katellagen

Grizzly:

O.K.

A. Yes

A. I addressed this briefly above, if you've read what I wrote there, you understand my view on this. Admittedly, my comments were brief, but the text I quoted was quite lengthy and descriptive. Clearly it was not as you've characterized it here. You really should take a closer look at that. But I will expound on my remarks.

Put simply, it had to do with his humanity. The physical suffering would be the same for him as it would for you. (I'm assuming you have an hisorical understanding of the nature and methods of Roman crucifixion. If not, I can't go into that now. Suffice it to say that it was one of the most brutal forms of torture and execution ever devised. Really bad. Lots of pain. Long time.) In itself it would have justly been the cause of great angst in any man.

I don't know why you say, "He knows that He really isn't going to die..." Quite the opposite is true. He knew He would, and He did in fact really, physically, slowly, painfully, die - as surely as you or I would have.

But Jesus' mental and emotional suffering would have been far greater than that of a mere man. This is because he was not merely facing an extremely painful torturous death. His purpose in dying such a death was in order to bear and pay the just penalty for the sins of men. He was to endure the wrath of God. The essense of this penalty (though it's ultimately incomprehensible) was the severing of relationship between the man Jesus and God the Father.

In Jesus' relationship with the Father, he had the full experience of what a perfect, sinless, mature man could know. If you can imagine yourself having the highest and best conception of what a human should be, then imagine having always lived in perfect conformity to that standard, never violating your conscience or lowering your standard, your entire life an expression of love, benefiting all those around you, never experiencing the slightest pang of guilt or tinge of shame, never fearful or uncertain or selfish. That integrity, that wholeness - far beyond what you can imagine (not being that), is what Jesus always experienced. But more than that. He ws not just at perfect peace with himself always, but stood in the same perfectly harmonious relatonship to God the Father - always.

He knew, as he faced the cross and as he prayed in the garden, that this perfect peace and relationship - both inwardly and with God, was about to face complete disruption, upheaval, and devestation. Having never personally experienced the effects of sin and evil inwardly, there was for the first time in his life profound personal uncertainty and dread of what lay ahead for him. The joyful and sustaining relationship with his Father that he had always known was about to be severed.

Mark 14

32They went to a place called Gethsemane, and Jesus said to his disciples, "Sit here while I pray." 33He took Peter, James and John along with him, and he began to be deeply distressed and troubled. 34"My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death," he said to them. "Stay here and keep watch."


Yes, he knew what the outcome would be. But what he was about to enter into was far worse than the most dark, confusing, painful, uncertain, lonely, frustrating, distressing, despairing time that you've ever experienced or could ever imagine. All humans have always lived under the common grace of God in which he bestows goodness, love, happiness, companionship, contentment, purpose, and hope. Even in the most difficult times, there is some measure of these. Where Jesus was going, he would experience none of this. This is the seperation from God he would know. This is the result and effect and penalty of sin. This is what he was willingly about to take upon himself for the sake of others, that the profound horror of this separation would never be their experience.

You might be able to detect now that this is a slight bit more than being inconvenienced for the weekend.

A. N/A

A. Sorry Grizzly, but you requested 2 questions and you got 2 answers. No really, I just don't have the time to treat this adequately. In a sense it's the story of the whole Bible - how sinful man can be reconciled to a Holy God. Go ahead and read it, you might benefit from the experience. Seriously though, perhaps you could indicate your understanding of this and we could go from there. BTW, what are you a Professor of? Just curious.

Peace

[ June 17, 2002: Message edited by: katellagen ]</p>

Grizzly

Katellegen, thanks for the timely and thoughtful response. My comments are embedded below. I have edited some of the post in hope of making it easier to read.

Grizzly responds:
You will get no argument from me that crucifixion is a horrible way to die. The angst I was referring to was what led up to the crucifixion. The “Please take this cup from me Lord – but thy will be done” comments and of course the famous “"Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" during the crucifixion. If he was really God, why is he crying out to himself? Why is he praying to himself? Why does he say that “thy will be done”? if He is God!
Grizzly responds:

I would like to make two comments here.

First I would like to disagree with your assessment that Jesus’ mental and emotional suffering would have been far greater than that of a mere man. I disagree with this statement on a number of grounds – but I think I will focus on two. The first is the bizarre statement that Jesus had to endure the wrath of God. If Jesus is God, then he had to endure his own wrath. He brought whatever suffering he experienced upon himself.

Secondly, Jesus’ mental and emotional suffering could not have been worse than a real human being because he knows that he is really not going to die, but is in fact eternal (he’s God, remember?). He already knows the outcome of this passion play.

Let me make an analogy. Let’s say your son or daughter is gravely ill. This, obviously would cause a great deal of angst and heartache. Not only are they suffering, but the suffering is exacerbated by the fact that you don’t know if they are going to live or die.

Now, let’s say you are omniscient. You know that your son or daughter is ill, but after three days, they are going to get better. How much less are you suffering than than the real human being? You still hate to see the suffering, but you know that things are going to be much better (very soon – if time has any meaning to an eternal being). The suffering is far less.

Secondly, you seem to have developed a theology that Jesus somehow was not God when he was put to death. What is your basis for this? I can’t seem to find anything in the Gospels that states that was God, then wasn’t God, then became God again. Your comments about Jesus being separated from God are strange to me. If Jesus was God, how is he not God? I am hopeful that you can see the pecularness of your position. Perhaps this is why you stated that this core tenet of Christianity is ultimately incomprehensible. This, I would agree with.

I agree with you about the question of blood sacrifices – it is far too detailed to go into on this thread. Perhaps we can discuss it some other time. I found your comment about reading the bible amusing. I have read the bible – from cover to cover (even Leviticus). It’s what turned me from a Christian into an atheist. I found that I could not reconcile the sheer brutality of God in the OT with the “All-loving” God that I was taught to believe. This is also probably another topic for another time.

As for my occupation, I have a degree in developmental psychology and I do research in the development of reading skills in youngsters. Its a lot of fun!

Sincerely

Grizzly

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: Grizzly ]

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: Grizzly ]</p>

NOGO

If God were to post for a job offer

"Wanted,
Savior of the world, must be tortured and crucified and die, but will be resurrected on the third day."

I bet there would be thousands of applicants if not millions.

sighhswolf

Excellent post Grizzly and you do a much better job than I could with the examination of the underlying contradiction of was he god or was he man or was he both, or the trinity? Or is it even possible to classify this individual?
List any of the three and your conclusion must be that this "sacrifice" was no more than an inconvenience to the being, in question.

That was the basis of my "flippant" comment concerning the blubbering in the garden, I can see no reason and no motive for this part of the narrative.
The way this comes across to me, is as a late addition to the story of Jesus inserted by christian writers in order to illicit from the reader a pity response and to reinforce the appearence of the tremendous suffering of Jesus.

Why? Because from a skeptical position there is absolutely no way that I could read this story, apply what I understand of christian doctrine and the concept of the trinity, father son and holy spirit, three in one, Jesus as god in human form
on earth and convince myself of the unbearable suffering that he must have gone through.

As a believer you may not have a problem with this event as recorded in Biblical text as you would be in the grip of sympathy for the suffering of your savior, but I say again, for a god or a demigod this would only be a minor inconvenience.
Taking on the sins of mankind would be a horrific undertaking for an average human being, but we are not talking about an average human being are we?
We are talking about god, in the form of man, or is it god's son, or is it the holy ghost.....whatever. We are not even sure what this being is supposed to be.
And please dont patronize me with religious hodge podge about not understanding the nature of the
trinity, cause I grew up with it.


As Grizzly asked, who would Jesus be praying to to begin with?
Was he asking himself if it was really necessary that this sacrifice take place?
Take it a step farther, and explain the phrase "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".

I see the "trinity" as a major stumbling block to the believability of the entire story.
There is absolutely no way that the 3 in one concept is anything other than mystical nonsense, it is a concept that is wrought with irrationality and cannot be accepted in any way other than christian mysticism.

I will be quite candid, I have not once belittled you as a person, nor have I engaged in questioning your character within the confines of this discussion, but yes definately, I have and will continue to be somewhat irreverent and insincere regarding Biblical text.

Why?

Well it could be because I am a non-believer in a forum specifically geared to non-believers and I see no point in holding back from stating my views that I personally think that the Bible is a crock of crap.

I do not believe it is in any way shape or form beneficial to humankind at this point in our history.
It did serve a purpose at one time and that purpose was to inspire it's followers to act in the name of some supernatural being, to expand by force the territory and wealth of earthly kings in league with the religious authorities not supernatural beings.

To a believer and/or mystic my questions seem to be quite answerable, but to a rational reasoning person who is not emotionally swayed by sympathy for the character, the story has no credibility and the motives are wrapped in mystical supernatural submeanings, and interpretation is left up to the individual.
***As long as they accept the texts as authoritative*****.
I do not...and I will continue to bring up these inconsistencies and improbabilities within the texts as I locate them, and yes you are quite right about my motivations.

I dont recognize the authority of biblical text, and I am sure that for every point that I make against the validity of a certain point of scripture or a certain verse, my counterpart will be happy to explain what I should read into the text and tell me how I have quoted verses out of context.

As a non-theist (and notice I dont call myself an Atheist, the reason I dont is that I am not that comfortable with absolutes of any kind) I question everything in the bible.
You were quick to come to the rescue of your chosen icon because you felt offended that I would even suggest that he was not the bravest individual based on some text that indicated that he was afraid of being killed by his own people.
Now the verse does say that doesnt it?

You quoted verse after verse that would uphold your concept of the individual in question and refute my opinion.
But did you prove anything?
My concept and perception of the person in question is unchanged, why?
Because what I wrote was based on my personal opinion of the events in question, and
because I dont accept the text as authoritative.

When you can prove to me that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the NT gospels, when you can prove to me that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were eyewitnesses to the events in question and that the narrative was not based on hearsay, then we may be able to reach a level of understanding.

As much as you would like to be able to say this is true cause the bible says so....it just doesnt carry that much weight.
Sure you may be able to quote verse after verse in an effort to refute my opinion, but my opinion still remains the same.
But please if you want, you may continue to try.
Maybe you can enlighten me and change my mind.

If you accept Jesus as god, then you should ask why would he be afraid of anything?
What could be a source of fear in a god?
If you accept Jesus as god, then why would he be having conversations and prayers with himself?
And finally if you accept that Jesus was god, he could have altered reality to prevent the need for a sacrifice, unless he had set up this so-called divine plan and once in action it could not be altered which would call into question the
"OMNI'S" that christians have assigned to him.
A rational person that has lost or set aside the indoctrination of christianity and the mysticism
associated with it, cannot reconcile these points
to be in harmony with the natural laws of the universe in which we live.
These things must exist outside of reality in the realm of the supernatural, and so far there is no proof that anything exists outside of the reality in which we live.

But.....I could be wrong..that's the really great part of opinions, it doesnt really matter who is right or wrong does it, we all are entitled to have one.
Wolf

katellagen

This is true. Well, not really. But what you meant to say is true. To make any assertion is easier than demonstrating its veracity.

But I was not making an assertion.

In the context from which you extracted the above statement (actually it was in the form of a question), I was seeking to illustrate the apparent bias in the statement made by sighhswolf, in which he inferred that "the non-believer" approaches the Bible with honesty, integrity, and objectivity, while attributing to "the Christian" motives of seeking to find only what will support what they already believe.

I was seeking to show, by turning the phrases around, how unfair and seemingly biased such a representation of things can be.

The reason for this is that when you impugn the motives of the opposition, you are revealing your own bias and unwillingness to consider seriously what they say. When this is the case, meaningful interaction with their arguments become pointless and the discussion quickly degenerates to assertions of opinions and preferences, mocking, or name calling. When you begin arguing ad hominem it's often very difficult to rise above that level of "debate". We've all seen too many examples of this.

I'm not saying that it must go that way, only that when you distrust someone's motives and sincerity a priori, you've got a large obstacle to meaningful discourse. That's all.

You said:


So you assert. Would you care to substantiate this?

The verses you quote could either:

- both be wrong.

- or one could be wrong and the other one right. (In which case the resurrection would be true. BTW, did you notice that they both affirm this "most important event"?)

- or one or both could be wrong on some minor points. (I say minor because that's where the apparent discrepancies lie. Again the resurrection would not be refuted.)

- or they are both accurate in their entirety.

So in making your assertion "it is a lie", to what exactly are you refering? I'd be interested to know, from your interaction with the text what you affirm and what you reject, and why. (Remember, it is more difficult to substantiate an assertion than to make one.)

Also, what explanations from those who believe the accounts can be harmonized have you considered? What points do you reject, and why?

Peace

PS - Wolf and Grizzly, I'll get back with you. Unfortunately I'm going in too many directions right now and really can't devote too much time here.

[ June 19, 2002: Message edited by: katellagen ]</p>

NOGO

If this is so then you will be able to combine the stories and make them into one.
You must use all the material from both.
You can add anything that you wish.
The final story must be consistant and plausible.
Good luck.

I say that it can't be done.

If after the exercise above you admit that one of these stories was fabricated then why should anyone believe that the other was not fabricated as well?

The question is one of credibility.
if you are investigating a murder and you interrogate two witnesses you look for consistancy. Lack of consistancy will logically lead you to doubt both witnesses. I simply apply a common sense approoach.

Why did John or Matthew feel a need to fabricate a story of Jesus' resurection? What were his motives? Was there none around being told by believers?

This, to me, is a major issue ... of credibility.

katellagen

Grizzly,

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I don't have the time to spend here that others apparently have (or maybe I'm just slow. I know my keyboarding certainly is.)

I struggled quite a bit with your post. As I tried to deal with it point by point I noticed that much of what you said didn't seem to take into account the explanations I gave in my previous post, as though there had been no discussion on the topic. More than that, I found that each new question you raised was really dealing with the same issue from a slightly different angle.

Your questions and objections indicate that your difficulty with this seems to be based on your misunderstanding of the Biblical and historical teaching regarding the Person of Christ as well as the Trinity. Without the proper category distinctions it will be difficult to avoid confusion.

Historic Christianity has always held to the Biblical concept of the dual natures of Christ - that He is fully God and fully man, and that these two natures maintain some distinction within the one person. The history of the church has seen various formulations of how these two natures function in the one person, but some things are certainly clear. For instance we know that it ws not the Divine nature that experienced hunger and thirst. Likewise, we know that the human nature could not calm storms.

I do not profess to be able to understand or explain this in any exhaustive way. In fact, I would agree with the following quote:

"Christians confess the true and full Godhood and Manhood of Jesus Christ and the indivisible unity of His person. No theological formula is adequate to this greatest of all Christian mysteries. The Incarnation means the Son of God experienced fully the conditions of personal and individual manhood in such a way that as man He was yet one person with the Son of God. Christians confess they do not know the intensity of unity of the two natures necessary to achieve this, but they accept the apostolic witness." (Article, "Christology"; in International Dictionary of the Christian Church)

I will try to elaborate a bit more as this applies to you various points.

In my previous post, I went into fairly detailed consideration of what Jesus was facing. You agree at least that the physical aspect would be horrible for a man to endure. Jesus was a man. There would justifiably be great angst at the contemplation of this aspect of His suffering considered by itself. There was certainly more to Jesus' suffering than this, but there was not less. Why would a man, as he moved toward this event not be in great anguish?

You seem to have ignored what I said about His mental and emotional suffering, other than saying it could not have been so for God. But it certainly could have been so for a man. Jesus was fully man.

The "cup" to which Jesus referred was an allusion to the "cup of God's wrath" as described in the O.T. - especially the Prophets.

Isaiah 51

17 Awake, awake!
Rise up, O Jerusalem,
you who have drunk from the hand of the Lord
the cup of his wrath,
you who have drained to its dregs
the goblet that makes men stagger.....
21 Therefore hear this, you afflicted one,
made drunk, but not with wine.
22 This is what your Sovereign Lord says,
your God, who defends his people:
"See, I have taken out of your hand
the cup that made you stagger;
from that cup, the goblet of my wrath,
you will never drink again.
23 I will put it into the hands of your tormentors,

Jeremiah 25

15 This is what the Lord , the God of Israel, said to me: "Take from my hand this cup filled with the wine of my wrath and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it. 16 When they drink it, they will stagger and go mad because of the sword I will send among them."

The suffering of this wrath was what Jesus was contemplating in Gethsemane prior to His arrest, trial, and crucifixion. Why the angst? It should be obvious.

This cry of anguish was an expression of the desolation and abandonment the man Jesus was experiencing while enduring the wrath and separation He had anticipated with such anguish and dread.

I didn't say "real", I said "mere". He was a real human being - in every way.

You are right of course, that human's die but God doesn't. What should also be clear is that Jesus the man, as a man, did die, just as any man undergoing such torture would. But Jesus was not a mere man - that is, not man only - He was, and is fully God. Of course, His Divine nature did not die (somewhat like the fact that a man's soul doesn't die when His body does). But this does not change what His human nature endured. Neither was His Divine nature as such separated from God the Father.

Rather, the perfect, sinless human nature of Jesus experienced the corruption of sin, and the just punishment for it - the wrath of God, or separation from God. That is to say, the absence of the experience of any of God's love, joy, peace, comfort, wisdom, benevolence, kindness, etc., but the knowledge and experience of His justice and displeasure powerfully set against the sin that He took upon Himself. I don't see how knowing the outcome does anything to ameliorate His condition. He still experienced every painful second. And it was an experience without parallel on earth, either in kind or intensity.

I'm not saying that Jesus was not God when He was put to death. To say "was truly man" is not to say "was not God"

I've explained the sense in which He was separated/suffered wrath in the previous post and above.

What I mean by ultimately incomprehensible is that it is far larger and more profound than we can get our minds around fully. I don't mean that we can't make sense out of it, or that we can have no understanding of it, or that we can't express it in meaningful terms. I'm just saying that it's bigger and deeper than us, and that though we can increase in our understanding of it, we could never have full, complete, and perfect knowledge of it, that indeed, there is mystery. I think we can have accurate and true knowledge of it, but not exhaustive knowledge of it. Why would this be a problem?

It was meant to be. I assumed nothing in it except that it might give you a laugh.

Now that IS impressive.

God may be "All-loving" in a sense, but that is not "all" He is. I don't know what you were "taught to believe". But to truly understand how love and wrath can be reconciled in God, you would need to deepen your understanding of God's Holiness and Righteousness, and the nature of sin. In the final analysis, God's love and His wrath are displayed most powerfully, profoundly, and personally in the Cross.

Romans 3

21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[. 1] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Footnotes
. 3:25 Or as the one who would turn aside his wrath, taking away sin


In the Cross the love that was expressed and at work in behalf of His enemies is displayed in conjunction with His just punishment of sin in the person of Jesus - that those enemies could be reconciled to Him, if they would only trust Him.

Romans 5

6You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. 8But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! 10For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!


Grizzly, from our conversation here, I'm afraid you've barely scratched the surface of its meaning. I don't say this with anything other than genuine sincerity - I hope you do come to a profound personal appreciation for the power and freedom found there.

It sounds like fun. And very interesting. My wife teaches 1st grade, so she deals quite a bit with developing reading skills in kids. She loves it. I personally don't know much about the theories and approaches involved, but believe very strongly in developing a love for reading in our kids.

Peace

[ June 21, 2002: Message edited by: katellagen ]</p>

sighhswolf

You are right of course, that human's die but God doesn't. What should also be clear is that Jesus the man, as a man, did die, just as any man undergoing such torture would. But Jesus was not a mere man - that is, not man only - He was, and is fully God. Of course, His Divine nature did not die (somewhat like the fact that a man's soul doesn't die when His body does). But this does not change what His human nature endured. Neither was His Divine nature as such separated from God the Father.

Rather, the perfect, sinless human nature of Jesus experienced the corruption of sin, and the just punishment for it - the wrath of God, or separation from God. That is to say, the absence of the experience of any of God's love, joy, peace, comfort, wisdom, benevolence, kindness, etc., but the knowledge and experience of His justice and displeasure powerfully set against the sin that He took upon Himself. I don't see how knowing the outcome does anything to ameliorate His condition. He still experienced every painful second. And it was an experience without parallel on earth, either in kind or intensity.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondly, you seem to have developed a theology that Jesus somehow was not God when he was put to death.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not saying that Jesus was not God when He was put to death. To say "was truly man" is not to say "was not God"


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your comments about Jesus being separated from God are strange to me. If Jesus was God, how is he not God?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've explained the sense in which He was separated/suffered wrath in the previous post and above.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps this is why you stated that this core tenet of Christianity is ultimately incomprehensible. This, I would agree with.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I mean by ultimately incomprehensible is that it is far larger and more profound than we can get our minds around fully. I don't mean that we can't make sense out of it, or that we can have no understanding of it, or that we can't express it in meaningful terms. I'm just saying that it's bigger and deeper than us, and that though we can increase in our understanding of it, we could never have full, complete, and perfect knowledge of it, that indeed, there is mystery. I think we can have accurate and true knowledge of it, but not exhaustive knowledge of it. Why would this be a problem?


Katellagen,
In the statements you made above, you have inserted your own interpretation of text and made suppositions accordingly.
Now I see absolutely nothing wrong with that approach, and as a person with faith you must "read into" the material to attempt to discern it's full meaning, and I agree that is part of the concept of christianity, to find your own meaning through dilligent study.

Basically you have implied that god/jesus/biblical text, transends the average humans ability to understand, that there are areas that require "pure faith" because logical explanations escape the average reader.

That is where we run into an impasse.
We agree that the concept of god as presented by christianity involves the "unknowable" and "inconceivability" factors.
But we apply this concept in very different ways.
Christians view this as evidence that god falls beyond the scope of mere mortals understanding.
And they accept that as part of the mysteries
of monotheism.
Whereas, the non-believer will say that the concept of a supreme being coupled to an "unknowable nature" is evidence of nonexistence, and is contrary to the natural laws of the universe.

Leslie D. Weatherhead writes, " How can man, an insect on a wayside planet, which is itself of no size or importance, amid a million galaxies that baffle the imagination, put the tiny tape of words around the doings of this august and unimaginable being who created all that is in the heavens and the heaven of heavens?"
In that statement this scholar has validated the
"unknowable" nature of this being.

Many theists will maintain that the nature of god
(and that is really where this discussion had been headed anyway) is "unknowable" to mankind but not just "unknowable" at present, but "unknowable" in Principle.
We poor little humans cannot now nor will we ever understand the nature of this being.
To say that this being exists and is unknowable is a contradiction in logical thought.
The claim that something exists that is unknowable, is to claim some kind of knowledge of the unknowable.
If you claim knowledge of the unknowable then it ceases being unknowable.

In the case of Jesus and the concept of the trinity, believers will say ok I will attempt to explain this concept by pointing out that it cannot be explained, in simple terms for us to understand.

What?

Christian doctrine and you yourself, tell us that there are mysteries that cannot be explained by ordinary human beings.
That the nature of the christian god is for all practical purposes inconceivable to the human mind, in totality.
Yet christianity has given this god many attributes, and assigned a nature to the being,
and has taken it step farther by having this being assume human form and come to earth to sacrifice himself for the sins of mankind in order to satisfy his own displeasure of the conduct of his creations.

And the circle of irrationality continues to be unbroken.

Now since the christian has no valid proof of the existence of such a confusing supreme being,
and god himself has seen fit not to testify on his own behalf, then the christian is faced with
having to use "faith" as an authoritative trust.
That "trust" is placed in human religious authorities as a basis of acceptance of the existence of this being and ultimately the entire Bible and everything written within.
Which brings us to the point of the validity and believability of biblical text.
It is common for christians to say that their authorities, clergy have spent their life in the study of religious text and by that authority gained from such studies they have created credibility for themselves and biblical text.
They point out that we all place "faith" in human authorities everyday, so it is irrational not to place faith and trust in religious authorities.
But....authority is not a primary source of knowledge and a concept must stand on it's own merits or those that claim the authority must prove they have specialized knowledge that enables them to become authorities in the first place.

1. The authority must be willing to present evidence in support of his beliefs.

2. The proposition of the authorities should be verifiable in principle by any person who takes the time and effort to examine and study it.

3. The proposition put forth by authority can not contradict the laws of logic, because a contradiction cannot be considered as truth.

Putting all the semantics aside for a moment, and being quite honest and forthright, there exists
no proof that the Bible is anything other than fiction.

The authorities may well be able to present some form of evidence to uphold their beliefs.
But the evidence cannot come from Biblical text
to be considered as validation.


Now by your own admission, you tell us that in fact that there are many biblical premises that you cannot really understand.
In that context biblical text fails to be verifiable to any and all who attempt to discern it's meaning and validate it's premises.

Finally, the entire story of Jesus ministry as recorded in the Bible, is cloaked with contradiction and illogical propositions.
The "trinity" concept is just one of many.
But it is the one that is the cornerstone of the doctrine of christianity.

Now to a religious and pious christian, the story is acceptable and the mystery is a part of the whole concept.
But lets suppose for one minute that you were to say to someone who had never read the bible or been party to the practice of christianity, that an all powerful unseen unknowable creator of the universe, decided to come down to earth in human form calling himself, his son.... so that he could perform a blood sacrifice of HIMSELF in order to appease HIMSELF and grant absolution for the sins of the entire population of the planet, so that his wrath would not fall upon mankind necessitating his destruction of his creations, AGAIN. (as it is recorded that he had already destroyed the population of the planet once before).
Now I know that is a gross oversimplification, but that is totally irrational, illogical and beyond the reasoning skills that I myself have.
(although my skills are very small anyway)
And of course, when you do not understand the concept or the content of Biblical text, it is because you did not read and study with the "Holy Spirit" which in someway is supposed to enhance your comprehension skills and give you knowledge of "unwritten" special and mystical information.

But all that supposition aside, we are left with the simple fact that as a christian you must accept the authority of Biblical text and the authority of clergy as the basis for your faith.
You must be unquestionably obedient and willing to trust your "immortal soul" and base your entire existence on the words and authority of men, because no one can prove that anything in biblical text came straight from god.

To hold the Bible up as a document from god, to say it was divinely inspired, does not detract from the suspicion in which we should always view anything written by the hand of man.

The same men who have killed other men, subjected civilizations to mass extermination, prosecuted and tortured men who have put forth arguments of science over religion, and whom today as we speak are trying to wipe each other off the face of the earth in the name of their chosen god/gods.

The same humans who have built an empire of unimaginable wealth and power using name of god as leverage, in total violation of what the icon of your chosen faith supposedly taught to his followers.
And if all the other contradictions contained in the christian doctrine are completely dismissed as ungrounded, the most important one is the difference of the practice of christianity as opposed to the admonitions of it's icon.

So I cannot accept the argument from authority, nor do I recognize anyone on this earth today as an unimpeachable source of the word of this god.
Therefore my assessment of the suffering of jesus
is that it did not logically happen and was used as a literary vehicle to promote and illicit sympathy from the believer.
To show what a tremendous sacrifice this Holy Being had been required to give, and appeal to the human need for hero's who suffer and eventually are heralded as saviors and role models.

The vague explanations of the contradictions of the nature and form of this being and an inability of those in authority to present this being in a context that every human could actually understand contributes to the unbelievability of the entire document.

So to believe the story, to believe the text, to believe the presentation of the suffering of this being, one must put away logic, one must dispose of independent thinking, and one must accept the authority of MEN who set themselves up as spokesmen for this divine being and who have no more credentials than I have.
So this is the point I was trying to make,
and we will never see eye to eye here and so it is better that we agree to disagree.

To point out truth, to examine the validity of what was written thousands of years ago in a time where the true motivations of those in authority, (the ones responsible for the written gospels) can not be ascertained is a cause that I readily subscribe to.
To question the authority of religious leaders,
and the power structure of organized religions with the specific aim of exposing the myth with rational thought and reasoning is a personal goal.
Not because I want to disprove the existence of the christian god as much as prove, that the issues are all contained within the framework of who can garner the most wealth and power, and use that power to control the thoughts and actions of mankind.
And history proves the unrealiability and the untrustworthyness of leadership when faced with the prospect of gaining power over others, and with the prospect of gaining wealth in the process.

The christian god has not identified those with whom you may trust to convey his words and truth.
So you must decide who and what to believe entirely within your own intellect.
I do not trust the motivations of man, nor do I think that divine texts hold truth as they are presented. Realize that for evey objection you raise against the unnatural concepts presented in biblical text, the "authorities" have a ready response, to me that smacks of deception.

And the "failsafe" of a lack of understanding and
the concept of acceptence on "faith" is the last line of defense for clergy and theists, which is growing steadily weaker with each generation.
If the christian god does exist, he would certainly NOT need spokesmen and spin doctors, and he would certainly not allow mankind to spread messages of hate and fear and ethnic violence in his "Holy Name".

Wolf




[ June 22, 2002: Message edited by: sighhswolf ]</p>

katellagen

sighhswolf,

I just read your most recent post, and found it interesting - though I think you misunderstand or mischaracterize some important things. I want to respond to that, but in this post I'm responding to your previous one. I hope to come to some conclusions on the original topic, as we seem to be moving in a different direction.

In reference to Jesus, you asked:
You then asserted:
The Biblical teaching is that He is both God and man (as such He is sui generis; unique). But no one has demonstrated that this "must" lead to the conclusion you assert. Please substantiate this.

Didn't I offer a response to this opinion of yours? Why didn't you address it? Didn't I ask for evidece of any kind for this assertion? I see you offer none.

The reason I have no problem with the event as recorded is that it is perfectly reasonable that a man in such circumstances would behave in such a way. The fact of it does elicit sympathy, but sympathy is not the reason I accept it. Again, no one here has demonstrated why it is unreasonable to accept it as it is.

Upon what basis is such a statement made, especially from one who denies the existence of such a being? This may be true of a god of your imagining, but that's not what we're talking about here, is it?

No, a perfect one.

I don't say this to be patronizing, but if what you've written here reflects your thinking on the subject: "was he god or was he man or was he both, or the trinity? Or is it even possible to classify this individual?...We are talking about god, in the form of man, or is it god's son, or is it the holy ghost.....whatever. We are not even sure what this being is supposed to be.", I would have to conclude that whatever you grew up with, your present understanding is inadequate, inaccurate, and confused.


He was praying to God the Father.

No. He Himself was not God the Father.

In the incarnation, God the Son willingly took on a subordinate functional role to the Father which was entirely consistent with the proper role of man created in God's image. "In no instance did he exercise his divine or human volitional powers independently of the Father's pleasure. The one God-man carried out his Father's wise desires unhypocritically." (Integrative Theology; Lewis and Demarest)

It is God's will and was Jesus' own teaching that we should pray for our enemies:

Matthew 5
43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[1] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[2] and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

(granted not all of that pertains to this point, but I included it anyway because I thought it was good stuff.) BTW, would you lump this in your "crock of crap" as you put it?

"mystical nonsense",... "wrought [fraught?] with irrationality" Strong statements. Can you demonstrate where the doctrine of the Trinity is irrational?

What about outside this discussion? Just kidding. Really though, I appreciate that. That type of thing only gets in the way of understanding.

By all means, state away! But substantiate, or don't expect your opinions to hold any weight. I'm sure you would not want me to say, "Wolf said it, that settles it."

Interesting opinion.

Interesting theory. (though extremely selective and obviously biased.)

Yes, that's true.

You really should stop this. It would not be helpful if I characterized your position as that of someone who is emotionally swayed by the reality of their guilt and the fear of just punishment such that they assume an irrational interpretation of the facts in an attempt to avoid that which makes them uncomfortable. It would not be helpful to the discussion, but it would be just as easy to assert this as that which you asserted.

I don't understand what you mean here.

The last time you asserted something similar about the problem with the need for interpretation, I said:

But you have not responded to that. You've only asserted the same thing yet again. Was my response so off base that it's not worth commenting on? (If so, I'd appreciate it if you would take the time to show me. I don't like using fallacious arguments.) Or is it that you don't have an answer, so you ignore the point as if it has never been addressed?


"I will continue to bring up these inconsistencies and improbabilities within the texts as I locate them"

Bring up all you want, but I hope you will be honest enough to admit where your charges of inconsistencies have been shown to be groundless.


"and yes you are quite right about my motivations."

I don't remember addressing your motivations. I do remember suggesting there was apparent bias in your characterization of the Christian's "agenda" as they approach the Bible. But here you do seem to reveal an agenda of your own.

Well, he certainly should show you where you're misrepresenting the view you reject. If you have an interest in honesty, truth, and knowledge, you should be glad for someone correcting your mistakes. Why would you want to advance your argument on falsehood and distortion? You would only find that necessary if your position had no sound basis.

As for reading into the text, I don't advocate it. In fact, that was the very thing I saw you doing in your opening post, and it was that which compelled me to respond.

I was quick to come forward to show that what you were saying had no basis in anything other than your imagination, and that therefore the contradiction you alleged was also imaginary. Given your persistence though, I'm beginning to wonder if your imaginary interpretation is not also deliberate.

Umm... no, Wolf...it still doesn't say that.


Uh...sorry...still not there.


Wolf, I checked again. I looked at every occurrence of "fear" and "afraid" in the Gospels - in 2 translations (KJV,NIV). It..does..not..say..that..anywhere.

Look at the verses again.

"After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because Jews sought to kill him." (John 7:1)

"Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple..." (John 8:59)

See? Not there. Can we move on now?

It proved the contrary of what you asserted. Namely that the texts you cited were NOT contradictory to what Jesus taught and demonstrated everywhere. Or at least it proved you could offer no evidence to support your claim, and therefore, that you believe what you believe because...well...because you believe it.

Because...you believe what you believe.

That's what I said.

This obviously would be quite involved and not something I would be interested in devoting the necessary time to undertake (my wife and kids are already wondering why I seem to have abandoned them for cyber-world). I especially would not be willing to do this with someone who has as a "personal goal" with a "specific aim", the purpose of "exposing the myth" as you see it (hardly an objective approach), and who thus far has failed to respond meaningfully to much of what I've said, and has not been willing to admit a very obvious error in his thinking and in his representation of a straightforward text. You don't have to accept it as authoritative to be able to say you read it wrong.

And does "because Wolf says so" carry much weight?

Wolf, I never said you had to believe this or change your opinion. My reason for commenting, and the point I've tried to stick to is that the allegations of inconsistency that you made in your initial post were groundless and without support. I notice that in spite of everything else that has been said, of those who have commented, no one has shown my refutations of your groundless assertions to be in error. In fact, no one has even attempted to.

In light of this, with regard to your charge regarding the integrity of the texts you cited, and the integrity of Jesus' character, you should either:

- Retract it.

- Substantiate it.

- Admit it's mere opinion and conjecture, and that there is no real justifiable basis for saying it. IOW, you hold that position for no good reason.


I BEG your pardon, what was THE QUESTION? Oh, I do believe I've answered that.

N/A

See Above.

Could've, should've, would've... We're not back to Wolf-the-would-be-god's preferred plan of salvation are we?

To say that there can be no supernatural beings, causes, or events in a completely naturalistic, materialistic universe is rather obvious. But isn't that begging the question?

Nothing exists outside of reality. If something exists, it is by nature part of reality - this would include all supernatural beings and events. If the Creator God exists, He is Ultimate Reality, and the One who defines the rest of reality.

If God exists, the reality which He created is itself evidence, as are all His actions in history, including the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

Wolf, I won't go into it, but you know it matters a great deal if the God of the Bible exists. As to opinions, we are certainly all entitled to our own, but not to misrepresent and mislead. That is, not if truth and knowledge matter.

Peace

PS - I'll try to address your latest post as I have time, but I'm gonna be on call all week, which basically means I'll have no time.

[ June 22, 2002: Message edited by: katellagen ]</p>

sighhswolf

Wolf, I never said you had to believe this or change your opinion. My reason for commenting, and the point I've tried to stick to is that the allegations of inconsistency that you made in your initial post were groundless and without support. I notice that in spite of everything else that has been said, of those who have commented, no one has shown my refutations of your groundless assertions to be in error. In fact, no one has even attempted to.

In light of this, with regard to your charge regarding the integrity of the texts you cited, and the integrity of Jesus' character, you should either:

- Retract it.

- Substantiate it.

- Admit it's mere opinion and conjecture, and that there is no real justifiable basis for saying it. IOW, you hold that position for no good reason.

Did I not say that the statement I made was my opinion?
I think I did....but if I didnt I will be glad to repeat that my interpretation of those verses that indicate to me that there is and was a contradiction in the narratives, and that they show a fear and lack of resolve on the part of the individual.
And I stand by my opinion.
In my assessment of those verses, it appears to me that there is an inconsistency.

When I read those verses, I see a person who is hiding, I see a person who decides not to place himself in harms way because his own people have declared him to be a false prophet/an imposter
and have threatened him with bodily harm.
It is IMO an inconsistency for the "son of god",
"god himself" or "the messiah" to retreat from any fight or confrontation and does not make any sense to me at all.
Why should a "divine being" who has been sent to earth on a divine mission to be the instrument of the salvation of mankind, who claims to be divine who's father is the most high all powerful ruler and creator of the universe back down from a fight or from any threat implied or physically manifest against him?
If it is a question of timing, why would the timing even be a factor in the first place, supposedly he already knew what the plan was.
What difference would it have made, if he were to stand and take on the mob today...or 2 weeks from now if the result had already been preordained?
I think it shows a lack of resolve, and fear.
Of course you say that this opinion is groundless and I would expect you to say that, you list verses to back your position, but
there is nothing at all wrong with my assessment that there was fear involved at that time and place, and to me it is documented by the verses I quoted, And calls into question the image that is being carefully groomed throughtout the narratives.

What I see in these particular verses, is an example of what I see throughout the NT narratives and that is a contradiction in the nature and character of the main hero of the myth.
He confronts the raging storm, standing tall in the tiny boat and challanges the fury of the storm and by words he calms the seas and tames the violent storm.
Yet he hides from the possibility of being stoned?
He showed no fear in confronting death in the storm.

He confronts Satan one on one, the master temptor, pure evil, and prevails as as the winner, yet he opts to stay out of harms way when he knows that Jews want to kill him?

His mission is to return the lost sheep of the tribes of Israel, to bring all Jews back to the Torah , yet he decides not to walk among the Jewry because they want to kill him?

This is the same individual who proclaims " Think not that I am come to send peace: I came not to send peace but a sword".

"He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."

" The son of man (Jesus) shall send forth his angels and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, an them which do iniquity;
And shall cast them into a furnance of fire: and there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth".

With this kind of power at his beckon call he would be fearful at the prospect of death for his cause? Or asked to be relieved from this calling?

This is the same individual who says to the Rabbinic leadership, "Woe to you Pharisees, hypocrites and you blind guides they are full of robbery and self indulgence.
You blind Pharisee for you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful but inside they are filled with dead mens bones.
And all manner of uncleaniness.
Even so you too outwardly appear righteous to men but inwardly you are full of hipocrisy and lawlessness.
You serpents you brood of vipers."

This is the same individual who decides not to walk among the jews because they want to kill him?

Lets review the verses shall we;
"Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple..." (John 8:59)

It is clear that this verse says without any doubt that Jesus was hiding from the mob.
If this doesnt indicate fear then I dont know what does.

"After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because Jews sought to kill him." (John 7:1)

It says that Jesus would not walk among his own people because they sought to kill him.
Now you may say that "oh it wasnt the right time, he had other things to do, he was waiting on this or that event", but it doesnt change the fact that he did not walk among the Jews because they sought to kill him, I dont think a statement can be any clearer than that, that the man had not the resolve to walk among his people and it is perfectly natural to assume that fear was the motivation for that isolation, and in point of fact if those verses had been applied to anyone other than Jesus it would immediately be interpreted as examples of fear and trepidation.

"My reason for commenting, and the point I've tried to stick to is that the allegations of inconsistency that you made in your initial post were groundless and without support."

Now you sit in Judgement and say to me that there were no grounds for me to claim an inconsistency?
You proved the inconsistency with your reply.

Those verses do not belong in the narrative.
They are misplaced additions that contradict the image that is presented elsewhere as you so rightly pointed out.
They show fear and they show deception.
Thats the way I read it, thats my opinion, and I see no reason to retract anything, as my opinion holds as much weight as yours.


When you cite verse after verse that contradicts my assessment of this persons resolve, you are in a large way affirming my position.
What it does it to reinforce my thoughts that whatever you are looking to prove or disprove through biblical text is what you are going to find.

Now lets get down to the real issue here, I question whether the character of Jesus as recorded in the NT gospels actually existed at all.
Not that he was not a real figure of history, but that the character of this individual "as
presented by the gospels" existed.

Let me pose a question for you, why do you believe that the biblical accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus as recorded in the NT are valid and true representations and not the product of some contrived deception?


Where do you find the authoritative souces for your belief that the story and life of Jesus was recorded correctly, that in fact they are true, and that they hold valid information?


Whether you feel my opinion is right or wrong concerning the character of Jesus and the image projected by the gospels and what I see as contradictory verses, is actually not the real argument.
The real argument has to do with the presentation of the material and how it can be interpretated in any way the reader see's fit.

My argument still stands, those passages point to a person who is fearful of loss of life.
Those passages point to a person who is not showing the resolve that is recorded elsewhere in the narratives
I see those verses as being major contradictions
and I see a question of the resolve and of the courage of the individual, because they do not match other situations and events recorded showing
an almost inhuman self assurance, and resolve to get his message across.

"My reason for commenting, and the point I've tried to stick to is that the allegations of inconsistency that you made in your initial post were groundless and without support."

And then you proceed to prove my assertion that the inconsistencies exist, by using verses that do not show the man as being fearful.
Maybe I am missing something here?
You engage in selective readings of verses to
espouse your ideas of the individual in question,
you cite verses to prove your point.
Yet I should not do the same?

Again what do those verses say?
he hid in the temple to avoid the mob who were at first opportunity going to stone him to death......he decided not to walk among the jews cause they were going to kill him.

Now you have your interpretation of those verses and I have mine. And you read into them an interpretation, a meaning, based on previous verses that show a fearless Jesus.
But to get interpretation, you must read into these verses something that is not there.
The verses do not say that Jesus was hiding from the mob because he was waiting to fulfill some divine plan.
Neither do they say that he did not walk among the Jews because they were going to kill him and he just wasnt ready right now so he avoided the conflict and the impending violence, until he was more fully prepared or anything of the sort.

Do you not see the reasoning and logic here?
You had to read into the text something that was not stated by the verses, in order to challange my interpretation.


This is a major issue with me as far as the validity of anything in Biblical text. You cannot say to me that those verses that I quoted contained anything, zero , zip, nada, more than what was written.

To refute my assertion you had to read into the verses, something that was not there.
And to make my assertion all that was required was for me to qoute the verses exactly as they they were written.

And that is my point here.
Wolf