Miracles

[Corwin111]

The way I see it, if Lenin had been arrested and executed after he arrived at the Finland Station, you might have had a few ex-Bolshevik nutters arguing he wasn't dead, but no-one would have taken any notice and and he'd have been minor history almost immediately. The bosses use public execution to demonstrate their power and the uselessness of opposing it, and it works. If it didn't work that time, something different happened, that's all. People don't normally get themselves killed for rumours, however hopeful. Martyrs are a strong argument, and they seem to have been around early enough to convince a lot of people very quickly.

It's funny because Lenin was deified after his death. Maybe Stalin and co. took a page from Christianity.

Yeah iolo, dan makes a good point that I seem to have omitted. It is funny that you should choose Lenin as an example since his death was not only revered by many as a noble sacrifice to the cause but also brought about a great number of what you would call martyrs. Partisan movements in many eastern european countries followed the example of the bolshevik revolution... people died gladly with Lenin's name on their lips and his cause in their hearts. Of course we all know the disastrous consequences it all had and what a big flop the dream of a communist utopia turned out to be, but that doesn't make those people's sactifice any less sincere.

I am from Bulgaria, I know first hand how those particular martyrs were revered before the regime changed. Of course the revering was mandatory then and enforced by a corrupt and oppressive regime, but there were and still are true believers in the religion that is communism here in my country.

So with giving us this example, I don't think you have furthered your point any and made any kind of coherent case for the uniqueness of the death of Jesus and the attitude of his followers toward it.

Another greatly revered historical personage comes to mind too... He lived and taught some 500 or so years after Jesus and HIS martyrs have been somewhat of a hot topic in the last decade. The followers of his teachings also currently number almost as much as your guys and are slowly but steadily catching up. His name is Mohammed. :)

So bottom line: People believing a dead guy to be alive - not unique to Jesus. People willing to give their lives for this or that ideological leader and their sincere belief in his teachings - not unique to Jesus in the least!

What else you got?

[iolo]

It's funny because Lenin was deified after his death. Maybe Stalin and co. took a page from Christianity.

He was stuffed after his death, or some such ludicrous thing. Manifestly he wasn't deified: you are simply misusing language

[Ken Carman]

"Miracles" back then were not limited to Jesus, story-wise. That is not to say these did not happen, just claims of such were not uncommon. There's tales among the Gnostic and other gospels that never made it into the Bible of John and a "magician" having a magic/miracle off.

And, tis true, these stories were passed on by word of mouth, then copied over and over by scribes. From then on we have many versions of the Bible, and still do. (Something I just found out is King James was written, in part, because the King wanted a Shakesperean-like version (essentially "lyrical," if you wish) of the Bible that supported authority more than the standard English version that was used at the time.

There have been a lot or forces pressed upon the Bible over the thousand of years Old and then New have been translated, re-translated, re-interpreted. The idea that somehow it has remained pure and exact is problematic just from understand this is a very HUMAN document. No matter how much God influenced, suggested, or inspired any part, or all, of the Bible, humans decided what went in, how it was written... and humans are by definition fallible, at best.

[iolo]

Yeah iolo, dan makes a good point that I seem to have omitted. It is funny that you should choose Lenin as an example since his death was not only revered by many as a noble sacrifice to the cause but also brought about a great number of what you would call martyrs. Partisan movements in many eastern european countries followed the example of the bolshevik revolution... people died gladly with Lenin's name on their lips and his cause in their hearts. Of course we all know the disastrous consequences it all had and what a big flop the dream of a communist utopia turned out to be, but that doesn't make those people's sactifice any less sincere.

I am from Bulgaria, I know first hand how those particular martyrs were revered before the regime changed. Of course the revering was mandatory then and enforced by a corrupt and oppressive regime, but there were and still are true believers in the religion that is communism here in my country.

So with giving us this example, I don't think you have furthered your point any and made any kind of coherent case for the uniqueness of the death of Jesus and the attitude of his followers toward it.

Another greatly revered historical personage comes to mind too... He lived and taught some 500 or so years after Jesus and HIS martyrs have been somewhat of a hot topic in the last decade. The followers of his teachings also currently number almost as much as your guys and are slowly but steadily catching up. His name is Mohammed. :)

So bottom line: People believing a dead guy to be alive - not unique to Jesus. People willing to give their lives for this or that ideological leader and their sincere belief in his teachings - not unique to Jesus in the least!

What else you got?

They weren't martyrs but - like me - socialists, dying not for salvation-through-Lenin for a human liberation, which, alas, has failed, so that the species will not survive. There was no-one who stood to benefit by making up nonsense about Jesus,and I am not into fanatic Muslim-baiting, so forget that nonsense do. Who seriously believes which dead person is alive, please?

[Ken Carman]

T

Ever hear of Jesus Christ lizards?

No, but I'm not a lizard. Bet they probably are unaware of Jesus. But wouldn't that make a great name for a Rock group?

xx

as you pointed out, we dont know the authors. Hell, we dont have originals. The copies we DO have are 300 years removed from the originals. What had changed in the intervening 300 years?

Plus, imagine a room full of scribes, among many, copying word for word pre-the invention of the press?


TR

Scholars unanimously concede that Paul is the author of Coronthians.

Personally I rephrase as "most," or "almost all." As with all things there's always at least one, no matter how easy they may be to dismiss.. But this is probably why Cor. 3 never made it into final editions. Ehrman calls it a forgery, which was not uncommon in those day and not as big a "knock" as it would be today. It was not unusual for a disciple of a disciple of a disciple to write in the name of the first disciple they followed. Most like because the inspiration was consider pure enough a source, whether it was or not isn't the point as to why it was more accepted then than it is today. Different; more distant, culture. I chuckle, yet find it annoying, when folks judge yesterday's cultures by today's standards, as would we a thousand years from now if we could wag a finger at how they view us. If time does anything, it skews vision and turns past events into as much myth as fact, and past people into caricatures of who they were.

[grandpa]

No, but I'm not a lizard.
Bet they probably are unaware of Jesus.

What, are they living under a rock?

Grandpa h.

[Ken Carman]

What, are they living under a rock?

Grandpa h.

Chuckle.

[Corwin111]

They weren't martyrs but - like me - socialists, dying not for salvation-through-Lenin for a human liberation, which, alas, has failed, so that the species will not survive. There was no-one who stood to benefit by making up nonsense about Jesus,and I am not into fanatic Muslim-baiting, so forget that nonsense do. Who seriously believes which dead person is alive, please?

So "no true scotsmen" eh? Works really well on the pulpit, I'll grant you that. But in a debate it is pretty much the equivalent of "LALALALALAALNOTLISTENIIIING". I've seen a lot better. :)

As for who stands to gain anything from deifying Jesus...

How about him , him , them , him or him , just to name a few among the countless thousands.

And also, just calling a valid point "baiting" and "nonsense" does not magically invalidate it. You need arguments for that.

Cheers.

[Ken Carman]

So "no true scotsmen" eh? Works really well on the pulpit, I'll grant you that. But in a debate it is pretty much the equivalent of "LALALALALAALNOTLISTENIIIING". I've seen a lot better. :)

As for who stands to gain anything from deifying Jesus...

How about him , him , them , him or him , just to name a few among the countless thousands.

And also, just calling a valid point "baiting" and "nonsense" does not magically invalidate it. You need arguments for that.

Cheers.

Pretty much deifying anyone after their death is a means for gaining advantage, especially when you (intentional or not) appropriate their message. Now if Jesus was personally standing up at all places and saying, "That's not what I meant at all...." then the supposed resurrection might mean more. Instead what we have is spin. Some may be more accurate, some not. Some behave as if those who wrote the Bible were objective reporters who simply reported what happened verbatim. No, they were advocates, and not necessarily only advocates for exactly what Jesus would have wanted.

[xx_mortekai_xx]

Pretty much deifying anyone after their death is a means for gaining advantage, especially when you (intentional or not) appropriate their message. Now if Jesus was personally standing up at all places and saying, "That's not what I meant at all...." then the supposed resurrection might mean more. Instead what we have is spin. Some may be more accurate, some not. Some behave as if those who wrote the Bible were objective reporters who simply reported what happened verbatim. No, they were advocates, and not necessarily only advocates for exactly what Jesus would have wanted.

dont forget that we are talking about accounts that were passed around via word of mouth for AT LEAST 40 years before the supposed events were written down.

Also, dont forget about stuff like this:

‘There is nothing so easy as by sheer volubility to deceive a common crowd or an uneducated congregation.’

– St. Jerome (Epistle to Nepotian, Lii, 8.)

"I will only mention the Apostle Paul. ... He, then, if anyone, ought to be calumniated; we should speak thus to him: ‘The proofs which you have used against the Jews and against other heretics bear a different meaning in their own contexts to that which they bear in your Epistles.

We see passages taken captive by your pen and pressed into service to win you a victory, which in volumes from which they are taken have no controversial bearing at all ... the line so often adopted by strong men in controversy – of justifying the means by the result."

– St. Jerome, Epistle to Pammachus (xlviii, 13; N&PNF. vi, 72-73)

"For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?"

St. Paul, Romans 3.7.

"How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived."

title the 32nd Chapter of Eusebius's 12th Book of Evangelical Preparation

"We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."

– Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2.

i find this next one particularly telling:

"Not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith."

– Clement (quoted by M. Smith, Clement of Alexandria, p446)

"Do you see the advantage of deceit? ...

For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind ...

And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."

– Chrysostom, Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1.

"It is certain that the New Testament was not written by Christ himself, nor by his apostles, but a long while after them, by some unknown persons, who, lest they should not be credited when they wrote of affairs they were little acquainted with, ..."

"Many things have been inserted by our ancestors in the speeches of our Lord which, though put forth under his name, agree not with his faith; especially since--as already it has been often proved--these things were written not by Christ, nor [by] his apostles, but a long while after their assumption, by I know not what sort of half Jews, not even agreeing with themselves, who made up their tale out of reports and opinions merely, and yet, fathering the whole upon the names of the apostles of the Lord or on those who were supposed to follow the apostles, they maliciously pretended that they had written their lies and conceits according to them."

St. Faustus, Fifth--Century French Bishop

The Church forgery mill did not limit itself to mere writings but for centuries cranked out thousands of phony "relics" of its "Lord," "Apostles" and "Saints" … There were at least 26 'authentic' burial shrouds scattered throughout the abbeys of Europe, of which the Shroud of Turin is just one … At one point, a number of churches claimed the one foreskin of Jesus, and there were enough splinters of the "True Cross" that Calvin said the amount of wood would make "a full load for a good ship."

– Acharya S, The Christ Conspiracy.


"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."

Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556), the tireless zealot for papal authority – he was the founder of the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits)

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church ... a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."

– Martin Luther (Cited by his secretary, in a letter in Max Lenz, ed., Briefwechsel Landgraf Phillips des Grossmüthigen von Hessen mit Bucer, vol. I.)

Not to mention The Donation of Constantine, The False Decretals, 'Thundering Legion' Decree of Marcus Aurelius, 'Letters' of Emperor Antoninus Pius to the Greeks, The horseshit that was the 'Testimonium Flavianum', and The Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus, just to name a few.

Christian history is full of lies, forgeries, human error, and assumption, all wrapped up with a big bow of faith.

[Ken Carman]

xx

dont forget that we are talking about accounts that were passed around via word of mouth for AT LEAST 40 years before the supposed events were written down.

Exactly, then scribe to scribe: no press. Plenty of time at first for myths and variations of what happened to develop: the old communications tin can telephone theory on steroids plus.

From what I understand John and Peter definitely did not have a love fest going on between the two. The gospels do tell us the disciples didn't always get along, and as with all groups there was probably a lot of push and shove, and who's the fav going on among them.

Forgery was actually more common then, and a disciple writing in the name of the disciple they followed, who wrote in the name of... was not unusual, far more acceptable. "Authorship" was a bit more loosely defined.

The picture painted one of disciples spreading the word with perfection according to what Jesus wanted and storytellers, scribes then all the various versions after Gutenberg passing on the legacy. Instead what we have is all too human: filled with conflict, deception, plots, misconceptions and misunderstandings. Somewhere in all this may be what God, and/or Jesus, wanted. Or not.

[xx_mortekai_xx]

xx



Exactly, then scribe to scribe: no press. Plenty of time at first for myths and variations of what happened to develop: the old communications tin can telephone theory on steroids plus.

From what I understand John and Peter definitely did not have a love fest going on between the two. The gospels do tell us the disciples didn't always get along, and as with all groups there was probably a lot of push and shove, and who's the fav going on among them.

Forgery was actually more common then, and a disciple writing in the name of the disciple they followed, who wrote in the name of... was not unusual, far more acceptable. "Authorship" was a bit more loosely defined.

The picture painted one of disciples spreading the word with perfection according to what Jesus wanted and storytellers, scribes then all the various versions after Gutenberg passing on the legacy. Instead what we have is all too human: filled with conflict, deception, plots, misconceptions and misunderstandings. Somewhere in all this may be what God, and/or Jesus, wanted. Or not.

If god does exist, and the bible is its actual word written as text, that god couldnt have done a better job of making a questionable document. To me its simply a matter of whats more probable: That there is some god, and the bible is as i described, or the bible is not accurate and is more likely the product of the superstition of the people of the times reflected in their book.

I have no real problem accepting the claim that the jesus character is based on one or more folk-hero wandering rabbi types of actual people. But the claims of miracles with absolutely no external way of verifying said miracles using objective means, to me, says that those parts are completely fabricated.

Or god likes fucking with the people he made that he knew would question things. because the god of the bible would necessarily have to know that he makes people who wouldnt believe, and why they wouldnt believe.