Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sojourner553 · 11-03-2002, 10:04 AM

Hi David, I have attempted to bust some of your questions/comments up by category.

[quote] per Sojourner:

When the Jewish man said, “Good master”, he never implied Jesus was PERFECT, just that the man before him (Jesus) had “some” good in him. Jesus is the one who twists this into a statement that only God is perfect (and therefore by implication he is not perfect.)
*Now, I would argue, this scene only becomes a deceitful statement if Jesus really believed he were God!!!

Per DavidH:

Yes, when the man said , "Good master" he was never implying that Jesus was God - that is obvious. Now the question that has to be asked by you here is why, if it is totally obvious that the man isn't implying that Jesus is perfect ie God - does Jesus make this statement. Any ordinary man wouldn't say a thing to this.

Quote:

I have already disagreed on this. A good Jewish man would likely show his humility by immediately returning he wasn’t perfect. I have seen this humble trait in some of my Jewish friends.
Again if he was trying to be "humble" he would have said "Don't call me good". The fact is he neither confirms nor denies anything by what he says - and that is not being humble.

No, I think the statement still conveys humility, even being posed as a question. The sentence is very much implying he {Jesus} is not an all powerful being, and therefore not a good man.

BTW: I reflected on your comment on what does "good" really mean. To me, Job was a "good" man in the Old Testament. To me, this is proof that a "good" person does not have to be 100% perfect. Of course this is a definition that has to be defined by both parties.

When I first read these verses as a religious person though, even then I did not feel the man who called Jesus "good master" ever meant he was perfect by it. Again, I was upset by these verses WHEN I WAS STILL A BELIEVER... so I don't think it is my agnostic viewpoint affecting me here. {I did try and reflect on this though).

Quote:

But what if Jesus was trying to get the people thinking? By saying this he would have achieved nothing. As I said before Jesus didn't want to reveal himself fully at this time, but he did want people to start thinking for themselves.
By saying the second thing you mentioned he is revealing himself totally - which is not what he wanted to do.

So Sojourner, the question has to be asked is what Jesus said to get the people to think?

Seems to me Jesus never did get the people to think. The gospel writers ultimately present the Jews as denying Jesus’ divinity.
What do you think it accomplished – ie got them to think about? If he were trying to get them to think, how about stopping all their beliefs in superstition – like the belief that there were OTHER miracle works (ahem assuming Jesus stories don’t also fall in this category)

To repeat, the “other” wonderworker miracles should be superstitious, yes? What a great lesson that would have been. Instead we are told that there are a lot of demons around causing mischief.

I’m going to try and answer some of your specific questions. If I leave out one, I apologize and please repeat it {maybe give me a smaller list next time… Smile}

Quote:

why in the world would the Greeks take someone who did miracles and failed to lead the Jews to freedom from the Romans, and make him out to be a God?

I do not think that Jesus actually performed most of the miracles attributed to him in the New Testament, but these were later additions.

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/MIRACLE.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/MIRACLE.TXT</a>

In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul first lashes out against the false and worldly "wisdom of the wise", and THEN exasperatingly writes how the Jews require a "sign" and the Greeks seek after "wisdom"-- Surely, if Paul had KNOWN of the gospel stories which are full of signs (miracles) and wisdom (often imparted by Jesus in the form of parables), then he could have EASILY answered his Jewish and Greek critics on these matters.

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/NATURE2.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/NATURE2.TXT</a>

This is the quote:

Quote:

* "It is written, 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will thwart.' Where is this wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has God not made foolish the wisdom of the world!" (1 Corinthians 1:19-20)

{I don’t know why I post the links - -I get the feeling you don’t even review them. It makes me feel like I have to spend a lot of time feeding you facts first, because you won’t read them for yourself. Sigh} Here is a relevant paragraph:

Quote:

Christians, being inheritors of both Jewish and Greek cultures, shared a common belief in divine miracles. Indeed, the nature of most of Jesus' miracles were NOT unique, but had strong PARALLELS in either stories in the Old Testament, or in contemporary religious beliefs that were prevalent in the hellenized world. That is, Jesus' reported miracles of curing the sick, exorcising evil spirits, raising the dead back to life, even walking on water, have parallels in Old Testament stories on the Jewish prophets—or with contemporary or older NON-Christian accounts

and

Quote:

In Palestine and throughout the known ancient world, there were reports of several men, including contemporaries of Jesus, who performed miracles. The Galilean, Hanina ben Dosa was believed to have been active before the revolt of 66-70 C.E.. Jewish rabbinic tradition represents Hanina as leading a life of poverty and performing miracles. According to one rabbinic legend, he could cure people at a distance through his prayers-- and in this way healed the son of the rabbi Gamaliel. (bBer. 34b; yBer. 9d as quoted by Vermes, JESUS THE JEW, P 75). Hanina claimed that he was no prophet, but that he was "favored" so that if the words of prayer came easily off his lips, then he knew that the cure would take place. (Ibid)

There were others individuals who purportedly held amazing powers. A certain Eleazar could expel demons from the possessed. (This seems to have been a common feat performed by both Jews and Christians alike in the first centuries C.E.). Honi the Circle-drawer (1st century B.C.E.) and Hanan, had reputations as successful rainmakers. Honi is also reported to have prayed to God, referring to him in intimate terms as "Father", just as Jesus is reported to have done in the gospels. The leading Pharisee of Honi's time, Simeon ben Shetah, was said to have been so exasperated by Honi's successes, that he reportedly declared: "What can I do with you, since he does what you wish in the same way that a father does whatever his importuning son asks him?"

(Honi, BTAAN 3:8; JEWISH ANTIQUITIES, 14:22,4. Note, Honi is called Onias by Josephus; Gen Rabba 13:7; bTaan 23b; discussion taken FROM JESUS TO CHRIST Paula Fredriksen, p 91); see all Vermes, op cit, p 70.) He was later stoned to death in Jerusalem.

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/MIRACLE.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/MIRACLE.TXT</a>

[ November 03, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

[ November 03, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Sojourner553 · 11-03-2002, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Per DavidH:
Let me also check this here with you;
You believe that all the gospels apart from Mark were altered by the greeks to fit their mindset religious views?
Firstly to show this here to be so an early (hopefully the earliest known) manuscript must be found to have major differences between the Bible that we have today. ie. It would contain no miracles at all, Jesus wouldn't have risen from the dead, he wouldn't have been born of a virgin and there would be no voice from the clouds.
This would show that our Bibles of today had been altered and the miracles and everything fitted in.
- correct?

There are two parts to this answer:
The ancient Jews had always been influenced by their neighbors. Ever read about the parallels of Noah’s Ark with older Sumarian tales, the stories of Moses with older tales of Sargon of Akkad, the Ten Commandments with Hammarabi’s Code?
<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/MYSTERY.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/MYSTERY.TXT</a>
Now remember Judea had been under Greek influence for about 200 years. During this time, some Jewish sects had already been affected by Greek ideas. As one example: It was during this time that Jewish writings first talk about the concept of how a righteous God must provide for a heaven (especially for loyal Jews who died fighting pagans to preserve their religion.)
Heaven was originally a Greek idea, probably borrowed by them from the Egyptians to which they elaborated on.

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/UNIVERSE.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/UNIVERSE.TXT</a>

By the times of Jesus, many Jews (especially those living outside Palestine like Paul) were greatly influenced by Greek philosophy. Paul for example perceived the world in the classic dualistic and wisdom form, which was the popular Greek thought of his day. And used such hellenistic terms "wisdom of God in a mystery", and "hidden wisdom" in his verses (example: II Corinthians 4:3-4)

The second part deals with tampering of texts. And I chose a new post (same topic) to discuss this one.

Sojourner

Sojourner553 · 11-03-2002, 10:19 AM

Frederick R. Kenyon was born in 1863 and died in 1952. He was a former Director of the British Museum. Let’s look at the details, whether that just accepting his general statements on faith. Here I am repeating your quote by him:

Quote:

The interval between the dates of original composition and the earliest existing evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed

However his evidence is clearly based on the oldest known Bibles that date back to around AD 350--the two most important being the Codex Vaticanus, the chief treasure of the Vatican Library in Rome, and the well-known Codex Sinaiticus. It was purchased by the British government in 1933 and is now displayed in the British Museum. (Note, The Codex Alexandrinus, also in the British Museum, was written in the fifth century, and the Codex Bezae, in Cambridge University Library, in the fifth or sixth century. )

MOST IMPORTANT: There are no known sources of Bibles dating from 30 AD to 350 AD, a span of over 300 years. And yes, that is when the majority of “correction” would have been made to the Bible –the first 300 years! . There are some references that would indicate that this tampering was significant. For example, in the second century C.E., Origen (185-254 C.E.) complained how the Scriptures were being tampered with during his day:

Quote:

"Men add to them or leave out, as seems good to them".

Around 170 C.E., Dionysius of Corinth commented that it was no wonder his own writings were tampered with, seeing that others presumed to debase the Word of God in a similar manner. Irenaeus (a contemporary) likewise complained of a corrupted text.

Kennon also chose to ignore how some OBVIOUS discrepancies were found in these older bibles and the King James version. Here is a Christian site’s discussion of this:

Quote:

Modern translations omit John 5:4 (which is in the Authorised Version) as it is not in the earliest and the most reliable manuscripts. It is obvious that some early scribe felt it necessary to add an explanation as to why the locals believed that the waters of the pool of Bethesda had healing properties.

Mark's Gospel in the Authorised Version ends at verse 20 of chapter 16. However, modern translations end at verse 8 with the report of the young man (angel?) that Jesus had risen and the effect of this message on the women who had come to visit the tomb. The reason for this is that verses 9-20 do not occur in the two most reliable manuscripts and are obviously later additions.

<a href="http://www.christianity.co.nz/bible-3.htm" target="_blank">http://www.christianity.co.nz/bible-3.htm</a>

But there have been indications that the oldest Bibles have been tampered with: (Note Tischendorf was the discoverer of the Codex Sinaiticus)

Quote:

Scholars can detect three distinctly different handwritings in the
Codex Sinaiticus, indicating that the bible was the work of three scribes. Some of the books must have been dictated to them, because two of the three scribes made several PHONETIC spelling errors (one of them was a terrible speller). Tischendorf had such keen insight, he spotted, what has since been confirmed to be a later addition to the last verse of St John's Gospel (John 21:25). The verse reads, "There were many other things that Jesus did; and if all were written down, the world itself, I suppose, would not hold all the books that would have to be written."

Tischendorf noticed that the lettering of this verse was slightly different than the rest, and that the color of the ink was slightly different there than anywhere else in the whole manuscript. Tregelles, a prominent religious scholar disagreed that this verse was an addition. He felt that it was more likely that a scribe had merely taken a fresh dip of ink. Tischendorf had a bitter feud with Tregelles over the issue, and later wrote to a friend that "it is simply impossible for me to be wrong on this matter." After his death, Tischendorf was vindicated when the codex was examined under ultra violet light, and it was seen that there had been two additions at the end of John: The first had added the phrase, 'The Gospel according to John', but another person had erased this and written verse John 21:25 over it.

Kennon obviously chose to ignore these little details.

[ November 03, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Sojourner553 · 11-03-2002, 10:25 AM

No, I don't. I believe what the Bible says because
1. It predicts the future, even the present future.
2. I have experienced it in my own life.
3. Other Historians also testify to Jesus.
etc. [/quote]
1. What future does it predict?
2. I can find you many tales of how people felt OTHER religions affected their lives. Does that make these true?
3. Wrong. No NON-CHRISTIAN historians testify to any of the miraculous events in the NT. Show me where I am wrong.

Quote:

You would give the book Notradamus as an example of a prediction of the future. The parallels with the Bible would suggest that was where he got a lot of his ideas from, also the fact that it is a prime example of a text that is vague enough for anything to be attributed to it

Nostradamus’ writings are trash. I invite you to look at some scientific reviews of it. Pick some off the internet. It is so bad –
David, you are a nice person; but really you need to do some homework before making such absurd statements – like about Nostradamus.

Time to quite: Otherwise my posts to myself -- because of their number will {wrongly} indicate my post is generating a lot of responses -- but I am just writing to myself...

Sojourner

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.