesn't. It is simply an unjust think happening with the religion saying "this is just" in the same way they might say "up is down" or "the sky is yellow"

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

The idea that creating a mortal version of oneself and sending it to Earth to be killed by Romans seems like a ridiculous way to communicate anything to anyone.

lol
Good post

Talon1977

I'll respond more later, but for now, I just want to point out that it seems to me that if God invented the concept of justice because it is a reflection of his character, then if we define justice any different than the way he defines it, which definition would be the correct one? The one we come up with, or His definition?

Talon1977

Talon1977 wrote: »

I'll respond more later, but for now, I just want to point out that it seems to me that if God invented the concept of justice because it is a reflection of his character, then if we define justice any different than the way he defines it, which definition would be the correct one? The one we come up with, or His definition?

Whichever had more good reasoning behind it?
Powerful doesn't mean right

Zombrex

Talon1977 wrote: »

I'll respond more later, but for now, I just want to point out that it seems to me that if God invented the concept of justice because it is a reflection of his character, then if we define justice any different than the way he defines it, which definition would be the correct one? The one we come up with, or His definition?

Well you are getting a bit ahead of yourself.

God hasn't defined anything. The stories in the New Testament, claiming to explain Jesus' life, defined this as a form of "justice"

If this is nonsense even by our limited human standards of justice, its probably complete nonsense by God's perfect standard, assuming he exists.

He is probably looking down at Christians shaking his head going "Man, you guys will believe anything"

One has to ask oneself which is more plausible?

That this is actually how a super being would define justice (to me this isn't how a 5 year old would define justice)

Or this is a rushed explanation of an unexpected event invented by a group of cult followers panicked by the fact that their leader, who is supposed to be a super powerful, son of God, "messiah", has just been executed by Romans like a common criminal?

This actually happens all the time in religions, particularly cults. The cult leader declares himself as having supernatural powers as a mark of authority, and then something happens to him (he is shot, he gets cancer, he gets arrested, he gets hit by a bus) and rather than the cult followers going Oh, well obviously he wasn't actually a supernatural being they instead try to come up with some way to explain what has just happened and still hold on to the religious beliefs of the cult, because those are obviously very important to them otherwise they wouldn't be in the cult in the first place.

Schuhart

bluewolf wrote: »

Whichever had more good reasoning behind it?
Powerful doesn't mean right

I find this kind of discussion reminds me of the scene in Blade Runner where the replicant Roy finally confronts the man who designed him and asks him for more life. It does raise all those issues of whether a creator can claim total ownership of his creations, and how a creation might feel about that.

And, indeed, wouldn't it be a frightening thought if we are collectively the creation of a superbeing who sees us as toys to be used for amusement.

That said, I'm more inclined to believe we are simply here.

Talon1977

Or this is a rushed explanation of an unexpected event invented by a group of cult followers panicked by the fact that their leader, who is supposed to be a super powerful, son of God, "messiah", has just been executed by Romans like a common criminal?

Except for the fact that it had been foreshadowed for centuries before, with the yearly slaughter of a spotless passover lamb. And then the "spotless" Christ just happens to be "sacrificed" at the time of the Jewish Passover feast. Explain that one.

Then combine that with all the passages in the Old Testament that point to that very event. All the Old Testament stories foretell the coming of One who would come and make a way for man to be reconciled to God. So it wasn't just a "rushed explanation" as you say. It had been in the making from the start. The disciples themselves admit in their own writings that they did not understand this until after the fact. (a whole other discussion... if this was just a hoax, would they make themselves out to be so dumb in the gospels???)

SubjectSean

Talon1977 wrote: »

Except for the fact that it had been foreshadowed for centuries before, with the yearly slaughter of a spotless passover lamb. And then the "spotless" Christ just happens to be "sacrificed" at the time of the Jewish Passover feast. Explain that one.

Then combine that with all the passages in the Old Testament that point to that very event. All the Old Testament stories foretell the coming of One who would come and make a way for man to be reconciled to God. So it wasn't just a "rushed explanation" as you say. It had been in the making from the start.

Sorry to jump in but the Jews were/are quite clearly waiting for a human messiah, even the term itself "annointed one" refers to somebody annointed by God. Why would God 'annoint' himself? If any of Jesus's first followers in Jerusalem were teaching doctrines in the Temple like the one you suggest they would quite simply have been dragged outside and used as targets for rocks. Yet there they are in Acts in the Temple. The only people treated to the rocks are Stephen and his followers. After they are run out of Jerusalem Paul goes after them and starts on his lifes work of cooking up the doctrine which you are espousing. I trust that wikinight's excellent argument is not lost on you and that you can begin to see that this doctrine makes God out to be deranged and lacking in basic powers of reason.

Talon1977

If any of Jesus's first followers in Jerusalem were teaching doctrines in the Temple like the one you suggest they would quite simply have been dragged outside and used as targets for rocks. Yet there they are in Acts in the Temple. The only people treated to the rocks are Stephen and his followers.

Begging your pardon, but that's incorrect. There were several stonings of the apostles and also several severe beatings and flayings and jailings for this very teaching you're claiming wasn't being taught. They were drug OUT of those temples and run off several times because the Jewish rabbis just couldn't stand it any longer.

And for that matter it was because Jesus claimed He had equality with God that he was crucified in the first place. The implications of what Jesus was saying wasn't lost on the Pharisees. The jewish leaders thought it was blaspheme, punishable by death.

Schuhart

Talon1977 wrote: »

The jewish leaders thought it was blaspheme, punishable by death.

And why was all that argument necessary? Surely the fact of Jesus' divinity should have been so manifest (given God's intention to communicate to people in an understandable fashion) that no-one could have objected.

Why all the divine obfustication?

Zombrex

Talon1977 wrote: »

Except for the fact that it had been foreshadowed for centuries before, with the yearly slaughter of a spotless passover lamb. And then the "spotless" Christ just happens to be "sacrificed" at the time of the Jewish Passover feast. Explain that one.

Your kidding right?

How many people were executed in that time? Scratch that, how many "messiahs" were executed in that time?

Anyone one of them could have claimed to be the "spotless lamb" of Isaiah by their followers after they were executed.

Heck there are examples of countless cult leaders (and rap stars) prophesying their own deaths even before they are killed (David Koresh being a classic example). That doesn't mean they were supernatural.

Its a pretty safe bet, you either do end up being killed some how (very common in Biblical times) in which case everyone thinks you are amazing, or you aren't in which case you have happy days continuing to lead your cult and say it is "coming in the future"

Talon1977 wrote: »

Then combine that with all the passages in the Old Testament that point to that very event. All the Old Testament stories foretell the coming of One who would come and make a way for man to be reconciled to God.

And all Jesus' followers knew this. So of course to them Jesus must have been that person!

So they rush back to the prophecies of the Old Testament and try and make it fit as much as possible.

Does it fit the actual prophecies? No, of course not.

There was no flood that destroyed Jerusalem after Jesus' death (natural disasters are a little harder to make happen).

God didn't destroy all nations that threatened Israel.

Does that matter? No, because it gives the followers at least some glimmer of plausibility that he is still in fact the messiah, despite being dead.

Most of the "prophecies" used to justify Jesus' death aren't even about the messiah, or in fact prophecies (for example Pslams 22)

Talon1977 wrote: »

if this was just a hoax, would they make themselves out to be so dumb in the gospels???

Who said it was a hoax?

Do you think the David Koresh prophecies that the US government would storm and burn down his compound was a hoax? If not does that mean he actually was the second coming of Jesus?

Talon1977

Schuhart wrote: »

And why was all that argument necessary? Surely the fact of Jesus' divinity should have been so manifest (given God's intention to communicate to people in an understandable fashion) that no-one could have objected.

Why all the divine obfustication?

Because a fireworks display or writing in the stars, as suggested before, would not require faith from the believer. Which apparently (according to Scripture) is something God enjoys from us.

How many people were executed in that time? Scratch that, how many "messiahs" were executed in that time?

Anyone one of them could have claimed to be the "spotless lamb" of Isaiah by their followers after they were executed.

Heck there are examples of countless cult leaders (and rap stars) prophesying their own deaths even before they are killed (David Koresh being a classic example). That doesn't mean they were supernatural.

None of them, however, were reportedly raised from the dead, which would be the validating event of this particular messiah.

Consider the words of one of the leading Jewish teachers of that day, after hearing testimony from Peter and some of the other apostles, about Christ and who they claimed that he was.

Book of Acts, chapter 5 wrote:

When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while.

Then he addressed them: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”

His speech persuaded them. They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.

There was no flood that destroyed Jerusalem after Jesus' death (natural disasters are a little harder to make happen).

I don't recall anything about a flood. ?

God didn't destroy all nations that threatened Israel.

And where is this passage? Let's look at it.

SubjectSean

Talon1977 wrote: »

Begging your pardon, but that's incorrect. There were several stonings of the apostles and also several severe beatings and flayings and jailings for this very teaching you're claiming wasn't being taught. They were drug OUT of those temples and run off several times because the Jewish rabbis just couldn't stand it any longer.

Sorry but in Jerusalem this was not the case. The followers in Jerusalem were not persecuted. The reason for this is because they were not apostate blasphemers. So to recap, the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem were just hunky dory with the jewish authorities. The followers of Stephen who were run out of Jerusalem were indeed persecuted as you say but this persecution was not endured by the whole movement.

Talon1977 wrote: »

And for that matter it was because Jesus claimed He had equality with God that he was crucified in the first place. The implications of what Jesus was saying wasn't lost on the Pharisees. The jewish leaders thought it was blaspheme, punishable by death.

The only Gospel to see him equating himself with God directly is John and in this it disagrees with the other Gospels and so it is unlikely to be correct. I rather have it that he was stiring up trouble and the Romans wanted him dead The Sanhendrin at the time had ample powers to execute blasphemers and did so on a regular basis by stoning. Annoying the Romans with seditious teachings and stirring trouble in the province is what most likely got Jesus killed. His first followers did not consider him to be divine but merely a man.

"You who are Israelites, hear these words. Jesus the Nazorean was a man commended to you by God with mighty deeds, wonders, and signs, which God worked through him in your midst, as you yourselves know. This man, delivered up by the set plan and foreknowledge of God, you killed, using lawless men to crucify him."

Acts 2:22

Talon1977

The only Gospel to see him equating himself with God directly is John and in this it disagrees with the other Gospels and so it is unlikely to be correct.

The earliest followers of Jesus all seemed pretty convinced that Jesus was fully God in human form. Paul said, "He is the image of the invisible God...in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell."

John said that Jesus created the world.

Peter said, "every one who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." And as the Jews stated who were trying to have him arrested FOR BLASPHEME, "Who can forgive sins, except God?"

It's a common argument that John's gospel is the only one that supports the deity of Christ and it is a result of the evolution of Christian theology because it was written later than the Synoptics (the other 3 gospel accounts). Now there is no a priori reason to reject John's Gospel, or even to date it as the latest of the present quartet. Indeed, John A. T. Robinson in Redating the New Testament and in The Priority of John, presents a cogent argument for dating John in the same time period as the other Gospels, between 50-65 AD, with proto-gospel material and traditions dating into the two decades previous. A full discussion of it is not really practical here, but... it might be worth the research for you.

And what of the Synoptics? The fact is that there are ample recorded claims of divinity by Jesus in the Synoptics, which operate against the assumption that only John shows Jesus making such claims. The divinity claims in the Synoptics give a quite unambiguous statement of what Jesus meant when He made those claims. We do NOT, of course, find the direct claim: "I AM GOD." That would have been a little too confusing to Jesus' hearers, and at any rate, would not have been precisely correct, only generally correct. The claims, as we shall see, are more precisely fitting to the proclamation: "Jesus is God the Son; the Wisdom and Word of God" - i.e., the second person of the Trinity, which, ontologically, makes Jesus co-equal with God. Even the NT itself, though it refers to Jesus as God (John 1:1, 20:28), shows a preference for expressing Jesus' divinity through titles: Word, Savior, Son of God, Lord - and by using language to describe Jesus that is appropriated from OT attributions to Yahweh.

Furthermore, studies by New Testament scholars such as Martin Hengel of Tubingen University, C. F. D. Moule of Cambridge, and others have proved that within twenty years of the crucifixion a full-blown Christology proclaiming Jesus as God incarnate existed. How does one explain this worship by monotheistic Jews of one of their countrymen as God incarnate, apart from the claims of Jesus himself?

Furthermore, The oldest liturgical prayer recorded, in 1 Corinthians 16:22, is dated at around 55 A.D. It refers to Jesus as Lord. So does the earliest sermon and the earliest account of martyrdom. The authors of the NT epistles, including and especially Paul, even in his undisputed letters, use the language of divine Wisdom with reference to Jesus. The earliest pagan report of the church's activities indicates that Jesus was worshipped as Lord. Paul's letters, written between 49 and 65 A.D., exhibit the same fully-evolved Christology; logically, he must have gotten it from sometime earlier than 49 A.D. Paul cites creeds, hymns and sayings of Jesus that must have come from earlier (Rom. 1:3-4; 1 Cor. 11:23; Col. 1:15-16; Phil. 2:6-11; 1 Tim. 3:16; 2 Tim. 2:8); these items translate easily into Aramaic and show features of Hebrew poetry and thought-forms, which allows us to trace their origins to Jesus' first followers in Judea, between 33 and 48 A.D.

All of this leads to the inevitable conclusion that the concept of Jesus as divine quite definitely existed within, at the very least, a decade of the crucifixion, and therefore, was likely to have been asserted before His death by Jesus Himself, as is recorded in the Gospels.

If Jesus never claimed to be divine, and never claimed it in the sense that is indicated in the Gospels, it is reasonable to expect that:

• The enemies of Christianity and the early church would have declared that Jesus never made such claims, or was misunderstood. Some did indeed do this, but wrote quite some time after the fact. There is no record contemporary or closely contemporary with Jesus (first century AD) that indicates that He never made any special claims for Himself, or that the church invented the claims. Even after that time, however, the major skeptics of the first several centuries never argued this point. Celsus, for example, said that Jesus called Himself the Son of God, but wrongly. Porphyry, one of the most-feared skeptics in the early church, did not deny Jesus' claims to divinity, but instead tried to 'downgrade' Jesus into a hero-type deity (a third-class deity in the Roman hierarchy!). This adds up to strong evidence that (a) the Jesus-never-claimed-divinity argument had not been advanced by skeptics of the time, and (b) if it was used, perhaps by some skeptic whose works we have totally lost, it was so easily dismissed or so lacked adequate credibility that it could not be used by the best anti-Christian skeptics.
• A parallel movement, that acclaimed Jesus as merely a good teacher, would have emerged alongside Christianity. To be sure, there are those such as Burton L. Mack, author of The Lost Gospel, who would have us believe that a such a movement did exist; but conveniently enough, he tells us, it came and went too quickly to leave behind any concrete physical evidence for us to know what happened to them!

As it is, there are no extant texts from the first century, or even from the century thereafter, that represent Jesus as claiming to be only human or only a prophet--He is ALWAYS portrayed as making exalted claims to a super-human status. Later heresies of the church, such as Gnosticism, involved paganistic and/or mystical additions upon what Jesus meant in the Gospels when He claimed to be God; they never denied that He made any special claims about Himself. As we noted previously, the earliest known pagan critic of Christianity to address the issue, Celsus, argued that Jesus did apply the title "Son of God" to Himself, but wrongly; only much later did those critics deny that Jesus made such claims. The argument that Jesus never claimed to be divine is in fact nothing more than an unsupportable conjecture, an argument from silence competing against the scream of the available data. Each of the above claims, and every known document of the church, even the heretical ones, acknowledge that Jesus claimed divinity. There is absolutely no evidence to the contrary that can be cited. Saying that there is no evidence that Jesus claimed divinity can only be managed by ignoring reams of evidence, or by facile dismissal.

Sorry for the length of the post.

pH

Talon1977 wrote: »

Sorry for the length of the post.

Good start, next we'd like an apology for copy and pasting a large block of text from another site and passing it off as your own.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Emails/divinity.htm

Schuhart

Talon1977 wrote: »

Because a fireworks display or writing in the stars, as suggested before, would not require faith from the believer. Which apparently (according to Scripture) is something God enjoys from us.

Why, other than naked self interest, should I give a damn about what God enjoys from me?

What I'm trying to explore here is the depiction of God as good and loving. I can utterly understand that if God is this all-powerful sadistic being who will torture us for eternity unless we bow and scrape before him, then we have little choice but to do that (unless we've far more courage than I have). However, why do we bother with this illusion that creating lesser beings so that you can mess with their heads for amusement is evidence of goodness or love?

Or are you trying to furiously signal too us behind God's back? "Quick, down on your knees and start praising him or he'll make mince of you."

Let me say, in practical terms I doubt if there's any creator who particularly gives a damn about what we do all day. I'll post again a link to a Hillaire Belloc story that I find apt and funny on this point.