Jesus was just a guy (a mean, nasty guy)
Simon Watfa
Here is an interesting piece of email someone just sent me. I liked
it so much that I thought I'd post it. Enjoy.
====================================================================
WHY JESUS?
Who Is This Man Jesus?
Jesus has been held in high regard by Christians and non-
Christians alike. Regardless of whether he existed in
history, or whether he was divine, many have asserted that
the New Testament Christ character was the highest example
of moral living. Many believe that his teachings, if truly
understood and followed, would make this a better world.
Is this true? Does Jesus merit the widespread adoration he
has received? Let's look at what he said and did.
Was Jesus Peaceable And Compassionate?
The birth of Jesus was heralded with "Peace on Earth," yet
Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to send peace: I came
not to send peace but a sword." (Matt. 10:34) "He that hath
no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." (Luke
22:36) "But those mine enemies, which would not that I
should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before
me." (Luke 19:27). In a parable, but spoken of favorably.
The burning of unbelievers during the Inquisition was based
on the words of Jesus: "If a man abide not in me, he is
cast forth...and men gather them into the fire, and they are
burned." (John 15:6)
Jesus looked at his disciples "with anger" (Mark 3:5), and
attacked merchants with a whip (John 2:15). He showed his
respect for life by drowning innocent animals (Matt. 8:32).
He refused to heal a sick child until he was pressured by
the mother (Matt. 15:22-28).
The most revealing aspect of his character was his promotion
of eternal torment. "The Son of man [Jesus himself] shall
send forth his angels, and the shall gather out of his
kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be
wailing and gnashing of teeth." (Matt. 13:41-41) "And if
thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to
enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into
hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched." (Mark
9:43)
Is this nice? Is it exemplary to make your point with
threats of violence? Is hell a kind, peaceable idea?
Did Jesus Promote "Family Values?"
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother,
and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and
his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)
"I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and
the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law
against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of
his own household." (Matt. 10:35-36)
When one of his disciple requested time off for his
father's funeral, Jesus rebuked him: "Let the dead bury
their dead." (Matt. 8:22)
Jesus never used the word "family." He never married or
fathered children. To his own mother, he said, "Woman,
what have I to do with thee?" (John 2:4)
What Were His Views On Equality And Social Justice?
Jesus encouraged the beating of slaves: "And that servant
[slave], which knew his lord's will, and prepared not
himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten
with many stripes." (Luke 12:47) He never denounced
servitude, incorporating the master-slave relationship into
many of his parables.
He did nothing to alleviate poverty. Rather than sell some
expensive ointment to help the poor, Jesus wasted it on
himself, saying: "Ye have the poor with you always." Mark
14:3-7)
No women were chosen as disciples or invited to the Last
Supper.
What Moral Advice Did Jesus Give?
"There be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the
kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it,
let him receive it." (Matt. 19:12) Some believers,
including church father Origen, took this verse literally
and castrated themselves. Even metaphorically, this advice
is in poor taste.
If you do something wrong with your eye or hand, cut/pluck
it off (Matt. 5:29-30, in a sexual context). Marrying a
divorced woman is adultery (Matt. 5:32) Don't plan for the
future (Matt. 6:34), don't save money (Matt. 6:19-20), or
become wealthy (Mark 10:21-25). Sell everything and give it
to the poor (Luke 12:33). Don't work to obtain food (John
6:27). Don't have sexual urges (Matt. 5:28). Make people
want to persecute you (Matt. 5:11). Let everyone know you
are better than the rest (Matt. 5:13-16). Take money from
those who have no savings and give it to rich investors
(Luke 19:23-26). If someone steals from you, don't try to
get it back (Luke 6:30). If someone hits you, invite them
to do it again (Matt. 5:39). If someone forces you to walk
a mile, walk two miles (Matt. 5:41). If anyone asks you for
anything, give it to them without question (Matt. 5:42).
Is this wise? Is this what you would teach your children?
Was Jesus Reliable?
Jesus told his disciples that they would not die before his
second coming: "There be some standing here, which shall
not taste of death, till the see the Son of man coming in
his kingdom" (matt. 16:28). "Behold, I come quickly."
(Rev. 3:11) It's been 2,000 years, and believers are still
waiting for his "quick" return.
He mistakenly claimed that the mustard seed is "the least
of all seeds" (Matt. 13:32), and that salt could "lose its
savour" (Matt. 5:13).
Jesus said that whoever calls somebody a "fool" shall be in
danger of hell fire (Matt. 5:22), yet he called people
"fools" himself (Matt. 23:17).
Regarding his own truthfulness, Jesus gave two conflicting
opinions: "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not
true" (John 5:31), and "Though I bear record of myself, yet
my record is true" (John 8:14).
Was Jesus a Good Example?
He irrationally cursed a fig tree for being fruitless _out
of season_ (Matt. 21:18-19, and Mark 11:13-14). He broke
the law by stealing corn on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23), and he
encouraged his disciples to take a horse without asking
permission (Matthew 21).
The "humble" Jesus said that he was "greater than the
temple" (Matt. 12:6), "greater than Jonah" (Matt. 12:41),
and "greater than Solomon" (Matt. 12:42). He appeared to
suffer from a dictator's "paranoia" when he said, "He that is
not with me is against me" (Matt. 12:30).
Why Jesus?
Although other verses can be cited that portray Jesus in a
different light, they do not erase the disturbing side of
his character. The conflicting passages, however, prove
that the New Testament is contradictory.
The "Golden Rule" had been said many times by earlier
religious leaders. (Confucius: "Do not unto others that
you would not have them do unto you.") "Turn the other
cheek" encourages victims to invite further violence. "Love
thy neighbor" applied only to fellow believers. (Neither
the Jews nor Jesus showed much love to foreign religions).
A few of the Beatitudes ("Blessed are the peacemakers") are
acceptable, but they are all conditions of future reward,
not based on respect for human life or values.
On the whole, Jesus said little that was worthwhile. He
introduced nothing new to ethics (except hell). He
instituted no social programs. Being "omniscient," he could
have shared some useful science or medicine, but he appeared
ignorant of such things (as if his character were merely the
invention of writers stuck in the first century).
Many scholars are doubtful of the historical existence of
Jesus. Albert Schweitzer said, "The historical Jesus will
be to our time a stranger and an enigma." No first-century
writer confirms the Jesus story. The New Testament is
internally contradictory and contains historical errors.
The story is filled with miracles and other outrageous
claims. Consisting mostly of material borrowed from pagan
religions, the Jesus story appears to be cut from the same
fabric as all other myths and fables.
Why is Jesus so special? It would be more reasonable and
productive to emulate real, flesh-and-blood human beings
who have contributed to humanity--mothers who have given
birth, scientists have alleviated suffering, social
reformers who have fought injustice--than to worship a
character of such dubious qualities as Jesus.
--------------------------------------------------------
This is Nontract #12.
(c) 1993 by Dan Barker. All rights reserved (Used with
permission).
Contact Freedom from Religion Foundation.
Box 750,
Madison, WI 53701.
&
Humanist Association of Ottawa,
Humanist Association of Canada,
P.O. Box 3736, Station C
Ottawa, Ontario K1Y 4J8
"Your friendly neighbourhood atheists"
/>::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::<\
| "Klopfte man an die graber und fragte die toten, ob sie wieder aufstehen |
| wollten: sie wurden mit den kopfen schutteln." -- Arthur Schopenhauer |
\>::::::::::::::::::::::::> bl...@andrew.cmu.edu <:::::::::::::::::::::::::</
les...@tigger.stcloud.msus.edu
>
>Here is an interesting piece of email someone just sent me. I liked
>it so much that I thought I'd post it. Enjoy.
>
>====================================================================
>WHY JESUS?
>
>Who Is This Man Jesus?
>
>Jesus has been held in high regard by Christians and non-
>Christians alike. Regardless of whether he existed in
Great material! I posted a similar collection of material myself, with
a very similar commentary. But I did not have as many verses or
incidents; nor was my post as well written as this! :)
Thanks for the posting!
I suspect that the author will be taken to task for "taking these
verses out of context." It is interesting the way that church members
attempt to explain away the shocking aspects of Jesus' words and the
more unattractive and immoral aspects of his behavior. One feels that
believers close their eyes to these things in order to be able to
remain church members. This blind behavior reminds me of the response
of families with an alcoholic or abusive parent, where the entire
family works very hard to protect that parent by excusing his
behavior, apologizing for him, enabling him, and generally denying the
reality of the alcoholism or the abuse. They hope that they that by
denial they can keep the family together. So it is with believers for
Jesus!
sincerely,
arn
les...@tigger.stcloud.msus.edu
Gordon Fitch
cite chapter and verse, he did cover a lot of the same
ground, and not only that, his version rhymed. So what,
though?
--
)*( Gordon Fitch )*( g...@panix.com )*(
Lawrence Morales
So....what's your point? :->
Moving on,
LM
P.S. Personally, I gave up trying to argue with
stuff like this long ago. Neither of us will
change our minds so that's why I'm "moving on."
^^^
|
(I'm speaking of the person who wrote the article,
not the poster - man it takes a lot of work to
avoid getting flamed)
JAMES GUSTAFSON
>Here is an interesting piece of email someone just sent me. I liked
>it so much that I thought I'd post it. Enjoy.
This is the biggest bunch of Anti-Christian crap I've seen in a long time.
>
>Who Is This Man Jesus?
Lets get the key words here. Who is this MAN Jesus. As in, a man
with human passions, with human error and with human impulses.
>Jesus has been held in high regard by Christians and non-
>Christians alike. Regardless of whether he existed in
>history, or whether he was divine, many have asserted that
>the New Testament Christ character was the highest example
>of moral living. Many believe that his teachings, if truly
>understood and followed, would make this a better world.
I will not go into the arguments concerning the historical existance
of Jesus. Few scholars would deny this. I will not go into the arguments
against his divinity. Few scholars assert this. As for his moral system,
it has been interpreted in many ways, by many people. "...if truly
understood and followed" has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus moral
caracture, as does the moral system. If I offered the perfect moral system
and failed to practice it does that reflect on me or my moral system.
>Is this true? Does Jesus merit the widespread adoration he
>has received? Let's look at what he said and did.
Lets. And lets also look at the historical/political/
anthropological situation in which he lived. Lets be serious about our
Christology, shall we.
>Was Jesus Peaceable And Compassionate?
Jesus was a revolutionary. Is any revolutionary completely
"Peaceable and Compassionate?" He was often missunderstood by those who he
choose and who chose to follow him.
>The birth of Jesus was heralded with "Peace on Earth," yet
>Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to send peace: I came
>not to send peace but a sword." (Matt. 10:34) "He that hath
>no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." (Luke
>22:36) "But those mine enemies, which would not that I
>should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before
>me." (Luke 19:27). In a parable, but spoken of favorably.
Like I said, Jesus was a radical revolutionary. He brought about a
religous ideology that was completely alien. If you choose to ignore the
peace he attempted to spread, as well as the good things he said by pointing
out some of the negative things he said, ... well, that is simply poor
scholarship.
>
>The burning of unbelievers during the Inquisition was based
>on the words of Jesus: "If a man abide not in me, he is
>cast forth...and men gather them into the fire, and they are
>burned." (John 15:6)
>
Yes, and the saving of several thousand Jews during WWII by a small
Protestant town was based on the words of Jesus "Do unto others ..."
Yes, bad has been done in his name, but so has good. Do we blame
Einstien for Heroshima? You have to remember Jesus's fondness for
speaking in parables and metaphores.
>Jesus looked at his disciples "with anger" (Mark 3:5), and
>attacked merchants with a whip (John 2:15). He showed his
>respect for life by drowning innocent animals (Matt. 8:32).
>He refused to heal a sick child until he was pressured by
>the mother (Matt. 15:22-28).
And we have never looked at anyone "with anger?" What harm is there
in looking at someone in anger? I assume (my exact knowledge of scripture
is less than complete and I don't carry my bible to the Comp lab with me)
that the merchants attacked with a whip were the moneychangers in the
temple. If you considered something Holy, and saw something there
defileling it, would you remove the filth? As for his respect for life
shown with the drowning of innocent animals ... I guess you show your
respect for life by killing innocent animals everytime you eat a hamburger,
huh. Finally a healing. As I don't believe that Jesus had any
supernatural powers any of literally dozens of things could have been going
on here.
>
>The most revealing aspect of his character was his promotion
>of eternal torment. "The Son of man [Jesus himself] shall
>send forth his angels, and the shall gather out of his
>kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
>And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be
>wailing and gnashing of teeth." (Matt. 13:41-41) "And if
>thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to
>enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into
>hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched." (Mark
>9:43)
This in absolutely no way "promotes" eternal torment. I would accept
aknowledges eternal torment, or even prescribes eternal torment, but in no
way promotes eternal torment.
>
>Is this nice? Is it exemplary to make your point with
>threats of violence? Is hell a kind, peaceable idea?
>
You consider this a threat of violence, it is very plausable that
Jesus considered it a fact. He simply stated what he saw as a fact and
tried to get people to believe it.
>Did Jesus Promote "Family Values?"
O'Lawd! I want a quick reason why anyone should promote "Family
Values."
>"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother,
>and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and
>his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)
Once again taken out of context and misinterpreted. Basically Jesus
is saying follow me and make my philosophy paramount in your life. Believe
what I say untill nothing stands between your love of God and you. This
doesn't mean you have to hate your father in order to be a disciple of
Jesus. This is so dumb. I absolutely hate literal interpretations. Do you
do this with everyone you meet?
>"I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and
>the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law
>against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of
>his own household." (Matt. 10:35-36)
Jesus wasn't stupid. He knew that what he was saying went against
everything the Jews had said. He knew that households would be broken over
ideologies. Look at our civil war, brother against brother. Does that mean
that the leaders of that time didn't promote family values?
>When one of his disciple requested time off for his
>father's funeral, Jesus rebuked him: "Let the dead bury
>their dead." (Matt. 8:22)
Forsake the past. Leave the past to take care of the past.
>Jesus never used the word "family." He never married or
>fathered children. To his own mother, he said, "Woman,
>what have I to do with thee?" (John 2:4)
There have been many interpretations of this line. I believe that
Jesus saw the messege he was bringing to people as more important than
anything else in the world.
>
>What Were His Views On Equality And Social Justice?
>
I am not even going to take these one at a time. Anytime you take people
out of social/historical context and look at thier views you are bound to
make the stupid mistake of judging by our standerds. Yes, his views on
Equality were wrong. He was just a man! He was just as much a product of
his society as Aristotle when Aristotle said some people were simply born to
be slaves, or when Jefferson wrote "all men created equal" but ment only
white upper class males. No, there were no women disciples. There have
also been no women presidents either. What does that say about our views on
Equality?
As for the question of poverty and the selling of the ointment, I
have a question for you. Why don't you sell everything you have and give
the money to the poor? Also, why don't you stop taking things out of
context. At the time when Jesus said this, he claimed that the woman was
annointing him for death: Tradition. While tradition may be wrong, we do
not blame people for following it. One more thing. What would selling the
ointment and giving the money away do? Should he give the money to one poor
person or spread it out over many? Finally, if you are going to acknowledge
his supernatural powers (Healing, proscribing Eternal torment) then you must
acknowledge his feeding of the multitudes as well.
>
>What Moral Advice Did Jesus Give?
>
>"There be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the
>kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it,
>let him receive it." (Matt. 19:12) Some believers,
>including church father Origen, took this verse literally
>and castrated themselves. Even metaphorically, this advice
>is in poor taste.
Ok, why is this "in poor taste?"
>
>If you do something wrong with your eye or hand, cut/pluck
>it off (Matt. 5:29-30, in a sexual context).
This was not in sexual context, and it was not ment to be taken
literally
>Marrying a divorced woman is adultery (Matt. 5:32)
This is a cultural moree of the time.
>Don't plan for the future (Matt. 6:34),
When you take things out of context you arrive at interesting little
quotes like this. What do you think he ment by this, and secondly, why is
it wrong not to plan for the future. I can think of several people I know
who live by the old "I'll burn that bridge when I get to it" philosophy.
>don't save money (Matt. 6:19-20),
Wow! Isn't this exactly what our country was telling us not too
long ago!
> or become wealthy (Mark 10:21-25).
There is absolutely no need to become wealthy. Wealth does you no
good when you die. You cannot take it with you. You can live very
comfortablly without being wealthy.
>Sell everything and give it to the poor (Luke 12:33).
You critizise him here for telling you to sell everything and give
it to the poor, but when a woman uses expensive ointment to annoint him you
critizise him for not doing enough to help the poor. Well, did he help the
poor or not.
>Don't work to obtain food (John 6:27).
This is taken out of context. I believe he says that you need not
work for food because God will provide for you.
>Don't have sexual urges (Matt. 5:28).
I do believe people still today press this as a moral principle.
Look at the case where a senetor gets caught with some woman. He suddenly
becomes distrusted and perverse in the publics eye. And this isn't just a
product of Judeo-Christian mindsets either, it shows up in other
philosophies and religions as well.
[Rest of out-of-context quotes deleted.]
Silly silly stuff.
>Is this wise? Is this what you would teach your children?
I do believe that you yourself would condone the cornerstone of
Jesus moral system. If you don't believe me, contact me via Email:
and I will try to convince you.
>
>Was Jesus Reliable?
Does this make a difference in the acceptance of his moral system?
Was Aristotle reliable? Was Epicuras reliable? Was Kant reliable? Was
Benthem or Mill reliable? Does this in any way relfect apon the reliability
of their moral systems?
>
>Jesus told his disciples that they would not die before his
>second coming: "There be some standing here, which shall
>not taste of death, till the see the Son of man coming in
>his kingdom" (matt. 16:28). "Behold, I come quickly."
>(Rev. 3:11) It's been 2,000 years, and believers are still
>waiting for his "quick" return.
... *sigh* This doesn't prove that Jesus was a liar unless you
grant that Jesus was the Son of God and will return. It only says that
Jesus believed himself to be something he wasn't, or the recorders of the
Gospels romantisized the man a bit. I vote for the latter.
>
>He mistakenly claimed that the mustard seed is "the least
>of all seeds" (Matt. 13:32), and that salt could "lose its
>savour" (Matt. 5:13).
*Head bangs against nearby wall in reaction to the most stupid
literal interpretation ever seen*
>
>Jesus said that whoever calls somebody a "fool" shall be in
>danger of hell fire (Matt. 5:22), yet he called people
>"fools" himself (Matt. 23:17).
What does this prove. Jesus made mistakes or Jesus was a liar? Or,
maybe that Jesus was trying to get a point across when he said those that
call others Fools shall be in danger of hell fire. Exaggeration in order to
get a point across.
>Why Jesus?
>
>Although other verses can be cited that portray Jesus in a
>different light, they do not erase the disturbing side of
>his character. The conflicting passages, however, prove
>that the New Testament is contradictory.
Duh. Let me ask you a question. Have the words "I am so mad I
could kill someone" ever fallen from your lips? "I wish you were dead"
maybe. Does this mean you have a disturbing side?
Jesus was a revolutionary. He was a man. He had many problems to
deal with. His disciples didn't understand him (has anyone?). He was
persecuted everywhere he went by anyone in authority. Yes, he got angry.
He may even have been driven to the brink of rash action once and awile (as
with the money changers.) This does not mean he had a disturbing character,
it simply means he was human.
>The "Golden Rule" had been said many times by earlier
>religious leaders. (Confucius: "Do not unto others that
>you would not have them do unto you.")
Even earlier Jewish religious leaders. What does this prove?
>"Turn the other
>cheek" encourages victims to invite further violence.
Sorry. "Turn the other cheek" does not INVITE further violence.
>"Love thy neighbor" applied only to fellow believers. (Neither
>the Jews nor Jesus showed much love to foreign religions).
Sorry, Love thy neighbor as applied to fellow believers is a
Christian Idea, not an Idea of Jesus. If you have some proof for this I
would like to see it. As for the Jews, what does that have to do with
anything? Jesus was a Jew, but he was also a visionary, a revolutionary.
What disrespect did he show for other reliegions?
>A few of the Beatitudes ("Blessed are the peacemakers") are
>acceptable, but they are all conditions of future reward,
>not based on respect for human life or values.
So? Do not do unto others what you wish them not to do unto you is
an unconditional moral principle.
>
>On the whole, Jesus said little that was worthwhile. He
>introduced nothing new to ethics (except hell). He
>instituted no social programs. Being "omniscient," he could
>have shared some useful science or medicine, but he appeared
>ignorant of such things (as if his character were merely the
>invention of writers stuck in the first century).
*giggle* Has anyone introduced anything new to Ethics in the last ... oh,
hundred years? Besides Kant, and possiblly Hume (but I would hold on him)
has anyone introduced anything new in Ethics since Jesus? He instituted no
social programs but he introduced an ideology that if implemeted whole-
heartedly would remove any discomfort. If I had something that you needed I
would gladly give it to you with the knowledge that if I ever needed
it back I could just ask you (or someone else) for it back and recieve it.
He was not "omniscient." And yes, the writers of the first century did
glorify the man quite a bit.
>
>Many scholars are doubtful of the historical existence of
>Jesus. Albert Schweitzer said, "The historical Jesus will
>be to our time a stranger and an enigma."
Few scholars are doubtful of the historical existence of Jesus and
your little quote here simply means very little knowledge of who the man
actually was can be factually known.
>No first-century writer confirms the Jesus story.
We have four Cannonical Gospels and literally dozens of fragments of
dozens of other Gospels to confirm the Jesus story.
>The New Testament is
>internally contradictory and contains historical errors.
So do most history books we bring forth from such "unenlightened"
time periods.
>The story is filled with miracles and other outrageous
>claims. Consisting mostly of material borrowed from pagan
>religions, the Jesus story appears to be cut from the same
>fabric as all other myths and fables.
*sigh* Most of the material was not borrowed from pagan religions,
but from actual historically factual evidence. Yes, now, there is a great
amount of Pagantry in Christianity. The early Church enveloped a great deal
of pagantry in order to convert many of the pagans to Christianity.
Finally, there is much that can be learned from a cultures myths and fables
as well. Fable, itself, being a type of story used to teach a lesson.
This was really dumb.
James Gustafson
gust...@augustana.edu
Trevor Hicks | Schlumberger Dowell (918) 250-4269, Tulsa Research
GUSTAFSON) writes:
>In article <CKI9y...@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> wa...@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Simon
Watfa) writes:
[Huge deletion]
>
>>The story is filled with miracles and other outrageous
>>claims. Consisting mostly of material borrowed from pagan
>>religions, the Jesus story appears to be cut from the same
>>fabric as all other myths and fables.
>
> *sigh* Most of the material was not borrowed from pagan religions,
>but from actual historically factual evidence. Yes, now, there is a great
>amount of Pagantry in Christianity. The early Church enveloped a great deal
>of pagantry in order to convert many of the pagans to Christianity.
>Finally, there is much that can be learned from a cultures myths and fables
>as well. Fable, itself, being a type of story used to teach a lesson.
>
> This was really dumb.
>
>James Gustafson
>gust...@augustana.edu
>
I suppose it seemed dumb to you because you rationalize the NT in terms of
Jesus's humanity. In this sense, the post was not directed at your
beliefs. In fact, I think the point of the post was that a "literal"
reading of the gospels leads to the very conclusion you reached: Jesus was
just a regular man. You are correct, a literal reading of the Bible or any
document of the period (or any period) is not wise. Unfortunately, there
are millions of people in America and around the world who insist on
treating Jesus as divine and the Bible as a work of scientific truth. Yes,
many people believe that the Bible SHOULD be read literally (and that it
should be taught as such in puclic schools, if you don't believe me I'll
send you my parents's address). That is the belief that the original post
was debunking.
I wish you would post more about your beliefs, I've never before run across
a Christian who didn't believe Jesus was divine. It sounds interesting, if
not a little strange, to me. But then, I was raised by raving rabid
fundies.
Trevor H. Hicks hi...@tulsa.dowell.slb.com
Contracting for:
Schlumberger Dowell (918) 250-4269
Tulsa Research (PCN) Software Engineering Products (SEP)
Schlumberger does not necessarily endorse any opinions expressed within.
Ng Boon Chong Joseph
(quoting D. Barker)
(plenty deletions)
: Was Jesus a Good Example?
(plenty deletions)
: Why is Jesus so special? It would be more reasonable and
: productive to emulate real, flesh-and-blood human beings
: who have contributed to humanity--mothers who have given
: birth, scientists have alleviated suffering, social
: reformers who have fought injustice--than to worship a
: character of such dubious qualities as Jesus.
Which concurs with C.S. Lewis's trilemma: Jesus cannot be called a good
man/example;
he's a madman, an archdeceiver, or what he claims to be, God.
Nonetheless, I am surprised to find that Jesus fits several of the "real,
flesh-and-blood human beings who have contributed to humanity" criteria:
"alleviated suffering, social reformers who have fought injustice." I
might also add several more: healing the sick, comforting the mourning,
dying in place of one's friends, staying humble, and reversing a natural
calamity (stilled the storm on Galilee).
Further historical, archaeological, or Biblical research may reveal how
close the true Jesus fits the Fundamentalists' description!
Joseph
Keith Justified And Ancient Cochran
Bob Burgess <bur...@lims.lockheed.com> wrote:
>I rarely reply to any post, but when it comes to post that are so
>simple-mindedly yet deliberately and deceptively errant, I think it
>warrants a response.
You forgot to call Simon a nazi pagan.
>In article <CKI9y...@cpsc.ucalgary.ca>, wa...@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Simon
>Watfa) wrote:
>> Here is an interesting piece of email someone just sent me. I liked
>> it so much that I thought I'd post it. Enjoy.
>> ====================================================================
>> WHY JESUS?
>>
>> [story deleted. If you want to read it, see the original post.]
>
>Gee, what an amazing story. Do you think you could do the same with the
>Bill of Rights and Consititution? I suppose when Jesus talked about
>"wolves in sheeps clothing" and "broods of vipers" he was really talking
>about people like Mother Theresa and Billy Graham? I suppose that by
>taking some liberties with history, we could also make Hitler look like an
>"angel".
>
>It's too easy to make snippets of written text and oral verbiage sound as
>if they mean the opposite of what they truly say. Before you waste your
>own and other peoples' time, make sure you take EVERYTHING IN CONTEXT. A
>good detective always observes and considers ALL evidence in context before
>presenting a conclusion. Try again, Sherlock...
>
>I challenge you to put aside your presupposition and take a look at the
>scriptures in context with an open mind. God gave you a mind. Try using
>it.
Sure, Bob. Here's the context:
Jesus/God is "all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful" etc etc etc. Emphasis
on the "all-loving" part.
Read Revelations.
Doesn't sound "all-loving" to me.
--
=kcoc...@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza. OK???=
=I wonder if there's any reason why Marlon Shows (sh...@athena.mit.edu) feels =
=that raping a woman is a "blessing in disguise"? =
Barry O'Grady
: >Here is an interesting piece of email someone just sent me. I liked
: >it so much that I thought I'd post it. Enjoy.
: This is the biggest bunch of Anti-Christian crap I've seen in a long time.
It was rather good, wasn't it?
: >Who Is This Man Jesus?
: Lets get the key words here. Who is this MAN Jesus. As in, a man
: with human passions, with human error and with human impulses.
Let's get it straight here. Jesus Christ never existed. We know that he
was nothing more than an invention of the writers.
: >Many scholars are doubtful of the historical existence of
: >Jesus. Albert Schweitzer said, "The historical Jesus will
: >be to our time a stranger and an enigma."
There you go. There is no valid excuse left to believe that Jesus Christ
ever existed.
: Few scholars are doubtful of the historical existence of Jesus and
: your little quote here simply means very little knowledge of who the man
: actually was can be factually known.
: >No first-century writer confirms the Jesus story.
: We have four Cannonical Gospels and literally dozens of fragments of
: dozens of other Gospels to confirm the Jesus story.
They are just stories. They have no historical basis. They are mostly copies
of each other.
: >The New Testament is
: >internally contradictory and contains historical errors.
: This was really dumb.
Yes. Your whole message was really dumb. Why do you bother to give support
to something so pointless?
Gordon Fitch
| Jesus/God is "all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful" etc etc etc. Emphasis
| on the "all-loving" part.
|
| Read Revelations.
|
| Doesn't sound "all-loving" to me.
It just depends on what you mean by "love."
A. Channing
|> In article <burgess-040294130916@b_burgess.lisc.lims.lockheed.com>,
|> Bob Burgess <bur...@lims.lockheed.com> wrote:
|> >I rarely reply to any post, but when it comes to post that are so
|> >simple-mindedly yet deliberately and deceptively errant, I think it
|> >warrants a response.
|>
|> You forgot to call Simon a nazi pagan.
I hope you're not seriously equating these two? Nah probably not. I'm
just worrying over nothing as usual.
Sounds like John was on Mushrooms and decided to take the piss of organised
religion to me. I bet he wouldn't have written it if he knew no-one would
get the joke. Life of Brian was better understood as the pisstake it was.
|> --
|> =kcoc...@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
|> =My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza. OK???=
|> =I wonder if there's any reason why Marlon Shows (sh...@athena.mit.edu) feels =
|> =that raping a woman is a "blessing in disguise"? =
Ant, A Wayward Son of Mother Earth #
# #
"DON'T let the art of # # ...except for
conversation die out, ################# the #!$@%*#
ALWAYS read a book BEFORE # # # # WOODPECKERS,
reviewing it, try and get ## ## of course."
POLLINATED once in a while # ## ## #
and NEVER forget that EVERY # ### # FLORYX the
life that lives is your # ## ## # Arborean
BROTHER or SISTER... # ## ## #
## ##
Peter T. Farrell
are castigating and ridiculing is a person about whom it would
be wise to ask a simple question first:
What is at stake if I am wrong about this man?
If the humanists, whose funny articles you are enjoying, are correct,
then at best you have an intriguing phenomenon about how an ordinary
Jewish rabbi of 1st century Palestine became a figure revered throughout
most of western history and whose presence on the historical time scale
was seen sufficiently weighty as to divide all history before it from
all history after it.
If, on the other hand, the religious crowd against whom these
little arrows are apparently aimed, are right, then you are partaking
in the mockery of a man who was more than mere man and to whom all
humanity will one day give account for everything they have ever
said or done.
Enjoy yourself. But answer the question with care.
Hans M Dykstra
Peter T. Farrell <pet...@clark.net> wrote:
>Someone out there will find that this Jesus whom these humanists
>are castigating and ridiculing is a person about whom it would
>be wise to ask a simple question first:
>What is at stake if I am wrong about this man?
BPaging Mr. Pascal...Mr. Blaise Pascal, please pick up the nearest
white courtesy phone for an important message...
"Someone out there will find that this Mohammed (pbuh) whom these
Christians are castigating and ridiculing (and on whose followers
they have been known on occasion to make war) is a person about
whom it would be wise to ask a simple question first:
Can he write a sentence which is grammatically correct yet whose
meaning is utterly opaque?"
>If the humanists, whose funny articles you are enjoying, are correct,
>then at best you have an intriguing phenomenon about how an ordinary
>Jewish rabbi of 1st century Palestine became a figure revered throughout
>most of western history and whose presence on the historical time scale
>was seen sufficiently weighty as to divide all history before it from
>all history after it.
I, on the other hand, am celebrating the year 30 AHMD, though on a
cosmic scale that's not so damn important. But you must be aware
that this is 31416 BIPU (may Her Pinkness ever be praised)? That
is the date that really matters.
>If, on the other hand, the religious crowd against whom these
>little arrows are apparently aimed, are right, then you are partaking
>in the mockery of a man who was more than mere man and to whom all
>humanity will one day give account for everything they have ever
>said or done.
Everything? Is he really interested in the grimy little details
of my adolescent masturbation fantasies? What a sicko.
>Enjoy yourself. But answer the question with care.
Ham on rye, with swiss, mustard no mayo.
What, wrong question?
***
hmd
Gordon Fitch
| Let's get it straight here. Jesus Christ never existed. We know that he
| was nothing more than an invention of the writers.
Yeah, but which writers? Think of the royalties they could
be collecting!
Dave Batchelor, Space Phys. Data Facil. 301/286-2988
Farrell) writes...
>Someone out there will find that this Jesus whom these humanists
>are castigating and ridiculing is a person about whom it would
>be wise to ask a simple question first:
>What is at stake if I am wrong about this man?
>
as simple as you imagine.
>If the humanists, whose funny articles you are enjoying, are correct,
>then at best you have an intriguing phenomenon about how an ordinary
>Jewish rabbi of 1st century Palestine became a figure revered throughout
>most of western history and whose presence on the historical time scale
>was seen sufficiently weighty as to divide all history before it from
>all history after it.
Jesus was uncommon, but not unique. Mohammed also became revered through
much of the world. So have many other deified men since the times of the
Egyptian dynasties, possibly some women, too, and don't forget Buddha
and Confucius. And while we're at it, there's the Dalai Lama, lots of
Hindu deities who were princes once upon a time, Bhagwan Bahubali (the
archetypical Jain holy man)..... No doubt many have been forgotten,
especially the bloody god-kings of the pre-colombian New World. There is
nothing unique about Jesus' deification to be explained. It happens with
some regularity, like other kinds of plagues of humanity. The dating
systems of many cultures have revolved around such figures in history.
You are holding a very parochial view, regarding long-term history.
1994 years are an eye-blink in time.
>If, on the other hand, the religious crowd against whom these
>little arrows are apparently aimed, are right, then you are partaking
>in the mockery of a man who was more than mere man and to whom all
>humanity will one day give account for everything they have ever
>said or done.
What if you died and found yourself in the presence of Marduk, the old
Babylonian god of the 2nd millenium BCE, who sounds a lot like Yahweh,
if you read his epic, the "Enuma Elish", in which he is praised
"Most exalted shall be the Son, our avenger." Marduk is acknowledged
by many biblical scholars as the model on which Yahweh in the OT was
based.
>Enjoy yourself. But answer the question with care.
It almost answers itself, if you read it carefully.
Regards,
Dave
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. David Batchelor Space Science Data Operations Office Mail Code 632
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt MD 20771 USA
batc...@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov * personal opinions only, not NASA policy *
Theorem: Consider the set of all sets that have never been considered.
Hey! They're all gone!! Oh, well, never mind...
J. Victor Kim
but say the following about the ever-hyped jesus debate
that's going on here.
Shouldn't we be arguing not about jesus, but about the
man (yes, the mortal human being) who created Jesus and God?
I mean, isn't that where all these entities began their
existence?
This is just a comment, not really looking for a flame
war on _this_ particular subject, thank you.
-vic...@eecs.nwu.edu-
Jason D Corley
J. Victor Kim <vic...@news.eecs.nwu.edu> wrote:
>Shouldn't we be arguing not about jesus, but about the
>man (yes, the mortal human being) who created Jesus and God?
>I mean, isn't that where all these entities began their
>existence?
Well, what is there to argue about him?
He's about five-eight, has black hair and a "theeck" mustache. He
wears a very silly sombrero, and his paunchy stomach, thick with
curly black hair, protrudes from beneath his grimy shirt.
He wields the corzappa. He walks the dusty streets of Cojillo like
some waddling vision from a Warhol film. Roosters turn their heads
when he passes, in preparation for the mighty smell which wafts in
his wake.
COMMENTARY:
El Dupree still lives
Boring Jesus debate ends
Someone write stories!
--
************************************************************************
"You fall out of your mother's womb, you crawl across open country
under fire, and drop into your grave."-----------Quentin Crisp
Jason "cor...@gas.uug.arizona.edu" Corley could be, but probably isn't.
the Ferret-Meister
possible w/o the use of rubber toys or wesson oil!!! =)
Anyway, as a forward to my inane ramblings, I'd just like to say that I'm
certainly not advocating any particular viewpoint (especially <shudder>
Xtianity), but I am trying to point out a few things that some persons
may have overlooked in their attempts to convince.
I figured (mistakenly, apparently) that this would be fairly obvious,
especially given my last paragraph... but no, I was too subtle about it,
so here I have to go explaining my motivations outright, taking all the
fun outta finding the nuances of meaning... well, I hope you're all proud
of yourselves! =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =) =)
Oy yoy yoy... this is a long one, folks... apologies, apologies, mea culpa,
mea culpa...
Paul Wilson writes:
>In article <1994Feb7.103225.88940@yuma> ?? writes:
Geez, how'm I ever going to make it into the bigtime if you lose the damn
attribution??? =) It's "Ferret-meister," or Bill if you must.... geez,
some people's children... =)
>>Keith "Justified and Ancient" Cochran writes:
>>>Sure, Bob. Here's the context:
>>>Jesus/God is "all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful" etc etc etc. Emphasis
>>>on the "all-loving" part.
>>>Read Revelations.
>>>Doesn't sound "all-loving" to me.
>>
>>And, since we're looking at context, let's look at the book of Job 38:1-4...
>>(this is the KJ version, BTW, which flows better than the modern text, IMHO)...
>>"Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said, Who is this that
>>darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up thy loins like a man;
>>for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid
>>the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding."
>
>So God is bigger, stronger, and older than Job. That doesn't make him a good
>guy. And in fact the story of Job is pretty compelling evidence that your
>God is not a nice guy.
Firstly, where the heck did you get the "your God" stuff? Not my God, unless
by this you mean the cultural manifestation of the archetypal western God...
in which case he's your god too...
Now, as for God being bigger and stronger than Job, I don't think that's the
point. God is, in this belief at least, equiped with more knowledge than
Job (or humans in general) could ever have. Would you presume to explain
physics to Heisenburg or Feinman? (well, you might, but I certainly wouldn't).
They would laugh in your face. How can you, a mere student, dare to tell
these geniuses what their job is? Do you think that you understand the
workings of particles better than them?
Would you presume to try to correct William Shakespeare's grammar? (well,
I would, but I shouldn't think most other people would =). Who are you to
tell Scorsese that his cinematography needs work? We simply don't have the
qualifications to presume on these people. This is not to say that we can't
hold opinions, of course, only that certain opinions hold more weight than
others.
It's the same with Job and God. Job might be a nice guy, he might be clever
and a quick thinker, he might be honest and trustworthy, but there are just
certain things that he (read: we) doesn't know, and shouldn't presume to
know.
>>Job 40: 1-2, 7-9...
>>"Moreover the Lord answered Job, and said, Shall he that contendeth with
>>the Almighty instruct him? He that reproveth God, let him answer it.
>>...
>>"Gird up they loins now like a man: I will demand of thee, and declare
>>thou unto me. Wilt thou also disannul my judgement? Wilt thou condemn
>>me, that thou mayest be righteous? Has thou an arm like God? Or canst
>>thou thunder with a voice like him?"
>
>So he's a bully. Bully for him. This is the kind of stuff most of us
>got past by high school. "You can't tell me I'm wrong, because I'm
>stronger and louder than you." Well, read my lips: your god is a jerk.
Again with the "your God"! At least 7 times in this one article! Golly,
I really guess I'm going to have to make myself pretty damn transparent
if I want to avoid this sort of thing in the future... =)
>>What does this say? It says that we mere mortals cannot possibly understand
>>the God of the Hebrew's ways. We are nowhere near his league, so we should
>>not presume to pass judgement on him as to what is right and what is wrong.
>>We speak without knowing what we speak of. Bad debate practice, if nothing
>>else... =)
>
>No, you and your god are the ones who are indulging in bad debating practice.
Define your terms... =)
>We know what right and wrong mean, to a first approximation, even if we
Do we? Could you send me a copy of your instruction manual for life? I
think I must have misplaced mine. =)
What does right and wrong mean, and how are these definitions not shaped by
culture, history, and philosophy? Is there some overhanging eternal one
true "GOOD" (shades of Plato's cave)? If so, how do we go about finding it?
In our hearts? But what about those people whose hearts honestly tell them
to go out and eat people? Is this evil? Who decides what is good and evil?
You? If so, then perhaps you need to be fitted with an Inquisitor's robe,
since this is the same feeling that the Inquisition had... we know what's
right, and you aren't it, so goodbye and good-riddence!
>may disagree over the details and argue endlessly about them. It's not
>kosher for God to come up with secret meanings for those words and expect
>us to give a shit. If a salesperson started selling you gold that wasn't,
>you know, GOLD, but was some "secret kind of gold", what would you do?
Gold is only valuable because we put value in it. It's a hunk of shiny
yellow metal otherwise, certainly not any good for making tools with.
No inherent value, really. Who is to say that morals ("good" and "evil")
aren't any different? Those who create or enforce or obey the morals.
No one else.
Unless you agree that there is some grand "overgood" that exists apart from
time and space and defines all things according to the agenda it imparts
as "good"... er, no, sorry, wait, that sounds quite a bit like the God
of the Christians to me... =)
>My understanding of God's notions of right and wrong are that they are
>often opposed to the real meaning of right and wrong. The bible is
>chock-full of God doing evil stuff. Playing with words is not going
>to change that. "Good" doesn't mean "whatever the biggest guy wants."
What's evil? What's good? how do we reach these definitions? Explain this.
Please. No? Explain our own system of morals and ethics, then. Morals
(according to some viewpoints) are the result of who wins the war. We
beleive what we believe because we are culturally conditioned to do so.
Caniballism is wrong, but there are tribes still in parts of the world who
believe it is right to eat the brains of their fallen enemy. Try to convince
them that the great Oversoul, or overlurking Ultimate GOOD doesn't agree.
>If we can't understand God's notion of morality, then we can't possibly
>know whether we would find it worthwhile if we had the God-like ability
>to understand it. Your God says "trust me" and proceeds to commit
>acts that are tremendously evil. I can't trust a guy like that, and
>anybody who would is dangerously amoral---they'll follow something
>they confessedly can't understand at all into doing things that would
>make any moral person sick.
I don't understand how a TV works, but I still enjoy the Simpsons every
week. I saw people slavishly addicted to CNN during the Gulf War
(something which few people understood). Oops, there I go again, begging
the question...
>So stop calling your god's preferences right and wrong---that's simply
>not what right and wrong are, period.
Who are you to presume to preach right and wrong? Are you God? If not,
then how do you know exactly what is good and evil? Who told you that
you could be arbiter of right and wrong? What if your definitions and
mine don't jive? Does that give you the right to destroy me as heretic?
We've seen what happens when people believe that they have all the answers,
and it's usually not pretty. What makes you think that your answers will
give us any better results?
>Right and wrong existed long
>before your religion, exist independently of it, and will exist long
>after it.
Seems to me that you are espousing part of the Christian beleif system:
that there is a greater good than we know, and that it exists independantly
of what we believe to be true, and that it is immortal and eternal, existing
outside of our time reference. Perhaps your beleifs are more in line with
Xtianity than you will admit to... =)
>Those of us who are not extremely gullible, like you and
>Job are, will not fall for people or gods twisting the meaning of
>right and wrong into something incomprehensible and repugnant.
...or else we'll fall for someone who has the definition of right and wrong
nailed down firm. Though I won't mention your name here. =)
And as for me being as "gullible" as Job is... <let's insert another quick
explaination here for the nuance-impared>... 'snot me. Just bringing up
a few arguments, sir, just delivering the message, trying to explain what
someone else believes, not actually advocating it mese'f, guv'ner. 'sat
make it any clearer for yas? =)
>You can't just "define" good and evil to be what God wants them to
>be, any more than you can define "gold" to mean sand. It just doesn't
>work that way. (Read up on "natural kind terms" in the philosophy of
>language sometime. You clearly don't know how words work.)
Speaking of language, all words are completely arbitrary. If we wanted
to, we could certainly define "gold" to be "sand." A rose by any other
name, y'know...
"I clearly don't know how words work..." it's good that you know so much
about me and my background. I was sort of wondering about it myself. Say,
after you're all done defining right and wrong, would you mind coming over
and explaining life to me? And while you're at it, you could always just
re-shape the world in your image... shouldn't take you more than, say,
6 days or so... =)
So I can't define good and evil to be what God wants them to be, but you
can define them to be what you want them to be? Am I getting this right?
Or could you explain further?
>>God may indeed be "all loving...." It's just that we humans don't know
>>what that means. Job is a good place to start.
>
>Yes. Have a look at Job. Your god is raving psycho. Job is his abject
>slave. It is thoroughly disgusting. See what your god does to his friends.
Here's a bit of cultural imperacism for you... You say that God is a raving
psycho (your exact words). What makes your judgement any better than
the British colonial's, who declared that the natives of India were heathen
superstitious savages?
We need to look at this from a cultural context. We need to see Job (as
well as most of the Bible) for the metaphor that it is. Declaring God
to be a disgusting psycho and ending the discussion is simply bad form...
certainly no better than those Fundies who declare the Bible to be the
one truth and ending the discussion there.
>If that's an "all loving" god, I think we're much better off without all
>that love.
So if you are abandoning the explainations in the book of Job, then how
do *you* explain the existance of suffering? Job says that there are things
out there that are beyond our ken, that suffering is a part of life, and
that it can't really be explained in human terms, so we have to live with
both the bad and the good. Do you have a better explaination?
>>Oh, dear! Stop me before I defend Xtianity again! =) You Athiests out
>>there, stop making it so damn easy for me! Arg! =) Read the damn Bible!
>>Don't be culturally illiterate like so many Fundies! Don't fall into the
>>same logical traps that they fall into! Convince me!!!!! =)
>
>You think we don't read the Bible? Some of us have, extensively, and
>think it stinks bigtime. Read my posting "The Bible is bad moral guide" in
>alt.religion.christian---I cite chapter and verse extensively to show
>that your God is evil.
I don't know your background, and I apologize for accusing you of not reading
the Bible. but a few quick points: Citing chapter and verse to show that
God is evil is the same thing as citing chapter and verse to show that
homosexuals are evil... it's taken out of context, it means nothing when
not placed in the proper cultural and historical timeframe. If your best
argument against Xtianity is to use the same faulty methods as the Fundies,
then your argument is equally invalid. I thought that the realm of atheism
was the realm of logic. Guess I was mistaken.
Second: When I first read the book of Job in high school, I too had the
same opinion as yours: "god is a complete and utter bastard!" But then
I read it again, looking at it as metaphor, and viewing it in its context.
If you look at it like this, you can see that it means much, much more than
"God is an asshole..."
>>Again, I stand nekkid before you. Annoint me with kerosine, baptise me
>>with your cleansing flames. I await.
>
>Damn, where did I leave my matches...
I don't know... I certainly haven't felt any heat yet... =)
Bill.
* Cry "Eek Eek," and let ******* Jrrrr-Lwsss *******
*** slip the Ferrets of War! ***** The Ferrotti from Hell *****
***** (with apologies to *** bke...@lamar.colostate.edu **
******* Wm. Shakespeare) * 14 feet of pure ferret fury. *
Roland Thomas
: kcoc...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran):
Why, "tough love", of course.
Roland Thomas
--
"A fit body, a sound mind, an untroubled soul."
Annette Dexter
>>>"Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said, Who is this that
>>>darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up thy loins like a man;
>>>for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid
>>>the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding."
>>
>>So God is bigger, stronger, and older than Job. That doesn't make him a good
>>guy. And in fact the story of Job is pretty compelling evidence that your
>>God is not a nice guy.
[...]
>Now, as for God being bigger and stronger than Job, I don't think that's the
>point. God is, in this belief at least, equiped with more knowledge than
>Job (or humans in general) could ever have. Would you presume to explain
>physics to Heisenburg or Feinman? (well, you might, but I certainly wouldn't).
>They would laugh in your face. How can you, a mere student, dare to tell
>these geniuses what their job is? Do you think that you understand the
>workings of particles better than them?
i can heartily recommend carl jung's "answer to job" for more
reading on this topic. jung's approach is possibly too 'intuitive' but
makes worthwhile comments on understanding a very complex component of
the christian bible.
the old testament deity is by any modern "christian" standards,
a morally highly ambiguous figure. christians don't like to talk about
him much: the deity who forced pharaoh to sin, who threatened a summary
execution to moses for not circumsizing his sons, who compelled genocide
of the inhabitants of canaan... undifferentiated malice and benediction
in the same figure.
jung's argument is that job 'won' the argument with this morally
questionable deity, in the sense that the composition of the book was a
crucial point in the development of hebrew ideas about their deity. from
this point onwards the malediction increasingly becomes personified in a
separate figure, satan (who was still in good with god in the job story),
who comes to play a important role later in the christian myths. in fact
jung argued later that the central symbol of christianity was in fact a
quatrain and not a trinity, the fourth figure being either mary or satan
depending on what the other three were taken to symbolize (good/evil and
male/female pairs), but all four representing essentially aspects of the
one deity. while i think some of jung's analysis was taken too far, it
is at any rate an interesting approach to understanding the dynamics of
the christian mythology, i hope i will be forgiven for going into this on
alt.atheism 8).
annette
Paul Wilson
>William Blake wrote something similar. While he didn't
>cite chapter and verse, he did cover a lot of the same
>ground, and not only that, his version rhymed. So what,
>though?
Was it art? Was it good? If so, I'd like chapter and um, whaddyacallit,
VERSE, yeah, verse on that Blake stuff.
--
| Paul R. Wilson, Computer Sciences Dept., University of Texas at Austin |
| Taylor Hall 2.124, Austin, TX 78712-1188 wil...@cs.utexas.edu |
| (Recent papers on garbage collection, memory hierarchies, and persistence |
| are available via anonymous ftp from cs.utexas.edu, in pub/garbage.) |
KRESSJA
>Someone out there will find that this Jesus whom these humanists
>are castigating and ridiculing is a person about whom it would
>be wise to ask a simple question first:
>What is at stake if I am wrong about this man?
I've come late to this thread, and I notice that its being posted to
alt.buddha.short.fat.guy (one of the Usenet's finest), and I was wondering
if anyone had proposed an alt.jesus.mean.nasty.guy yet?
-Kressja
"ever eager to enlighten and clarify"
______________________________________________________________________________
| | |
| John Kress | "God is a gross answer, an indelicacy against us thinkers-- |
| | at bottom merely a gross prohibition for us: you shall not |
| | think!" |
| | -Nietzsche, Ecce Homo |
|______________|_______________________________________________________________|
WakuSen
The TRUTH is, HERETIC, that ALLAH will come and SMASH all of you who have
desecrated His Word. It is YOU who are wrong, for you have maligned Jesus, the
great Prophet of the Lord, with your perversions of his Word. Do not spread
your heretical LIES to the world, for ye and all those who listen to ye shall
be DAMNED for eternity, while we who follow the one TRUE LORD will laugh
at you from Paradise. For this is the merciful way that Allah rewards those
who have been faithful, and punishes those wretched sinners who believe not
in Him.
--
"I need to get addicted to something."
Mike Renning
the influence of hallucinogenic mushrooms. At least that's what a friend
of mine suggested to me once. I think it's worth considering. One way
or another, you've got to admit it's a pretty riveting little bit of free
verse.
- Mike "once a Christian, now a revisionist" Renning
the Ferret-Meister
>>
>>I challenge you to put aside your presupposition and take a look at the
>>scriptures in context with an open mind. God gave you a mind. Try using
>>it.
>
>Sure, Bob. Here's the context:
>Jesus/God is "all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful" etc etc etc. Emphasis
>on the "all-loving" part.
>Read Revelations.
>Doesn't sound "all-loving" to me.
Not to be anal or anything, but it's Revelation, no "s" at the end. Lotsa
people don't know that... =)
And, since we're looking at context, let's look at the book of Job 38:1-4...
(this is the KJ version, BTW, which flows better than the modern text, IMHO)...
"Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said, Who is this that
darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up thy loins like a man;
for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid
the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding."
This continues for quite a while, so let's just skip ahead a bit... =)
Job 40: 1-2, 7-9...
"Moreover the Lord answered Job, and said, Shall he that contendeth with
the Almighty instruct him? He that reproveth God, let him answer it.
...
"Gird up they loins now like a man: I will demand of thee, and declare
thou unto me. Wilt thou also disannul my judgement? Wilt thou condemn
me, that thou mayest be righteous? Has thou an arm like God? Or canst
thou thunder with a voice like him?"
What does this say? It says that we mere mortals cannot possibly understand
the God of the Hebrew's ways. We are nowhere near his league, so we should
not presume to pass judgement on him as to what is right and what is wrong.
We speak without knowing what we speak of. Bad debate practice, if nothing
else... =)
God may indeed be "all loving...." It's just that we humans don't know
what that means. Job is a good place to start.
Oh, dear! Stop me before I defend Xtianity again! =) You Athiests out
there, stop making it so damn easy for me! Arg! =) Read the damn Bible!
Don't be culturally illiterate like so many Fundies! Don't fall into the
same logical traps that they fall into! Convince me!!!!! =)
Again, I stand nekkid before you. Annoint me with kerosine, baptise me
with your cleansing flames. I await.
Bill.
DYER, ANGELA
snip...
>Anyway, as a forward to my inane ramblings, I'd just like to say that I'm
>certainly not advocating any particular viewpoint
Well then, what is the point? Perhaps you should figure out which viewpoint
you have and advocate it......
>(especially <shudder>
>Xtianity), but I am trying to point out a few things that some persons
>may have overlooked in their attempts to convince.
snip
>Paul Wilson writes:
>>In article <1994Feb7.103225.88940@yuma> ?? writes:
>>>Keith "Justified and Ancient" Cochran writes:
>>>And, since we're looking at context, let's look at the book of Job 38:1-4...
>>>(this is the KJ version, BTW, which flows better than the modern text,
>IMHO)...
>>>"Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said, Who is this that
>>>darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up thy loins like a man;
>>>for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid
>>>the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding."
>>
>>So God is bigger, stronger, and older than Job. That doesn't make him a good
>>guy. And in fact the story of Job is pretty compelling evidence that your
>>God is not a nice guy.
>Firstly, where the heck did you get the "your God" stuff? Not my God, unless
>by this you mean the cultural manifestation of the archetypal western God...
>in which case he's your god too...
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wake me when there is a point.....
>Now, as for God being bigger and stronger than Job, I don't think that's the
>point. God is, in this belief at least, equiped with more knowledge than
>Job (or humans in general) could ever have. Would you presume to explain
>physics to Heisenburg or Feinman? (well, you might, but I certainly wouldn't).
>They would laugh in your face. How can you, a mere student, dare to tell
>these geniuses what their job is? Do you think that you understand the
>workings of particles better than them?
>Would you presume to try to correct William Shakespeare's grammar? (well,
>I would, but I shouldn't think most other people would =).
I wouldn't if I were you. For example, they last sentence in the previous
paragraph should read: Do you think that you understand the workings of
particles better than THEY?
>Who are you to
>tell Scorsese that his cinematography needs work? We simply don't have the
>qualifications to presume on these people. This is not to say that we can't
>hold opinions, of course, only that certain opinions hold more weight than
>others.
>It's the same with Job and God. Job might be a nice guy, he might be clever
>and a quick thinker, he might be honest and trustworthy, but there are just
>certain things that he (read: we) doesn't know, and shouldn't presume to
>know.
Geez, I really hate these, "Our puny minds are too small to understand things"
arguements.....
>>>Job 40: 1-2, 7-9...
snip
>>So he's a bully. Bully for him. This is the kind of stuff most of us
>>got past by high school. "You can't tell me I'm wrong, because I'm
>>stronger and louder than you." Well, read my lips: your god is a jerk.
>Again with the "your God"! At least 7 times in this one article! Golly,
>I really guess I'm going to have to make myself pretty damn transparent
>if I want to avoid this sort of thing in the future... =)
Give it a rest.
>>>What does this say? It says that we mere mortals cannot possibly understand
>>>the God of the Hebrew's ways. We are nowhere near his league, so we should
>>>not presume to pass judgement on him as to what is right and what is wrong.
>>>We speak without knowing what we speak of. Bad debate practice, if nothing
>>>else... =)
Speak for yourself.
>>We know what right and wrong mean, to a first approximation, even if we
>Do we? Could you send me a copy of your instruction manual for life? I
>think I must have misplaced mine. =)
>What does right and wrong mean, and how are these definitions not shaped by
>culture, history, and philosophy?
He didn't say they weren't shaped by these things. He said they weren't
shaped ONLY by religion.
>Is there some overhanging eternal one
>true "GOOD" (shades of Plato's cave)?
I don't think so.
> If so, how do we go about finding it?
>In our hearts?
I would hope the only thing in your heart is blood.......
> But what about those people whose hearts honestly tell them
>to go out and eat people?
Hearts don't tell people to do anything. Perhaps you should see a doctor.
>Is this evil?
Depends on a lot of things: are they dead? did they die naturally? is it an
accepted part of the culture?
> Who decides what is good and evil?
Usually, people can decide this on their own, for the most part.
>You?
I can decide for myself, yes.
> If so, then perhaps you need to be fitted with an Inquisitor's robe,
>since this is the same feeling that the Inquisition had... we know what's
>right, and you aren't it, so goodbye and good-riddence!
Non-sequitor. I didn't say I knew what was always right for all people in all
situations. Are you saying we shouldn't have any laws then???
snip...
>>My understanding of God's notions of right and wrong are that they are
>>often opposed to the real meaning of right and wrong. The bible is
>>chock-full of God doing evil stuff. Playing with words is not going
>>to change that. "Good" doesn't mean "whatever the biggest guy wants."
>What's evil? What's good? how do we reach these definitions? Explain this.
>Please. No? Explain our own system of morals and ethics, then. Morals
>(according to some viewpoints) are the result of who wins the war. We
>beleive what we believe because we are culturally conditioned to do so.
>Caniballism is wrong, but there are tribes still in parts of the world who
>believe it is right to eat the brains of their fallen enemy. Try to convince
>them that the great Oversoul, or overlurking Ultimate GOOD doesn't agree.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
>>If we can't understand God's notion of morality, then we can't possibly
>>know whether we would find it worthwhile if we had the God-like ability
>>to understand it. Your God says "trust me" and proceeds to commit
>>acts that are tremendously evil. I can't trust a guy like that, and
>>anybody who would is dangerously amoral---they'll follow something
>>they confessedly can't understand at all into doing things that would
>>make any moral person sick.
>I don't understand how a TV works, but I still enjoy the Simpsons every
>week.
I think that explains a lot.
> I saw people slavishly addicted to CNN during the Gulf War
>(something which few people understood). Oops, there I go again, begging
>the question...
>>So stop calling your god's preferences right and wrong---that's simply
>>not what right and wrong are, period.
>Who are you to presume to preach right and wrong? Are you God? If not,
>then how do you know exactly what is good and evil?
Hello????
You have no clue do you?
>Who told you that
>you could be arbiter of right and wrong? What if your definitions and
>mine don't jive? Does that give you the right to destroy me as heretic?
>We've seen what happens when people believe that they have all the answers,
>and it's usually not pretty. What makes you think that your answers will
>give us any better results?
>>Right and wrong existed long
>>before your religion, exist independently of it, and will exist long
>>after it.
>Seems to me that you are espousing part of the Christian beleif system:
>that there is a greater good than we know, and that it exists independantly
>of what we believe to be true, and that it is immortal and eternal, existing
>outside of our time reference. Perhaps your beleifs are more in line with
>Xtianity than you will admit to... =)
I doubt it.
>>Those of us who are not extremely gullible, like you and
>>Job are, will not fall for people or gods twisting the meaning of
>>right and wrong into something incomprehensible and repugnant.
>...or else we'll fall for someone who has the definition of right and wrong
>nailed down firm. Though I won't mention your name here. =)
snort
>And as for me being as "gullible" as Job is... <let's insert another quick
>explaination here for the nuance-impared>... 'snot me. Just bringing up
>a few arguments, sir, just delivering the message, trying to explain what
>someone else believes, not actually advocating it mese'f, guv'ner. 'sat
>make it any clearer for yas? =)
Why don't you stand up for what you really think. Get a spine.
>>You can't just "define" good and evil to be what God wants them to
>>be, any more than you can define "gold" to mean sand. It just doesn't
>>work that way. (Read up on "natural kind terms" in the philosophy of
>>language sometime. You clearly don't know how words work.)
>Speaking of language, all words are completely arbitrary. If we wanted
>to, we could certainly define "gold" to be "sand." A rose by any other
>name, y'know...
Changing the name of something, doesn't change the essence of the thing
though....
>"I clearly don't know how words work..." it's good that you know so much
>about me and my background. I was sort of wondering about it myself. Say,
>after you're all done defining right and wrong, would you mind coming over
>and explaining life to me? And while you're at it, you could always just
>re-shape the world in your image... shouldn't take you more than, say,
>6 days or so... =)
groan......
>So I can't define good and evil to be what God wants them to be, but you
>can define them to be what you want them to be? Am I getting this right?
no.
>Or could you explain further?
I could, but I don't really think you are interested.
>>>God may indeed be "all loving...." It's just that we humans don't know
>>>what that means. Job is a good place to start.
>>
>>Yes. Have a look at Job. Your god is raving psycho. Job is his abject
>>slave. It is thoroughly disgusting. See what your god does to his friends.
>Here's a bit of cultural imperacism for you... You say that God is a raving
>psycho (your exact words). What makes your judgement any better than
>the British colonial's, who declared that the natives of India were heathen
>superstitious savages?
Did he say that he looked up to these Colonials? I say, "
Paul Wilson
>>Bob Burgess <bur...@lims.lockheed.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>I challenge you to put aside your presupposition and take a look at the
>>>scriptures in context with an open mind. God gave you a mind. Try using
>>>it.
Some of us have read the scriptures with an open mind. It's not clear
that you have. Read the thread about the bible as a moral guide in
alt.religion.christian.
>>Sure, Bob. Here's the context:
>>Jesus/God is "all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful" etc etc etc. Emphasis
>>on the "all-loving" part.
>>Read Revelations.
>>Doesn't sound "all-loving" to me.
>
>And, since we're looking at context, let's look at the book of Job 38:1-4...
>(this is the KJ version, BTW, which flows better than the modern text, IMHO)...
>
>"Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said, Who is this that
>darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up thy loins like a man;
>for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid
>the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding."
So God is bigger, stronger, and older than Job. That doesn't make him a good
guy. And in fact the story of Job is pretty compelling evidence that your
God is not a nice guy.
>This continues for quite a while, so let's just skip ahead a bit... =)
>Job 40: 1-2, 7-9...
>
>"Moreover the Lord answered Job, and said, Shall he that contendeth with
>the Almighty instruct him? He that reproveth God, let him answer it.
>...
>"Gird up they loins now like a man: I will demand of thee, and declare
>thou unto me. Wilt thou also disannul my judgement? Wilt thou condemn
>me, that thou mayest be righteous? Has thou an arm like God? Or canst
>thou thunder with a voice like him?"
So he's a bully. Bully for him. This is the kind of stuff most of us
got past by high school. "You can't tell me I'm wrong, because I'm
stronger and louder than you." Well, read my lips: your god is a jerk.
>What does this say? It says that we mere mortals cannot possibly understand
>the God of the Hebrew's ways. We are nowhere near his league, so we should
>not presume to pass judgement on him as to what is right and what is wrong.
>We speak without knowing what we speak of. Bad debate practice, if nothing
>else... =)
No, you and your god are the ones who are indulging in bad debating practice.
We know what right and wrong mean, to a first approximation, even if we
may disagree over the details and argue endlessly about them. It's not
kosher for God to come up with secret meanings for those words and expect
us to give a shit. If a salesperson started selling you gold that wasn't,
you know, GOLD, but was some "secret kind of gold", what would you do?
My understanding of God's notions of right and wrong are that they are
often opposed to the real meaning of right and wrong. The bible is
chock-full of God doing evil stuff. Playing with words is not going
to change that. "Good" doesn't mean "whatever the biggest guy wants."
If we can't understand God's notion of morality, then we can't possibly
know whether we would find it worthwhile if we had the God-like ability
to understand it. Your God says "trust me" and proceeds to commit
acts that are tremendously evil. I can't trust a guy like that, and
anybody who would is dangerously amoral---they'll follow something
they confessedly can't understand at all into doing things that would
make any moral person sick.
So stop calling your god's preferences right and wrong---that's simply
not what right and wrong are, period. Right and wrong existed long
before your religion, exist independently of it, and will exist long
after it. Those of us who are not extremely gullible, like you and
Job are, will not fall for people or gods twisting the meaning of
right and wrong into something incomprehensible and repugnant.
You can't just "define" good and evil to be what God wants them to
be, any more than you can define "gold" to mean sand. It just doesn't
work that way. (Read up on "natural kind terms" in the philosophy of
language sometime. You clearly don't know how words work.)
>God may indeed be "all loving...." It's just that we humans don't know
>what that means. Job is a good place to start.
Yes. Have a look at Job. Your god is raving psycho. Job is his abject
slave. It is thoroughly disgusting. See what your god does to his friends.
If that's an "all loving" god, I think we're much better off without all
that love.
>Oh, dear! Stop me before I defend Xtianity again! =) You Athiests out
>there, stop making it so damn easy for me! Arg! =) Read the damn Bible!
>Don't be culturally illiterate like so many Fundies! Don't fall into the
>same logical traps that they fall into! Convince me!!!!! =)
You think we don't read the Bible? Some of us have, extensively, and
think it stinks bigtime. Read my posting "The Bible is bad moral guide" in
alt.religion.christian---I cite chapter and verse extensively to show
that your God is evil.
>Again, I stand nekkid before you. Annoint me with kerosine, baptise me
>with your cleansing flames. I await.
Damn, where did I leave my matches...
Keith Justified And Ancient Cochran
>are castigating and ridiculing is a person about whom it would
>be wise to ask a simple question first:
>What is at stake if I am wrong about this man?
Then he's still a murdering monster who is not worthy of respect, let
alone worship.
Keith Justified And Ancient Cochran
A. Channing <u921...@radon.sys.uea.ac.uk> wrote:
>kcoc...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>|> Bob Burgess <bur...@lims.lockheed.com> wrote:
>|> >I rarely reply to any post, but when it comes to post that are so
>|> >simple-mindedly yet deliberately and deceptively errant, I think it
>|> >warrants a response.
>|>
>|> You forgot to call Simon a nazi pagan.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>I hope you're not seriously equating these two? Nah probably not. I'm
>just worrying over nothing as usual.
Yep. I was expecting Bob to say something more along the lines of:
"I rarely reply to any post, but when a nazi-pagan-homosexual posts something
so deliberately and deceptively errant..."
I've just been dealing with too many "loving Christians" lately...
Jason Smith
= >WHY JESUS?
= >
= >Who Is This Man Jesus?
= >
= >Jesus has been held in high regard by Christians and non-
= >Christians alike. Regardless of whether he existed in
= Great material! I posted a similar collection of material myself, with
= a very similar commentary. But I did not have as many verses or
= incidents; nor was my post as well written as this! :)
= Thanks for the posting!
= I suspect that the author will be taken to task for "taking these
= verses out of context."
Of course he will. OK it looks as if we need a little discussion on
"context" here. (Sheesh, no wonder shows like Hard Copy and Inside Edition
do so well - it's so much easier to point fingers and shake our heads
than weigh the claims of *both* sides) ...
I do *not* believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. I reject his
purported resurrection, nor do I give heed to any claims of divinity.
There. Now the world can quote me as renouncing some of the foundations of
my faith. Right there in black and white (at least those are the colors
here) I have said enough to get me excommunicated from most churches.
But is that the intent? What do I, Jason Smith, really believe, and what is
my point in saying so? Is there more to the story?
Anyone who knows me, or has spent corresponding with me, as you have Arn,
would suspect that such a disclaimer of faith is likely not what I truly
intended. So, the skeptical (and dare I say, "responsible seeker of truth")
reader reads on. And lo and behold, they stumble on this:
Let me inform you with all confidence that I indeed believe Jesus, son of
Mary, is indeed the Anointed one, Messiah, God with Us, and the hope of the
world. I believe that He was crucified, and died as a result. I also
believe that as He promised to those who loved Him, that rose again from
the dead, and now both sits at the right hand of the Father, and lives and
works through people even today.
So. What do we have? (My goodness - a contradiction, no less!)
How do we resolve such?
Well, of course there is always that silliness we call "context".
= It is interesting the way that church members
= attempt to explain away the shocking aspects of Jesus' words and the
= more unattractive and immoral aspects of his behavior. One feels that
= believers close their eyes to these things in order to be able to
= remain church members. [ ... ]
= They hope that they that by denial they can keep the family together. So
= it is with believers for Jesus!
Why assume as such. Could it possibly be that I and many others
have wrestled with, and faced these very problems and come to a very
different conclusion?
I reiterate a comment made by *you*, Arn, that one only sees what one has a
predisposition to, a fact that no party to this is innocent of. Might I add,
that to each side's shame, it is so rare that either takes the time to
investigate the other's evidence and testimony.
Friction is generally caused by *two* rough surfaces, donchaknow.
Jason.
--
Jason D. Smith | I'm not young enough to know everything.
1x1 | jas...@atlas.com
Jason D Corley
>are castigating and ridiculing is a person about whom it would
>be wise to ask a simple question first:
>What is at stake if I am wrong about this man?
>
More witches!
(Does Monty Python have Buddha-nature?)
Jason D Corley
Hans M Dykstra <hdyk...@titan.ucs.umass.edu> wrote:
>
>BPaging Mr. Pascal...Mr. Blaise Pascal, please pick up the nearest
>white courtesy phone for an important message...
"This is Rene Descartes. Please hold for Mr. Success."
"Hi, Mr. Pascal. I am Mr. Success. I'd like to talk to you about
a little wager."
"A little Wagner?"
"No, that's a typo. A wager. A bet. A sporting proposition. A
gambling offer."
"All right. I accept."
"All right, you lose."
"Damn!"
"That's right."
[smell of brimstone]
"Did you get all that, Mr. Dupree?"
"Si, senor. Pliz do not keel me."
"Of course not."
Wayne Ohmer
[...]
> God may indeed be "all loving...." It's just that we humans don't know
> what that means. Job is a good place to start.
This is exactly what I would expect a truly evil being to say. The best
con men are the ones that can make you believe that they are your friend
while they are screwing you. If you just assume god is good and ignore
the evidence then it is pointless to debate. I try to put more stock in
what I see than what people tell me. I don't get taken advantage of as
much that way.
> Oh, dear! Stop me before I defend Xtianity again! =) You Athiests out
> there, stop making it so damn easy for me! Arg! =) Read the damn Bible!
> Don't be culturally illiterate like so many Fundies! Don't fall into the
> same logical traps that they fall into! Convince me!!!!! =)
> Again, I stand nekkid before you. Annoint me with kerosine, baptise me
> with your cleansing flames. I await.
> Bill.
> * Cry "Eek Eek," and let ******* Jrrrr-Lwsss *******
> *** slip the Ferrets of War! ***** The Ferrotti from Hell *****
> ***** (with apologies to *** bke...@lamar.colostate.edu **
> ******* Wm. Shakespeare) * 14 feet of pure ferret fury. *
--
The Weapon (Part II of Fear)
--- ------ ---------------
Like a steely blade in a silken sheath
We don't see what they're made of
They shout about love, but when push comes to shove
They live for the things they're afraid of
And the knowledge that they fear is a weapon to be used against them...
Lee Rudolph
>bke...@lamar.ColoState.EDU (the Ferret-Meister) writes:
>>Would you presume to explain
>>physics to Heisenburg or Feinman? (well, you might, but I certainly wouldn't).
>>They would laugh in your face. How can you, a mere student, dare to tell
>>these geniuses what their job is? Do you think that you understand the
>>workings of particles better than them?
>>Would you presume to try to correct William Shakespeare's grammar? (well,
>>I would, but I shouldn't think most other people would =).
>I wouldn't if I were you. For example, they last sentence in the previous
>paragraph should read: Do you think that you understand the workings of
>particles better than THEY?
I for one think I understand the workings of particles better than I
understand the workings of any physicist. And I'd never have thought to
think that if I hadn't gone back and taken the Ferret-Meister's sentence
at face value. And I wouldn't have gone back if I hadn't read this far
in DYER, ANGELA's critique.
Well, well, well.
Lee Rudolph
Lee Rudolph
LR
Jason D Corley
Wayne Ohmer <oh...@lclark.edu> wrote:
>Like a steely blade in a silken sheath
>We don't see what they're made of
>They shout about love, but when push comes to shove
>They live for the things they're afraid of
Burma-Shave.
JAMES GUSTAFSON
(J. Victor Kim) writes:
By this comment you seem to misunderstand the nature of the debate.
The MAN Jesus existed. The CHRIST Jesus didn't exist. The debate is
whether or not the MAN Jesus existed. By saying " Shouldn't we be arguing,
not about Jesus, but about the man ... who creat Jesus and God" you are
begging the question that the MAN Jesus ever existed.
LLOYD BAKER
>: This is the biggest bunch of Anti-Christian crap I've seen in a long time.
>
>It was rather good, wasn't it?
Actually, no. I am an atheist myself but a lot of the atheist
arguments on here are uninformed. The bashing is not good, it simply
stinks. I can find better arguments for the non-existence of the Jesus of
faith, i.e., Jesus Christ, other than using the comments used below by Bary.
>: >Who Is This Man Jesus?
>
>: Lets get the key words here. Who is this MAN Jesus. As in, a man
>: with human passions, with human error and with human impulses.
>
>Let's get it straight here. Jesus Christ never existed. We know that he
>was nothing more than an invention of the writers.
Let.s finally get something straight here Bary. There is a big
difference between the Jesus of faith and the historical Jesus. There is
Jesus Christ and then there is Jesus of Nazereth. If you claim Jesus
Christ never existed, then I will agree. However, I would like to see your
arguments for your claim. If you are, on the other hand, denying the
existence of Jesus of Nazereth, then I would say that you are in a
small minority and I would like to see your evidence. Even scholars today
will say that there was a Jesus. Maybe not based on proof, but on
probability.
> Many scholars are doubtful of the historical existence of[....]
Maybe many Bary, but definitely a minority.
> There is no valid excuse left to believe that Jesus Christ ever
> existed.
Well, again, I will agree with you on the topic of the Christ, but I
will not agree concerning the idea that there was no Yeshua ben
Joseph
>No first-century writer confirms the Jesus story.
Well, if you want to say, "No first century writer who was not a
Christian," then I _may_ agree with you, I am not all that familier with
any first century writers who even _cared_ about Yeshua let alone _knew_ him.
> They are just stories. They have no historical basis.
You won.t be able to defend your dissertation like that Bary.
>: This was really dumb.
> Yes. Your whole message was really dumb. Why do you bother to give support
> to something so pointless?
You are not very scholarly Bary. You are neither a good philosopher
nor are you experienced in the _art_ of Religious Studies. However, it.s
best that your thesis is here on the net since your ill-informed statements
would never last long in intellectual circles.
+=======================+
| Jamie Lloyd |
| bak...@augustana.edu |
+=======================+
Dave Batchelor, Space Phys. Data Facil. 301/286-2988
(Mike Renning) writes...
>In article <2j3c98$p...@panix.com>
>g...@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>
>>kcoc...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran):
>>| Jesus/God is "all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful" etc etc etc. Emphasis
>>| on the "all-loving" part.
>>|
>>| Read Revelations.
>>|
>>| Doesn't sound "all-loving" to me.
>>
>the influence of hallucinogenic mushrooms. At least that's what a friend
>of mine suggested to me once. I think it's worth considering. One way
>or another, you've got to admit it's a pretty riveting little bit of free
>verse.
>
> - Mike "once a Christian, now a revisionist" Renning
I think more likely John was a paranoid schizophrenic. Those folks
often suffer from the delusion that they get visions or stories from
God, and some of them write pretty riveting stuff without any need
for hallucinogens (because their internal brain chemistry is
triggering the hallucinations). People like that were considered
holy in antiquity. Reading some case histories is enlightening.
Matthew Teague
WakuSen <wak...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>The TRUTH is, HERETIC, that ALLAH will come and SMASH all of you who have
>desecrated His Word. It is YOU who are wrong, for you have maligned Jesus, the
>great Prophet of the Lord, with your perversions of his Word. Do not spread
>your heretical LIES to the world, for ye and all those who listen to ye shall
>be DAMNED for eternity, while we who follow the one TRUE LORD will laugh
>at you from Paradise. For this is the merciful way that Allah rewards those
>who have been faithful, and punishes those wretched sinners who believe not
>in Him.
Sigh.....if you are serious, i'm sure every other flame/reply will say
exactly what i would have said. However, i'm going to assume this
was not a serious post (allowing that i may be completely mistaken in
that assumption).
But really, every Muslim i've ever known or talked to (exception of Mozumder)
was *far* more rational than THIS. Even Munir, convinced beyond all doubt
that Islam is true, was *never* like a rabid dog. He was very
respectful of those who don't believe, although he thinks we're in for
a grim future.
Next time, if you're doing a satire, remember the obligatory smiley face.
:-) ;-)
+===================+==================================================+
| Matt Teague |"...Rested and fearless, cheered by your nearness;|
| June '88 LEHS | I knew which direction was right. |
| May '92 WPI | The case had been tried by the jury inside; |
| March '94 UW | The choice between Darkness and Light..." |
| METGRADAXPDSP498 | ---RUSH, Double Agent |
+===================+==================================================+
"...Just the bang; and the clatter, as an angel....hits the ground.."
--U2, Stay(Faraway, So Close)
WakuSen
>In article <2j7bt0$h...@nntp2.Stanford.EDU>,
>WakuSen <wak...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>
>>The TRUTH is, HERETIC, that ALLAH will come and SMASH all of you who have
>>desecrated His Word. It is YOU who are wrong, for you have maligned Jesus, the
>>great Prophet of the Lord, with your perversions of his Word. Do not spread
>>your heretical LIES to the world, for ye and all those who listen to ye shall
>>be DAMNED for eternity, while we who follow the one TRUE LORD will laugh
>>at you from Paradise. For this is the merciful way that Allah rewards those
>>who have been faithful, and punishes those wretched sinners who believe not
>>in Him.
>
>Sigh.....if you are serious, i'm sure every other flame/reply will say
>exactly what i would have said. However, i'm going to assume this
>was not a serious post (allowing that i may be completely mistaken in
>that assumption).
>
>But really, every Muslim i've ever known or talked to (exception of Mozumder)
>was *far* more rational than THIS. Even Munir, convinced beyond all doubt
>that Islam is true, was *never* like a rabid dog. He was very
>respectful of those who don't believe, although he thinks we're in for
>a grim future.
>Next time, if you're doing a satire, remember the obligatory smiley face.
Oops. . . Sorry, meant to put it in. Here it is, a little late. . .
;-)
Commander Keen
ba...@garion.it.com.au (Barry O'Grady):
| Let's get it straight here. Jesus Christ never existed. We know that he
There's much about this thread that I could argue, but this is one
misconception that I must address.
What historical proof do we have that Jesus Christ was an actual man
of history?
1. 27 different New Testament books.
Montgomery, John Warwick. 'History and Christianity'. Downers Grove:
Inter-Varsity Press, 1964.
John Montgomery asks: "What, then, does a historianknow about
Jesus Christ? He knows, first and foremost, that the New Testament
documents can be relied upong to give an accurate portrait of Him.
And he knows that this portrait cannot be rationalized away by wishful
thinking, philosophical presuppositionalism, or literary maneuvering."
2. The writings of Cornelius Tacitus, a Roman historian, in 112 AD,
Governor of Asia, son-in-law of Julius Agricola who was Governor of
Britain AD 80-84. During the reign of Nero, he alludes to the death
of Christ and to the existence of Christians at Rome:
"But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the
bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which
could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the
infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire
of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the
guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons
commonly called Christians, who were hated for the enormities.
Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate,
procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious
superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through
Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome
also."
3. Lucian of Samosata. I won't quote everyone here, but you can find
references to Christ in 'The Passing Peregrinus'.
4. Flavius Josephus (born AD 37). This Jewish historian became a
Pharisee at age 19; in AD 66 he was the commander of Jewish forces in
Galilee. After being captured, he was attached to the Roman
headquarters. He is quoted as saying:
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful
to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of
such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both
many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and
when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had
condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not
forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the
divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful
things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him
are not extinct at this day." 'Antiquities. xviii.33. (early 2nd
century).
5. The Jewish Talmuds make many references to Christ (usually
referring to Him as "Ben Pandera" or "Jeshu ben Pandera", which is a
play on words referring to Him as "son of a virgin".
6. The Encyclopaedia Britannica. The latest edition of the
Encyclopaedia Britannica uses about 20,000 words in describing this
person, Jesus. This is more space than is given to Aristotle, Cicero,
Alexander, Julius Caesar, Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed, or Napoleon
Bonaparte.
Concerning the testimony of the many independent secular accounts
of Jesus of Nazareth, it records:
"These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the
opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus,
which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by
several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the
beginning of the 20th centuries."
I could've quoted many other accounts, but these were the ones I
thought to be most beneficial. Note that while most of these barely
address whether Christ is divine in any way, they do not argue His
existence.
Conclusion: As F.F. Bruce, a Rylands professor of biblical criticism
and exegesis at the University of Manchester, has rightly said:
"Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christ-myth', but they do
not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of
Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of
Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the 'Christ-myth'
theories."
Bruce, F.F. 'The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?' 5th
revised edition. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1972.
Interested in more? Let me suggest a book by Josh McDowell called
'Evidence that Demands a Verdict'. All of the above notes came from
chapter 5. While McDowell is a Christian author, most of these notes
were compiled in his attempt to disprove Christianity. The more he
tried to disprove Christianity, the more it became apparent that he
could do nothing but support Christianity.
--
Test signature file
The Nuclear Ninja Gerbil
erased, sorry):
I would not presume to tell Feinman/Heisenberg about physics, Shakespeare about
grammar, or (my figgin quakes at the thought) my grandma about cooking. That's not the point. What if _we_ ask _them_ about all these things? If I ask God,
"Hey, _why_ are you doing this stuff?", and he says, "Bugger off, I don't have
to explain myself to you, and besides you wouldn't understand my reasons",
well, quite frankly it doesn't really inspire _confidence_ in God if (a) he
won't try to help you understand, and (b) has such a self-centred view of right
and wrong.....
Just throwing in my half-penn'orth!
--
Dan Stock, Trinity College, | #### "The bird flies - rssss!
Oxford OX1 3BH, England. | @ 00 @ The fish swims - vssss!
WATCH THIS SPACE, IT MIGHT | \__/ The fungi-squirrel run - gsrsss!
JUST DO SOMETHING CLEVER | ww The wheel turns, and all is One." -TP
Hans M Dykstra
Commander Keen <mwa...@nmsu.edu> wrote:
>
>What historical proof do we have that Jesus Christ was an actual man
>of history?
>
>1. 27 different New Testament books.
All of them written from a partisan point of view; the majority
written by people who don't even claim to have seen him in
person.
>2. The writings of Cornelius Tacitus, a Roman historian, in 112 AD,
>Governor of Asia, son-in-law of Julius Agricola who was Governor of
>Britain AD 80-84. During the reign of Nero, he alludes to the death
>of Christ and to the existence of Christians at Rome:
Basing his writing on what? The claims of Christians who themselves
base their claims on hearsay and those self-same epistles of the
New Testament.
>3. Lucian of Samosata. I won't quote everyone here, but you can find
>references to Christ in 'The Passing Peregrinus'.
>
>4. Flavius Josephus (born AD 37). This Jewish historian became a
>Pharisee at age 19; in AD 66 he was the commander of Jewish forces in
>Galilee. After being captured, he was attached to the Roman
>headquarters. He is quoted as saying:
Except for a controversial passage which is widely regarded as
a fraud by later Christian translators, nothing that confirms
anything except the fact that _Christians_ exist. Not that
Christs existed, but that people who claimed to follow him
did; modid; all of them basing their belief on ...?
>5. The Jewish Talmuds make many references to Christ (usually
>referring to Him as "Ben Pandera" or "Jeshu ben Pandera", which is a
>play on words referring to Him as "son of a virgin".
No comment on this one. It is the only one I don't know much
about. Still, they _could_, probably are, be basing most of their
writings on what people said about Jesus, not on what they themselves
observed. Without direct quotes in a reliable translation, it
is not possible to say.
>6. The Encyclopaedia Britannica. The latest edition of the
>Encyclopaedia Britannica uses about 20,000 words in describing this
>person, Jesus. This is more space than is given to Aristotle, Cicero,
>Alexander, Julius Caesar, Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed, or Napoleon
>Bonaparte.
Because the Britannica is the product of a society which is dominated
by Christians. Big f***ing deal.
> Concerning the testimony of the many independent secular accounts
>of Jesus of Nazareth, it records:
> "These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the
>opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus,
>which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by
>several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the
>beginning of the 20th centuries."
In other words, these "independent secular accounts" tell us
nothing at all about Jesus, only about what people believed
about him.
>I could've quoted many other accounts, but these were the ones I
>thought to be most beneficial. Note that while most of these barely
>address whether Christ is divine in any way, they do not argue His
>existence.
If these are the best you can do, then there just isn't much there
at all. The only one of these which might potentially be an
independent account of Jesus (not an account of what Christians
said about him) is the Talmud reference. Even here, you've given
us nothing to tell us what it does say.
>Interested in more? Let me suggest a book by Josh McDowell called
>'Evidence that Demands a Verdict'. All of the above notes came from
>chapter 5. While McDowell is a Christian author, most of these notes
>were compiled in his attempt to disprove Christianity. The more he
>tried to disprove Christianity, the more it became apparent that he
>could do nothing but support Christianity.
Yeah, well Mr. McDowell is not held in high regard by anybody with
two neurons to rub together. I don't think there are any people
here that really believe that McDowell wanted to disprove
Christianity. I rather think he is a pretty dishonest guy,
and not very good at that either.
Now, as it happens, I _do_ believe that there was a Yeshua, who
was the prototype for the myths that grew around his name. But
there just isn't very much, if any, historical documentation.
Nothing written by Jesus, nothing written by eyewitnesses
(except maybe the Gospel of John, and that some 40 years or
more after the fact), no Roman records. The historical record
is pretty clear about early _Christians_, but nothing about
the alleged Christ Itself.
***
hmd
arnold v. lesikar
>les...@TIGGER.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU writes:
>= >WHY JESUS?
>= >
>= >Who Is This Man Jesus?
>= >
>= >Jesus has been held in high regard by Christians and non-
>= >Christians alike. Regardless of whether he existed in
>
>= Great material! I posted a similar collection of material myself, with
>= a very similar commentary. But I did not have as many verses or
>= incidents; nor was my post as well written as this! :)
>
>= Thanks for the posting!
>
>= I suspect that the author will be taken to task for "taking these
>= verses out of context."
Well I am a bit ashamed of myself here. I did not read the whole
article through. There are some real stupid cheap shots in it.
I am afraid I signed off on this without reading the fine print. Big
mistake. :(
>
>I do *not* believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. I reject his
>purported resurrection, nor do I give heed to any claims of divinity.
>
Oh, my! It seems I have been mainly arguing with the liberals, here :(
Of course, there are fundamentalists who post here with whom it is
impossible to discuss! We have few points in disagreement it seems.
>
>Let me inform you with all confidence that I indeed believe Jesus, son of
>Mary, is indeed the Anointed one, Messiah, God with Us, and the hope of the
>world. I believe that He was crucified, and died as a result. I also
>believe that as He promised to those who loved Him, that rose again from
>the dead, and now both sits at the right hand of the Father, and lives and
>works through people even today.
>
Uh, oh!
>So. What do we have? (My goodness - a contradiction, no less!)
>How do we resolve such?
>
>Well, of course there is always that silliness we call "context".
>
>= It is interesting the way that church members
>= attempt to explain away the shocking aspects of Jesus' words and the
>= more unattractive and immoral aspects of his behavior. One feels that
>= believers close their eyes to these things in order to be able to
>= remain church members. [ ... ]
>= They hope that they that by denial they can keep the family together. So
>= it is with believers for Jesus!
>
Well I generally stick by the statements above. Although I have to
back off a blanket endorsement of this particular article.
>Why assume as such. Could it possibly be that I and many others
>have wrestled with, and faced these very problems and come to a very
>different conclusion?
I should have qualified the statement with "many." I know that there
are believers who have wrestled with the faith. But there is a lot of
blind faith out there, and there are bible verses that seem to
recommend blindness of faith, such as that famous dialog between Jesus
and Thomas, where those who believe without seeing are blessed. I
might also mention the passages of Paul describing the faith as
foolishness to the world, and going against the wisdom of the world.
>
>I reiterate a comment made by *you*, Arn, that one only sees what one has a
>predisposition to, a fact that no party to this is innocent of. Might I add,
>that to each side's shame, it is so rare that either takes the time to
>investigate the other's evidence and testimony.
>
>Friction is generally caused by *two* rough surfaces, donchaknow.
>
No disagreement, here!
Thanks for being so easy on me, Jason! You could really have taken me
apart over the absurdities in the original article. Indeed the author
posted some of the "hard sayings." This is what caught my eye and led
me to endorse the article. But then he goes on to take passages from
the parables out of the parable's context to use as a proof exts
against Jesus in an absurd fashion. This kind of argumentation I do
NOT endorse. All in all, I am forced now to agree. The original
article stinks.
KRESSJA
>
>ba...@garion.it.com.au (Barry O'Grady):
>| Let's get it straight here. Jesus Christ never existed. We know that he
>| was nothing more than an invention of the writeers.
>
>There's much about this thread that I could argue, but this is one
>misconception that I must address.
>
>What historical proof do we have that Jesus Christ was an actual man
>of history?
>
>1. 27 different New Testament books.
> Montgomery, John Warwick. 'History and Christianity'. Downers Grove:
> Inter-Varsity Press, 1964.
>
>Jesus Christ? He knows, first and foremost, that the New Testament
>documents can be relied upong to give an accurate portrait of Him.
>And he knows that this portrait cannot be rationalized away by wishful
>thinking, philosophical presuppositionalism, or literary maneuvering."
This is simply untrue: _prima facie_ one can assert the gospels *do not*
give an accurate account of Jesus' life, since they contradict one
another, provably incorporate fables from Jewish Wisdom traditions, and
assert the occurence of other events for which there is no independent
confirmation, such as the slaughter of infants by Herod.
Furthermore, even if this were not the case, the earliest of the four
gospels, Mark, was written no earlier than 70 AD, with 80 being the
standard dating. In either case, it is a document which chronicles
events which allegedly occured over forty to seventy years previous to it.
The case for the historical existence of Jesus is not strengthen by the
Pauline epistles either; Paul admits never having met Jesus, and for
someone who allegedly knew those who know Jesus, Paul is startlingly
unfamiliar with the "life" of Jesus. He hardly ever mentions the words
of Jesus, even when they would be of great support to his teachings.
So too, the other non-Pauline epistles.
>2. The writings of Cornelius Tacitus, a Roman historian, in 112 AD,
>Governor of Asia, son-in-law of Julius Agricola who was Governor of
>Britain AD 80-84. During the reign of Nero, he alludes to the death
>of Christ and to the existence of Christians at Rome:
Tacitus mentions Christians in Rome, and indeed Tacitus was famililar
primarily with events transpiring in Rome. He lived there. And we
know that there were Christian communities by AD 112--it should not
surprise us that Tacitus mentions the Christ--as he heard it from the
Roman Christians. This hardly constitutes evidence for the existence
of the historical Jesus. The case that Tacitus was just repeating what
he had been told is strenthened by the fact that he would not have had
access to official Roman crucifiction records, and that his reference to
Pilate as "procurator" is inaccurate: Pilate was the Prefect of Judea.
>3. Lucian of Samosata. I won't quote everyone here, but you can find
>references to Christ in 'The Passing Peregrinus'.
I can find a reference to the fairy "Puck" in Shakespeare's comedies; this
hardly proves the existence of the historical Puck. One does not need
to exist to be made fun of. Besides, Lucian wasn't even born until about
115 AD, making him more unreliable than Tacitus.
>4. Flavius Josephus (born AD 37). This Jewish historian became a
>Pharisee at age 19; in AD 66 he was the commander of Jewish forces in
>Galilee. After being captured, he was attached to the Roman
>headquarters. He is quoted as saying:
> "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful
>to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of
>such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both
>many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and
>when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had
>condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not
>forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the
>divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful
>things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him
>are not extinct at this day." 'Antiquities. xviii.33. (early 2nd
>century).
This passage is almost universally agreed to be a spurious Christian
interpolation injected into Josephus' text. Textual evidence for this
is as follows:
1. The passage makes an abrupt and out-of-context appearance, disrupting
the continuity of the narrative.
2. Early Christian writers, such as Origen, who knew of Josephus, show
no evidence of knowing this passage.
3. The tone is simply different from the rest of the _Antiquities_; it
doesn't sound as if it were written by the same man who wrote the rest
of the book.
>5. The Jewish Talmuds make many references to Christ (usually
>referring to Him as "Ben Pandera" or "Jeshu ben Pandera", which is a
>play on words referring to Him as "son of a virgin".
The Talmud provides little support for the histoical Jesus, because the
Talmudic references which occur *after* the gospels were extant, make
use of the gospels as sources (and hence provide no independant
confirmation) OR the Talmudic references which mention "Yeshu the
Nazarene" or "Yeshu ben Pantera" describe him as a sorcerer put to
death about 128 BC or 104-78 BC (there are two old references), accounts
which tend to support the thesis that Jesus was a figure COMPOSED of
a previously existing fabulist tradition.
>6. The Encyclopaedia Britannica. The latest edition of the
>Encyclopaedia Britannica uses about 20,000 words in describing this
>person, Jesus. This is more space than is given to Aristotle, Cicero,
>Alexander, Julius Caesar, Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed, or Napoleon
>Bonaparte.
> Concerning the testimony of the many independent secular accounts
>of Jesus of Nazareth, it records:
> "These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the
>opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus,
>which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by
>several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the
>beginning of the 20th centuries."
You are correct in asserting that the ancient opponents of Christianity
never doubted the existence of Jesus. This says little, however, to
show that Jesus did, in fact, exist. They also never doubted the
existence of Odysseus, Homer, Achilles, Romulus and Remus, Aeneas, etc.,
etc., etc.
The appearance of such doubts coincides nicely with the emergence of
modern methods of textual criticism.
>I could've quoted many other accounts, but these were the ones I
>thought to be most beneficial. Note that while most of these barely
>address whether Christ is divine in any way, they do not argue His
>existence.
Oh please, quote some more evidence; if these are the strongest, then you
are making the case of those who question Jesus' historical existence.
>Conclusion: As F.F. Bruce, a Rylands professor of biblical criticism
>and exegesis at the University of Manchester, has rightly said:
>"Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christ-myth', but they do
>not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of
>Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of
>Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the 'Christ-myth'
>theories."
"Rightly said"? Hardly so. The existence of Christ for writers *about*
Christianity is useful, as is the assumption of Homer's existence for
those who write about the _Iliad_ and the _Odyssey_; this does not,
however, make it true.
>Bruce, F.F. 'The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?' 5th
>revised edition. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1972.
>
>Interested in more? Let me suggest a book by Josh McDowell called
>'Evidence that Demands a Verdict'. All of the above notes came from
>chapter 5. While McDowell is a Christian author, most of these notes
>were compiled in his attempt to disprove Christianity. The more he
>tried to disprove Christianity, the more it became apparent that he
>could do nothing but support Christianity.
He must have been a poor logician then.
Mark E. Rudolph
Bill Conner
: In article <2jb1k0...@dns1.nmsu.edu>,
: Commander Keen <mwa...@nmsu.edu> wrote:
: >
: >What historical proof do we have that Jesus Christ was an actual man
: >of history?
: >
: >1. 27 different New Testament books.
: All of them written from a partisan point of view; the majority
: written by people who don't even claim to have seen him in
: person.
This is pretty lame. The same could said of most of the characters in
history and certainly applies to all of the billions of ordinary who
are not mentioned at all. We know of the existence of many people on
by their effects. Who carved the gargoyles on some 13th century
cathederal, who laid the stones for a roman road or set the foundation
for the Great Wall of China or quarried the stone for the pyramid of
Cheops? You are going to great lengths to miss the point.
Bill
Marc S. Meyer
or not Jesus existed.
1) Who cares? I mean, does faith in Christianity
hinge on the historical accuracy of the Bible? I
should think it makes no difference. Other religions
don't rely on historical accuracy. Take Hinduism, for
example. Early on in the Mahabarata, a Hindu religious
text, a boy asks the author of the book if this is a true
story. The author, who is a character of the story, replies,
"No, this story is to explain to you the history of your
race." Explain, not document.
2) Why is this being crossposted to alt.buddha.short.fat.guy?
Please edit your Newsgroups line appropiately.
Marc
LLOYD BAKER
Marc asks:
*> 1) Who cares? I mean, does faith in Christianity should think it makes
*> no difference. Other religions don't rely on historical accuracy. Take
*> Hinduism, for example. Early on in the Mahabarata, a Hindu religious
*> text, a boy asks the author of the book if this is a true story. The
*> author, who is a character of the story, replies, "No, this story is to
*> explain to you the history of your race." Explain, not document.
It does matter to Christianity that there were historical events.
That is what makes it very important actually. Christianity makes a big
deal by saying that YHWH came to earth in physical form and that form
was called Yeshua of Nazareth. If that was not true, then you could just
throw Christianity out the window and say, "Look, the person you believe to
have actually come to earth and save humanity never existed!" If they were
to believe the evidence, then I guess it would be important. The problem
would be convincing them that the evidence is credible.
If there is proof that Yeshua didn.t exist, that would help to
refute Christians even more (although can easily refute them without this
evidence, as we have all seen).
Good point, though, Marc....
WakuSen
>I have two questions about this issue of whether
>or not Jesus existed.
>
>1) Who cares? I mean, does faith in Christianity
>hinge on the historical accuracy of the Bible? I
>should think it makes no difference. Other religions
>don't rely on historical accuracy. Take Hinduism, for
>example. Early on in the Mahabarata, a Hindu religious
>text, a boy asks the author of the book if this is a true
>story. The author, who is a character of the story, replies,
>"No, this story is to explain to you the history of your
>race." Explain, not document.
Ughhhhhh. You must be reading that translation by that French guy, Jean-Claude
what's-his-face. That statement isn't in the original epic.
Besides, what good is it if it explains history without being true?
>2) Why is this being crossposted to alt.buddha.short.fat.guy?
>Please edit your Newsgroups line appropiately.
Ah, now _that_ is something I agree with. Hopefully these threads will
peter out soon.
Gordon Fitch
| Besides, what good is it if it explains history without being true?
What is truth?
| >2) Why is this being crossposted to alt.buddha.short.fat.guy?
wakusen:
| Ah, now _that_ is something I agree with. Hopefully these threads will
| peter out soon.
Who is Peter?
Johan van Zanten
> Who is Peter?
Peter Rabbit, silly! The third Century BC Zen philosopher that said,
"If no one tells the Johan what to eat today, he is going to get very
hungry."
the johan
Gordon: This "the" stuff is weird. I'm beginning to feel like a
seperate species.
WakuSen
>In article <2jipg8$o...@panix.com> Gordon Fitch, g...@panix.com writes:
>> Who is Peter?
>
> Peter Rabbit, silly! The third Century BC Zen philosopher that said,
>"If no one tells the Johan what to eat today, he is going to get very
>hungry."
Isn't there someone on this newsgroup with a bag of potatoes?
the WakuSen
RYANT ARRINGTON
Stupidity Rampant. A bunch of blind people pushing and shoving (verbal)
in the dark (i.e. no LIGHT).
Alf the Poet
[snip]
>2) Why is this being crossposted to alt.buddha.short.fat.guy?
>Please edit your Newsgroups line appropiately.
Aww, we short.fat.guys don't mind. Really. I mean, that's what
Buddhism is all about, isn't it? Flaming the other guy until you
beat him into agreeing with you (you listening, Hagbard?). Isn't
that right, my fellow short.fat.guys? Guys?
Hmmm. Guess they all went for a beer. Bye...
Alf
P.S. I'm not even sure this will get to the Christian groups - our
site doesn't have them. If it does, did you guys get our
FAQ? I posted it to your groups yesterday. Tee hee hee.
Gordon Fitch
| The only smart statement I found (in a hurried reading) is the topic title, s
| Stupidity Rampant. A bunch of blind people pushing and shoving (verbal)
| in the dark (i.e. no LIGHT).
I miss all the good parties.
Commander Keen
Okay, so it was written by people who are biased and never have seen
him...
Hmmmmmm....
Sorry, Paul did see Jesus. Granted, it was after Christ's death, so
it could be argued whether or not that was true. But, I'll not go to
great lengths to argue that right now.
However, I'm an American, I was born in America, and I've never been
outside of this country (unless you count Arizona :-) ). I have been
told by people all my life that there existed a man named Abraham
Lincoln, who wound up being president and was shot and killed in
Ford's Theatre. I've never been to Ford's Theatre and I've never met
Abraham Lincoln. He died about 100 years before I was born. The
people who have told me about him have never met him either. They may
have been to Ford's Theatre, but there is no direct proof that Lincoln
was ever there. There's a body buried that we claim is Lincoln's, but
how do we (some 100 or more years later) know that the body is
actually the body of Lincoln?
We have documents signed by Lincoln, but how do we know that he
actually signed them and that they weren't forged?
Bottom line: There is no proof aside from historical proof that
Abraham Lincoln was born, lived, became president, and was killed in
Ford's Theatre, later dying in a nearby hotel. History tells us this
all happened, but couldn't history be biased?
So, although I have never been given sufficient proof to show that
Lincoln was a real man of history, I believe that he was who all my
teachers have told me he was.
And, although I have never been given similar proof to show that Jesus
Christ was a real man of history, I believe that he was who the Bible
says he was.
Craig
mwa...@NMSU.Edu
miw...@NMSU.Edu
--
Test signature file
LLOYD BAKER
*> Bottom line: There is no proof aside from historical proof that
*> Abraham Lincoln was born, lived, became president, and was killed in
*> Ford's Theatre, later dying in a nearby hotel. History tells us this
*> all happened, but couldn't history be biased?
Well, there is no 100% proof, but in all probability, there was a
Abraham Lincoln. Not the one your professors taught you about, like he
cared for the slaves and that was what the civil war was fought over. He
was who he was, and if people make claims about who he was, then it is all
claims, not PROOF. But there are better claims than others, and that is
what science and all other schools of thought are based on...not PROOF but
PROBABILITY based on REASONED argument.
*> So, although I have never been given sufficient proof to show that
*> Lincoln was a real man of history, I believe that he was who all my
*> teachers have told me he was.
There is enough to PROVE that he existed (as there is for Yeshua ben
Joseph from Nazareth) but if you claim we will never be able to PROVE who
this person was, what that person believed, etc, I might agree. But there
is the posibility, and a probability, that we may get close enough to be
correct on most of the topics in question.
*> And, although I have never been given similar proof to show that Jesus
*> Christ was a real man of history, I believe that he was who the Bible
*> says he was.
Craig, even science is not based on PROOF. But if you insist on not
believing the probable, then you might as well not believe that the sun will
raise tomorrow, because you can.t PROVE that. You can just assume that it
will, based on the past reoccurance (time and again) that is has. And so it
is with Yeshua ben Joseph from Nazareth.
Gordon Fitch
|
| Okay, so it was written by people who are biased and never have seen
| him...
| Hmmmmmm....
|
| Sorry, Paul did see Jesus. Granted, it was after Christ's death, so
| it could be argued whether or not that was true. But, I'll not go to
In any case, as we know from the correct interpretation of
the picture on the cover of the Abbey Road album, Paul is
dead.
Keith Cox
> In any case, as we know from the correct interpretation of
> the picture on the cover of the Abbey Road album, Paul is
> dead.
No, that was just a publicity stunt. He's really *still* alive. And at
one point, he and his compatriots assumed that they were more *famous* than
Jesus, but there is no indication that he or any of his fellows actually
*saw* Jesus, although there is no way to know one way or the other, except
to ask him.
Who wants to take that as an action item?
--
Internet: kc...@sdd.hp.com
Of course, the opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.
Brian Waugh
Cox) wrote:
> In article <2jrin3$2...@panix.com>, g...@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) wrote:
>
> > In any case, as we know from the correct interpretation of
> > the picture on the cover of the Abbey Road album, Paul is
> > dead.
>
> No, that was just a publicity stunt. He's really *still* alive. And at
> one point, he and his compatriots assumed that they were more *famous* than
> Jesus, but there is no indication that he or any of his fellows actually
> *saw* Jesus, although there is no way to know one way or the other, except
> to ask him.
Okay, now I'm REALLY confused. Did Paul see Jesus after Jesus died
or after Paul died? Am I supposed to ask Jesus or Paul? I heard that
Ringo saw God in his hotel room after their last gig at Candlestick. But
I've forgotten whether it was Ringo's hotel room or God's hotel room. Aw
shoot, John...
--
Brian "What would it take to get the Beatles back tgether?" Waugh
Stanford doesn't know I have opinions much less share them.
wa...@jessica.stanford.edu
Gordon Fitch
| > In any case, as we know from the correct interpretation of
| > the picture on the cover of the Abbey Road album, Paul is
| > dead.
kc...@sdd.hp.com (Keith Cox):
| No, that was just a publicity stunt. He's really *still* alive. And at
| one point, he and his compatriots assumed that they were more *famous* than
| Jesus, but there is no indication that he or any of his fellows actually
| *saw* Jesus, although there is no way to know one way or the other, except
| to ask him.
Ask who, Jesus?
George J Carrette
hope that somebody might learn something from it. Maybe even
the original poster.
In article <CKI9y...@cpsc.ucalgary.ca>,
Simon Watfa <wa...@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>
>Here is an interesting piece of email someone just sent me.
>He [Jesus] did nothing to alleviate poverty. Rather than sell some
>expensive ointment to help the poor, Jesus wasted it on
>himself, saying: "Ye have the poor with you always." Mark
>14:3-7)
The nice thing about this example is that the modern reader
is obviously as confused as the 12 disciples were at the time of this
incident. The point is the Woman was aware that Jesus time on earth
was limited, hence the annointing in symbolic preparation for burial.
Whereas the disciples were worried about 300 pieces of silver.
Ah, the modern reader is also worried about those 300 pieces!
>No women were chosen as disciples or invited to the Last
>Supper.
But who first knew of the coming of Jesus? A woman.
Who was the second person? A woman. Who got Jesus to perform
his first miracle (even though he didn't want to yet), a woman again.
Who first realised that Jesus had to die? A woman.
Who first learned of the Jesus rising from the dead? Women again.
What is the implied role of women here?
Don't make the answer too difficult.
>Jesus told his disciples that they would not die before his
>second coming: "There be some standing here, which shall
>not taste of death, till the see the Son of man coming in
>his kingdom" (matt. 16:28).
He was talking about rising from the dead, not the second coming here.
Remember, his kingdom was not of this world.
>"Behold, I come quickly."
>(Rev. 3:11) It's been 2,000 years, and believers are still
>waiting for his "quick" return.
Perhaps, but even after 2000 years to prepare, how many
many are actually ready?
The rest of the quotations, well, they actually seem like a list
designed to catch people's attention enough to cause them to
want to look up the sources, and bring faith and understanding to those
who would study them.
LLOYD BAKER
**> Rather than sell some expensive ointment to help the poor, Jesus wasted
**> it on himself, saying: "Ye have the poor with you always." Mark
**> 14:3-7)
*> The nice thing about this example is that the modern reader
*> is obviously as confused as the 12 disciples were at the time of this
*> incident. The point is....
The interpretation here is one that Mark is found of of course,
because it is this interpretation that lends itself to Mark's
understanding of Yeshua, not Yeshua's understanding of himself. Who even
knows if this event was historical? If it was I would tell Yeshua to
go %#$& himself and sell the ointment (I ALWAYS hated this ointment
story, if you couldn.t tell).
*> Who was the second person? A woman. Who got Jesus to perform his first
*> miracle (even though he didn't want to yet), a woman again.
**> Who first realised that Jesus had to die? A woman.
*> Who first learned of the Jesus rising from the dead? Women again.
*> What is the implied role of women here?
*> Don't make the answer too difficult.
Easy, women were of lower status than men in those times (isn.t
historical anthropology great?). They did not participate in the honor and
shame system that was apart of the Meditteranean <sp>. They had no honor,
they had no rights, feminine qualities were considered symbols for impurity
while male qualities were considered symbols for purity.
Yeshua, in other words, was telling people that women were just as
a part of humanity as were men. They were important too.
**> Jesus told his disciples that they would not die before his
**> second coming: "There be some standing here, which shall
**> not taste of death, till the see the Son of man coming in
**> his kingdom" (matt. 16:28).
*> He was talking about rising from the dead, not the second coming here.
*> Remember, his kingdom was not of this world.
**> "Behold, I come quickly." (Rev. 3:11) It's been 2,000 years, and
**> believers are still waiting for his "quick" return.
Be careful with the historicity of these passages.
Jim Rhodes
Jesus was just a guy (a mean, nasty guy) 2/12/94 Dave Batchelor, Space Phys.
Data Fa
DB> Reading some case histories is enlightening.
Yeah, sure.
:-\
a...@vaxk.bton.ac.uk
>
>Sorry, Paul did see Jesus.
What makes you think this?
Could it be because Paul said so/wrote it down?
>Granted, it was after Christ's death, so
>it could be argued whether or not that was true. But, I'll not go to
>great lengths to argue that right now.
>
Good idea....if only to save newsnet space
>However, I'm an American, I was born in America,
That follows logically, could we get to the point please!!!!!
* STUFF DELETED *
>Bottom line: There is no proof aside from historical proof that
>Abraham Lincoln was born, lived, became president, and was killed in
>Ford's Theatre, later dying in a nearby hotel. History tells us this
>all happened, but couldn't history be biased?
>
History, or rather the historians that researched it, could be biased
However this isn't a very well thought out parallel because:-
1 - I personally believe that a man named Jesus Christ actually existed,
although the bible is sometimes inconsistent there was written
evidence of positive sightings from perhaps hundreds of people that
turned up to hear his "teachings". Although who is to say that this
was all that he was...a spokesperson-type religious leader. Now, moving
on to the raising from the dead bit, the number of "witnesses" to this
numbered less that ten, which is hardly "conclusive proof"...who is to
say they didn't sit down and make it up?
2 - Abraham Lincoln was a national figure from the day he became President
to the day he died. Millions of witnesses confirm his existence as such
which also goes on to confirm his birth and life before presidentship
and, lastly, why would any witnesses that observed the shooting, Lincoln's
Aides and the doctor(s) that declared him dead all be lying?
>So, although I have never been given sufficient proof to show that
>Lincoln was a real man of history, I believe that he was who all my
>teachers have told me he was.
>
>And, although I have never been given similar proof to show that Jesus
>Christ was a real man of history, I believe that he was who the Bible
>says he was.
>
Far be it from me to condemn your religious viewpoint but there is alot of
difference between the national figure of a President and the supposed
Son of God
>Craig
>mwa...@NMSU.Edu
>miw...@NMSU.Edu
>--
>Test signature file
Adam
Gordon Fitch
| [ chrism ]
| The interpretation here is one that Mark is found of of course,
| because it is this interpretation that lends itself to Mark's
| understanding of Yeshua, not Yeshua's understanding of himself. Who even
| knows if this event was historical? If it was I would tell Yeshua to
| go %#$& himself and sell the ointment (I ALWAYS hated this ointment
It was _art_. People need art.
arnold v. lesikar
>
>In article <CKI9y...@cpsc.ucalgary.ca>,
>Simon Watfa <wa...@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>>
>>Here is an interesting piece of email someone just sent me.
>>He [Jesus] did nothing to alleviate poverty. Rather than sell some
>>expensive ointment to help the poor, Jesus wasted it on
>>himself, saying: "Ye have the poor with you always." Mark
>>14:3-7)
>
>The nice thing about this example is that the modern reader
>is obviously as confused as the 12 disciples were at the time of this
>incident. The point is the Woman was aware that Jesus time on earth
>was limited, hence the annointing in symbolic preparation for burial.
>Whereas the disciples were worried about 300 pieces of silver.
>Ah, the modern reader is also worried about those 300 pieces!
>
Another interpretation of the story is that this represented an
anointing to justify the claim to be King of the Jews. In either case,
the story may well not be historical, but added to the narrative to
support the picture of Jesus that the author believed in.
Whether the story is historical or not, the Jesus it represents does
seem to show a certain lack of concern for human suffering. In spite
of the sermon on the mount, blessed are the poor and all of that, he
seems to be pictured as unconcerned with plight of the poor here and
blind to the implications of his words.
"The poor you will always have with you!" Why give $1000 to charity.
It will do no good. Better to spend it on something really useful,
like the car payments on a Lexus!
>>No women were chosen as disciples or invited to the Last
>>Supper.
>
>But who first knew of the coming of Jesus? A woman.
>Who was the second person? A woman. Who got Jesus to perform
>his first miracle (even though he didn't want to yet), a woman again.
>
The mother of Jesus is a special case. She is hardly representative
of all women. Jesus is pictured as giving authority only to men. This
is still an issue in the church, particularly in the RC, but in other
churches as well.
>
>>Jesus told his disciples that they would not die before his
>>second coming: "There be some standing here, which shall
>>not taste of death, till the see the Son of man coming in
>>his kingdom" (matt. 16:28).
>
>He was talking about rising from the dead, not the second coming here.
That is your interpretation. Jesus did not explain his words in the
text that we have. Mark 9:1 has:
"And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be
some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death,
till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power."
In this passage the second coming would seem to me to be more clearly
implied. Remember that Mark is commonly thought by scholars to be the
oldest of the gospels.
>Remember, his kingdom was not of this world.
This represents mainly the words of Jesus reported in John 18:36. Even
reputable historians like Thucydides put speeches in the mouths of the
characters that they described. These writers described what the
person _would_ have said by the writer's understanding of the person
and the situation. That is very likely to have happened here.
Otherwise how could one of Jesus' Jewish disciples have had access to
the minutes of a private interview between Pilate and Jesus?
For Pilate it was a matter of little importance anyway. He had no
reason to expect that he would be brought to account for his actions
in such a trivial affair. Thus it is unlikely that a record _was_
kept. And in any case Pilate's interview is not a formal trial.
>
>>"Behold, I come quickly."
>>(Rev. 3:11) It's been 2,000 years, and believers are still
>>waiting for his "quick" return.
>
>Perhaps, but even after 2000 years to prepare, how many
>many are actually ready?
There are many passages in the Bible indicating the expectation of the
church that the second coming was imminent, for example
1 Corinthians7:29. This expectation was disappointed. Yet Jesus' words
continual to lead those who give Jesus too much credibility into the
expectation that the end or the world is at hand. Millenarian sects
have appeared throughout church history, for example the J.W.'s in the
mid 19th century. The expectation is _always_ disappointed.
A second coming in the manner of the Revelation is simply not credible
today, in the face of what we know about the heavens. God does not
live above the clouds, and he's not going to roll back the sky for
Jesus to appear.
Mike Renning
ba...@garion.it.com.au (Barry O'Grady) writes:
>
>In alt.atheism JAMES GUSTAFSON wrote:
>: In article <CKI9y...@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> wa...@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Simon Watfa) writes:
>
>: >Here is an interesting piece of email someone just sent me. I liked
>: >it so much that I thought I'd post it. Enjoy.
>
>
>: This is the biggest bunch of Anti-Christian crap I've seen in a long time.
>
>It was rather good, wasn't it?
>
>: >Who Is This Man Jesus?
>
>: Lets get the key words here. Who is this MAN Jesus. As in, a man
>: with human passions, with human error and with human impulses.
>
>Let's get it straight here. Jesus Christ never existed. We know that he
This is just as impossible to prove as the contention that he _did_ exist.
>
>: >Many scholars are doubtful of the historical existence of
>: >Jesus. Albert Schweitzer said, "The historical Jesus will
>: >be to our time a stranger and an enigma."
>
>There you go. There is no valid excuse left to believe that Jesus Christ
>ever existed.
Oh, so Albert Schweitzer is the final arbiter of historical truth?
>
>: Few scholars are doubtful of the historical existence of Jesus and
>: your little quote here simply means very little knowledge of who the man
>: actually was can be factually known.
>
>: >No first-century writer confirms the Jesus story.
>
>: We have four Cannonical Gospels and literally dozens of fragments of
>: dozens of other Gospels to confirm the Jesus story.
>
>They are just stories. They have no historical basis. They are mostly copies
>of each other.
Where does history come from? Oral tradition? This can be altered immensely.
(Ever play that game "telephone?") Other written records? Who knows if
the person writing it down knew what he/she was talking about? Film and
audio tape can also present things in deceptive ways. Plus let's keep in
mind that the way an event is recorded in any medium is affected by the
recorder's own perspective and attitudes. I think, if nothing else, the
Bible at least conveys the deep interest and excitement about a group of
people (those who put it together) about the topics they were writing about.
I guess that would also qualify numerous net discussions as scriptures??
- Mike
Mike Renning
wak...@leland.Stanford.EDU (WakuSen) writes:
>
>Johan van Zanten <jo...@evtech.com> ponders:
>>In article <2jipg8$o...@panix.com> Gordon Fitch, g...@panix.com writes:
>>> Who is Peter?
>>
>> Peter Rabbit, silly! The third Century BC Zen philosopher that said,
>>"If no one tells the Johan what to eat today, he is going to get very
>>hungry."
>
>Isn't there someone on this newsgroup with a bag of potatoes?
>
>the WakuSen
>
- Mike
>
>--
>
>"I need to get addicted to something."
WakuSen
>>>In article <2jipg8$o...@panix.com> Gordon Fitch, g...@panix.com writes:
>>>> Who is Peter?
>>>
>>> Peter Rabbit, silly! The third Century BC Zen philosopher that said,
>>>"If no one tells the Johan what to eat today, he is going to get very
>>>hungry."
>>
>>Isn't there someone on this newsgroup with a bag of potatoes?
>>
>>the WakuSen
>>
>
>- Mike
>
>>
>>
>>"I need to get addicted to something."
>
Those bastards. . . I knew they'd take my sig. line from me. . .
Jim Rhodes
Stupidity rampant (Re: Jesus was just a ...) [Long] 2/14/94 Alf the Poet
At> Alf P.S. I'm not even sure this will get to the Christian groups -
At> our site doesn't have them. If it does, did you guys get our FAQ? I
At> posted it to your groups yesterday. Tee hee hee.
Alf, I really enjoyed your FAQ (again) but I hope they don't think all
buddhists are alike or like you.
Jim
:-]
Matthew MacIntyre
: But who first knew of the coming of Jesus? A woman.
: Who was the second person? A woman. Who got Jesus to perform
: his first miracle (even though he didn't want to yet), a woman again.
: Who first realised that Jesus had to die? A woman.
: Who first learned of the Jesus rising from the dead? Women again.
: What is the implied role of women here?
They are goddamned troublemakers.
arnold v. lesikar
>
>Refute them? How? By telling them that Christ never existed? See the
>above. Seriously though, you would do much more good by helping them
>understand the true intent of the Christian scriptures.
>
Every one reads the scriptures differently. What makes you think that
_your_ way of reading them represents the intent of their authors, the
"true intent" as you say?
LLOYD BAKER
**> It does matter to Christianity that there were historical events.
*> No it doesn't. It matters to Christians who assume a literal approach to
*> Christianity.
I will grant you that not all of Christianity need be based soley on
the idea that ALL things in the tradition are fact. Erasmus was a very good
supporter of this idea.
But, can you honestly say that it does not matter whether Yeshua
existed?
*> These events are most likely exaggerations, and they take on an important
*> mythological role.
I will agree with you here also. All these events attempt to show
who Yeshua was interpreted to be. But if you say that these myths are based
on the myth of Yeshua, a man who did not really exist, then why not believe
in the saving power of Mithra rather than Yeshua. Mithra was the Persian
"messiah" and the cult of Mithra was a good contender for the role
Christianity plays today, had it not excluded women from the cult. But the
point is: Christianity at least had a historical person to whom people could
point to, in their view, and say, "See! He isn.t dead! And why is that?
Because YHWH raised him so the world could see that YHWH confirms Yeshua.s
teaching." Without the historical man, then the cult of Christianity is no
better than other mystery cults who taught the same thing.
*> The whole point of Christianity is not Jesus the person (like most
*> Christians would lead to believe). The whole point lies in its
*> mythological power. Christ the God becomes a role model who points the
*> way to spiritual perfection. Evidence? Irrelevant. We should be
*> listening to what is said, rather than who says it.
Exactly. But my point is that Christianity would then lose its "
authority" as the religion that has THE way, because YHWH wouldn.t have
confirmed the teachings of Yeshua through resurrection, because there was no
Yeshua. I believe in what _you_ are saying, don.t get me wrong. But
without the historical, then there is no reason to accept Christianity over
other cults that preach the same thing. Historicity needs to be founded in
Christianity otherwise, it has no authority.
**> If there is proof that Yeshua didn.t exist, that would help to refute
**> Christians even more (although can easily refute them without this
**> evidence, as we have all seen).
*> Seriously though, you would do much more good by helping them understand
*> the true intent of the Christian scriptures.
The true intent of Scripture is to show Yeshua as the savior of all
humanity. Now the intent of Yeshua himself is a different story.
Lee Davidson
Yes, that's certainly part of it. But I think the main point is:
Jesus' critics (in the ointment incident) were being obnoxiously and
pedantically politically correct, and the underlying meaning of Jesus'
response (the poor you will have with you always) is something like:
"Hey, lighten up, will you?" One of the reasons I like Jesus, even if
I don't exactly "believe" in him.
--
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Lee Davidson | That all my own opinions are |
| davi...@nosdivad.metaphor.com | merely my own opinions isn't |
| Metaphor Inc. | merely my own opinion. |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
Jim Rhodes
Jesus was just a guy (a mean, nasty guy) 2/16/94 arnold v. lesikar
Please post this useless babble elswhere! Thank you.
:-/
Jim Rhodes
MR> Where does history come from?
From where does this trash come?
Laurence Arthur Pittenger
>In article <bakerl...@augustana.edu> bak...@augustana.edu (LLOYD BAKER) writes:
>>
>> It does matter to Christianity that there were historical events.
>
>'crimes' against the state. But am I to believe that he was born to a
>virgin? Am I to believe that the temple tapestry ripped in two when he
>died? I don't think so. These events are most likely exaggerations, and
>they take on an important mythological role.
>
>>was called Yeshua of Nazareth. If that was not true, then you could just
>>throw Christianity out the window and say, "Look, the person you believe to
>>have actually come to earth and save humanity never existed!" If they were
>>to believe the evidence, then I guess it would be important. The problem
>>would be convincing them that the evidence is credible.
>
>The whole point of Christianity is not Jesus the person (like most
>
Vincent seems to me to have made a fundamental, but popular and
understandable, mistake in the above.
Christianity, it seems to me, is not fundamentally an ethical system
or a mythical system or, in the popular sense, a "religious" system.
It is these, yes, but not fundamentally -- these things are a *result*
of Christianity.
Christianity is, rather, a series of statements about God and Man and
their relation which claim to have objective and, one might say,
"invasive" importance. Christianity claims to reveal (to an extent)
Who God is, how He has been active in human history, etc. It claims
that there is a loving God Who created us, Who became incarnate to
offer us an escape from the results of our rebellion against Him, etc.
The ethical aspect of Christianity (which it seems to me is what most
people mean by Christianity) is a *result* of this revelation. One
acts in such and such a way because one believes in the God Who
reveals Himself in Christianity and wishes to live according to His
will.
Likewise, one revels in the "mythical" aspects of Christianity (the
dying God, the bread of life, etc) because they are aspects of the
revealed truth which one believes and loves.
Thus, the historical fact of Christ's life is of central importance --
because the revelation He brings is the *reason* one accepts the ethics
and the myth. If you reject Jesus' historical existence you reject
the basis of the ethics and the myth.
You may still like them, or parts of them -- indeed, you'll do exactly
what so many "Christian" churches do now-a-days, cut out the stuff you
don't like and call the remainder "Christianity" and yourself
"Christian", but what you've actually done is wrapped up your own
personal belief in Christian trappings. You don't actually believe in
the God He reveals, don't accept that His will has claim over you and
may not always be what you like -- don't accept, bascially, that you
are "sinful" (ie deviant from His will) and in need of salvation.
What you have is a pseudo- or semi-Christian ethic or morality. What
you don't have is *Christianity*, properly understood.
Thus, one cannot agree that:
>The whole point of Christianity is not Jesus the person (like most
>Christians would lead to believe). The whole point lies in its
>mythological power.
It is precisely the opposite. The whole point of Christianity *is*
Jesus the peson. The mythology (or ethics, or what have you), the
message of salvation, only finds meaning, justification, indeed
*power* ONLY because of Jesus the person. Reject Him and you have
rejected Christianity. What is left may be a very nice ethos, and you
a responsible moral person for believing in it. But it isn't
Christianity.
LP
--
Laurence A. Pittenger
CSNET : pittenger...@cs.yale.edu
BITNET : pittenger-laurence@yalecs , 44pittenger@cuavax
R Henry
> Who was the second person? A woman. Who got Jesus to perform
> his first miracle (even though he didn't want to yet), a woman again.
>
> Who first realised that Jesus had to die? A woman.
> Who first learned of the Jesus rising from the dead? Women again.
>
> What is the implied role of women here?
> Don't make the answer too difficult.
>
Um... well. The implicit conclusion that comes to *my* mind is that in the
traditions set up by the writers of the NT (which I will not necessarily
attribute to Jesus, whether he did or did not exist), women get to do a lot
of the shit work (serving wine and anointing decaying corpses), with no
recognition of their contributions at the time, and then only much later it
takes a special effort for people to point out their participation at all.
Most people still remember that Mary Magdalene was a "whore" rather than
that she was almost as constant a companion to the historical Jesus as the
apostoles. Meanwhile that bunch sit around bickering and complaining and
weasling and later they get everything in the church named after them.
Is that answer too difficult?
Ron H
Alf the Poet
What difference would it make? ;-)
Alf
Commander Keen
Good points, but I guess I must state a bit more on the subject...
>:Sorry, Paul did see Jesus
>What makes you think this?
>Could it be because Paul said so/wrote it down?
Although the actual references escape me right now, Paul's "blinding"
encounter with Jesus was recorded by Luke in the book of Acts and I do
believe Paul makes mention of it himself a few times in the books he
put together.
>1 - I personally believe that a man named Jesus Christ actually existed,
> although the bible is sometimes inconsistent there was written
> evidence of positive sightings from perhaps hundreds of people that
> turned up to hear his "teachings". Although who is to say that this
> was all that he was...a spokesperson-type religious leader. Now, moving
> on to the raising from the dead bit, the number of "witnesses" to this
> numbered less than ten, which is hardly "conclusive proof"...who is to
> say they didn't sit down and make it up?
I'm taking it from this statement that you will accept Jesus as a man
of history (in other words, he did exist).
Actually, there were a few more than 10 people who saw him after his
death, but I will accept that it was a small number of people. There
were at least 11 (the disciples minus Judas) among a handful of other
people. But, okay, there was a small number mentioned.
What if they did make it up? Let's say for a minute that they did.
These guys who "made this up" were very hesitant to give in on their
story. If I had made up some story, I think I'd say "uncle" after I'd
been beaten, imprisoned, and was just about to be put to death.
We'd especially expect Simon Peter to do this. In the 4 gospels, despite
his vow to never deny Christ, he does so 3 times because he feared for
his life. Why did he do this? Well, basically because here was this
man he had been following around for about 3 years and whom he
believed was to be the next king, and this man was just arrested.
Peter's faith was shot down a bit when Christ was arrested. Maybe
Christ wasn't who He said He was. But, after the resurrection, Peter
started living up to the name Jesus had given him (The Rock). He
boldly proclaimed Jesus' death and resurrection. Why the change? He
had witnessed Jesus after the resurrection and understood now that
Jesus was exactly who He said He was. He boldly preached after that,
despite hard times and persecution of Christians at that time.
Keep in mind that society wasn't exactly accepting of the concept of
Christianity. They were, in fact, violent toward it. That's where
our good friend Saul comes in. Saul was a well known, well-to-do,
educated man who made a hobby out of persecuting Christians. He hated
Christians and made every effort to keep them from continuing their
mission.
But, one day on a journey, Jesus came along and revealed Himself to
Saul. After a moment of blindness and a name change, Paul became one
of the most awesome examples of Christianity in the Bible. Why would
Paul make this up? There certainly wasn't any money in it. There
wasn't any fame, at least not positive fame. What followed for Paul
would be beatings, imprisonment, and eventually death because of what
he believed. Paul probably knew better than anyone what would come
from professing Christ. Unless he _really_ believed it was true, it
just wouldn't seem like a good idea for him to do what he did.
>2 - Abraham Lincoln was a national figure from the day he became President
> to the day he died. Millions of witnesses confirm his existence as such
> which also goes on to confirm his birth and life before presidentship
> and, lastly, why would any witnesses that observed the shooting, Lincoln's
> Aides and the doctor(s) that declared him dead all be lying?
From the time Jesus started his ministry at around the age of 30, he
was a national (and possibly international) figure. Uncounted numbers
of witnesses confirm his existence, which also goes on to confirm his
birth and life before his ministry and, lastly, why would any of his
followers all be lying when the punishment for doing so would be so
severe? It would make more sense to me for Lincoln's aides and
doctors to lie than for Jesus' followers to lie, since the punishment
placed on Lincoln's aides would be much less severe.
>Far be it from me to condemn your religious viewpoint but there is alot of
>difference between the national figure of a President and the supposed
>Son of God
The only big difference I see is that Jesus existed some 2000 years
ago, while Lincoln was around about 150 years ago. Both were national
figures to some extent. Both were in the public spotlight for about 3
years. Both were killed because of something they said or did.
Excepting the beliefs of myself and others that Jesus was who He said
He was (namely, the Son of God) while Lincoln was (who he said he was)
only a President, for comparison's sake, they're essentially the same.
Craig
mwa...@NMSU.Edu
miw...@NMSU.Edu
--
No matter how much you know, there's an infinite amount more to know.
So, no matter how much you know, you don't know how much more there is
to know. Which means, no matter how much you know, you don't know how
much you do know or don't know in relation to what there is to know,
whatever that is, which means, you don't know much at all.
Frank Parsons
Rabbit Syndicate
> I don't remember Jesus ever claiming to be King of the Jews.
Maybe he never said it in so many words, but he came mighty close, and
he certainly didn't deny it when he had the chance! For instance:
And when they drew near to Jerusalem and came to Bethphage, to the
Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them "Go
into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find an
ass tied, and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to me. If
any one says anything to you, you shall say, 'The Lord has need of
them,' and he will send them immediately.'" This took place to
fulfil what was spoken by the prophet, saying,
"Tell the daughter of Zion,
Behold, your king is coming to you,
humble, and mounted on an ass,
and on a colt, the foal of an ass."
(Matthew 21,1-5)
As he was now drawing near, at the descent of the Mount of Olives,
the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise
God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen,
saying "Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord!..."
And some of the Pharisees in the multitude said to him, "Teacher,
rebuke your disciples." He answered, "I tell you, if these were
silent, the very stones would cry out."
(Luke 19,37-40)
Nathanael answered him, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the
King of Israel!" Jesus answered him, "Because I said to you, I saw
you under the fig tree, do you believe? You shall see greater things
than these." And he said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you will
see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon
the Son of man."
(John 1,49-51)
Gassho,
--Scott.s.f.g
--
R A B B I T - S Y N D I C A T E
"Flailing our furry bodies wildly to the music of the night."
A communal account on Teleport public internet access, Portland, Oregon
olc...@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
>Frank Parsons <frank....@channel1.com> reminisces:
>> I don't remember Jesus ever claiming to be King of the Jews.
>
>Maybe he never said it in so many words, but he came mighty close, and
>he certainly didn't deny it when he had the chance! For instance:
>
I'm sorry, hearsay is inadmissabale as evidence.
============================== B^)/B^( ==============================
Neil Olcott OLC...@OUVAXA.CATS.OHIOU.EDU Ohio University, Athens
"Eventually people realized that the Information Superhighway was
essentially CB radio, but with more typing."--Dave Barry, on the 90's
(Who is Vicki Robinson and what is she doing in my sig?)
=====================================================================
Rabbit Syndicate
>rab...@teleport.com (Scott Pugh) writes:
>>Frank Parsons <frank....@channel1.com> reminisces:
>>> I don't remember Jesus ever claiming to be King of the Jews.
>>
>>Maybe he never said it in so many words, but he came mighty close, and
>>he certainly didn't deny it when he had the chance! For instance:
>
Prove you exist, "Neil", and that you posted the above, and I'll consider
your argument. :)
Gassho,
--Scott Pugh s.f.g.
"Bu kimii?" "Bu min!"
olc...@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
>a post, purportedly by Neil Olcott <olc...@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu> included:
>>rab...@teleport.com (Scott Pugh) writes:
>>>Frank Parsons <frank....@channel1.com> reminisces:
>>>> I don't remember Jesus ever claiming to be King of the Jews.
>>>
>>>Maybe he never said it in so many words, but he came mighty close, and
>>>he certainly didn't deny it when he had the chance! For instance:
>>
>>I'm sorry, hearsay is inadmissabale as evidence.
>
>Prove you exist, "Neil", and that you posted the above, and I'll consider
>your argument. :)
>
I post, therefore I am?
Rabbit Syndicate
>Scott Pugh @ Rabbit Syndicate writes:
>>a post, purportedly by Neil Olcott <olc...@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu> included:
>>>
>>
>>Prove you exist, "Neil", and that you posted the above, and I'll consider
>>your argument. :)
>
>I post, therefore I am?
Serdar Argic, aka Hassan B. Mutlu, posts much, but their is some doubt
about whether he exists, and if so, how.....
Maybe we should x-post to alt.fan.serdar_argic and ask their
advice! Who knows? Specialists may yet determine that you exist, Neil!
Cheers,
--Scott Pugh ("Kuplyu sebe shinel'; stanu chinovnikom")
WPrestonG
whether Jesus was really the Son of God or just a good guy, or whether, for
that matter, he existed at all, is extremely unimportant. What if it isn't
true? What if it were just a myth? Would you live your life differently?
And if you would never accept that it isn't true (how am I going to prove it,
after all, if you are really stubborn, as stubborn as I know I am) then why
does it matter whether it is factually true? Whether it is factually true, or
whether it is a myth that is truer than factual truth is, is pretty
unimportant.
I also don't think the question of whether God "exists" or not is very
important. Why God doesn't speak to me every day in a voice I can understand
(or why I don't listen) -- now THAT is important. But, as the Catholics say,
it's a mystery.
I call myself a Christian agnostic (and Buddhist fellow traveler) and it has
taken me a long time to recognize that it is OK to be a Christian and an
agnostic at the same time. Every message you get from the established
Christian churches (R.C. and protestant, I doubt it is so for Eastern Orthodox)
says that you can't be a Christian and an agnostic at the same time, and for
that matter you can't be a Christian and a Buddhist at the same time, or a
Christian and worship trees at the same time (as my ancient ancestors did), or
anything else. I think this wrong notion is eating away at the heart of
Christianity. Thousands or millions of people (depending on how you reckon it)
have been killed in disputes over this notion.
WPrestonG
>In article <CKI9y...@cpsc.ucalgary.ca>,
>Simon Watfa <wa...@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>>
>>Here is an interesting piece of email someone just sent me.
>>He [Jesus] did nothing to alleviate poverty. Rather than sell some
>>expensive ointment to help the poor, Jesus wasted it on
>>himself, saying: "Ye have the poor with you always." Mark
>>14:3-7)
>The nice thing about this example is that the modern reader
>is obviously as confused as the 12 disciples were at the time of this
>incident. The point is the Woman was aware that Jesus time on earth
>was limited, hence the annointing in symbolic preparation for burial.
>Whereas the disciples were worried about 300 pieces of silver.
>Ah, the modern reader is also worried about those 300 pieces!
Huh. I thought it was simpler than that: Jesus was just saying "yes" to the
woman. Someone offers you a gift that you know you would like, and you take
it; this establishes or expresses a bond between you and the other person.
Jesus is just being direct and showing compassion for this woman. There's a
similar story ("Suffer the little children to come unto me", which I didn't
understand as a child because I thought it meant the children were suffering)
in which many people say Jesus doesn't have time to mess with a bunch of little
children, he has more important things to do etc. And Jesus says, no, bring
the children to me.
I think your answer is overkill. (Or my answer is underkill. Take your pick.)