What if you consider arguments on Christianity and you are left with major doubt?

[rako]

Hello, PureX,

I don't want my discussion with you to turn into the same kind of strangeness we see in debating things like whether Noah's flood is archeologically disprovable.

Because George Washington is a revered figure in recent history, legends have developed and spread over the years claiming that he never told a lie, and that he threw a dollar across the Delaware River (a half mile). In a time when people were uneducated, superstitious, and had little grasp of the limitations and processes of physics, such legends would often be taken as fact. Most people in the current United States, however, are educated and worldly enough, now, to know that these claims are untrue. But this does not take anything away from the great contributions of George Washington to the founding of this nation. It don't diminish our respect for him.

However, there are likely still a few folks here and there that do believe these legends about George Washington, because their level of intellectual sophistication remains limited to the levels equivalent of people living hundreds of years ago. So that for some people, these legends are still "true", while for others, they are metaphorical. And the legends themselves can function either way. Which is why they are presented as being factual even though most of us now know they are not. And who knows? Maybe the people who first heard these stories and wrote them down actually believed them to be factual, too.

Was the story about George Washington throwing the stone intended to be taken as factual? It is hard for me to tell. Living in another state, I don't know how far the Potomac is in all locations, and I don't know how far a human can throw. A visitor from Maryland could come to my village and intentionally create the story to persuade me that it was factual.
200 years ago there were many stories that got passed around the "common folk", and it's hard to tell how many were intended as fact.

In the case of the apostles though, from the information we have about Jesus, it does look like it was intended that way. The Christian church was led by the apostles in 33-90 AD or so, and Paul's letters from that time present them as true. We don't have direct evidence saying that it was not treated as fact but as allegory only.

To say as you do that Paul could be wrong and that absence of allegorical treatment doesn't prove it was meant to be seen as factual is a true argument on your part. But it also sucks us into the same kind of mental wormhole I am getting into with "Elohiym".

The fact is, even though Paul could be wrong, his writings from that time make it apparent on the surface that it was meant to be see by the apostles as a real physical resurrection. Likewise, the writings like Acts and the epistles from about the end of the apostles' time is further confirmation. To deny that and posit instead that the apostles meant it as allegory is to suck me into quicksand with no evidentiary foundation to claim it was an allegory besides "it could be".

However, you do not have a concrete basis to say that Jesus did otherwise.

We have the laws of physics. And they are astonishingly "concrete".

Yes, the law of physics that a body would not incarnate are not a concrete (as in solid), direct basis to say that Jesus didn't mistakenly present himself to be God, just as the laws of physics are not a direct, concrete basis to claim that Joseph Smith didn't mistakenly present his magical tablets to his followers as if they were real.

That laws of physics contradict a claim is not a contradiction that someone made a claim. This seems to be the gap in your thinking and others' who see the resurrection and extreme miracle claims as meant to be allegories. The reasoning goes that since the narration did not physical occur, it was presented as allegory only. But this confuses intentions and perceptions with reality, when we already know that the two frequently diverge.

You need to study what it means to be 'the son of' in that culture. It's very different than what it means in ours. When Jesus called himself a son of God, and more often, the "son of man", he was talking about an ideological chain of authority. Not blood relativity. He was not claiming himself to be a god. And he told people that on a number of occasions. He was claiming himself to be a human manifestation of the 'living God'.

I make sculptures. Those sculptures are physical manifestations of my mind and spirit. And this is what Jesus was trying to teach us: that we are human manifestations of God's divine mind and spirit. My sculptures are not me. And Jesus was not God. But they are OF ME, as Jesus was OF GOD. It's an important difference even if it is somewhat difficult to articulate it with words.

He also did not claim himself to be the Jew's Messiah. Others did that.

The term "the Son of Man" and "the Son of God" was not used by Jesus to refer to anyone else as a title.

You say: "You need to study what it means to be 'the son of' in that culture." The common meaning of "son of", as in "bar" or "ben" meant an actual son of someone. I know that you are taking that as figurative-only, but you don't have a direct basis to think that it was only figurative.

There is a no less easy way to show that Jesus presented himself as God: Multiple times, the gospel has Jesus directly admit that he is "the Christ the son of the living god", as he tells Peter and the Sanhedrin on different occasions.(Matthew 16:16)

One of the Messiah's tasks in the Old Testament was to raise the dead. Another was to remove Israel's sins. A third was to become their leader. The gospels claim that Jesus had the power to do all these, but that the full resurrection and dominion would be at the second coming. That is, he was taking on himself the hallmarks of the Messiah, like when he resurrected three people.

Now, you may say that the gospels got things wrong, "Jesus never said that", because you don't believe they are true. Probably down inside many skeptics don't want to really conceptualize that Jesus could be like a Charismatic leader who presented things that the skeptics don't believe. But that is how the 1st century apostolic gospels presented this -as if he said he were the Messiah - and that is what the audience, who was expecting a Messiah figure in the 1st century, was told in those stories.

Now you may want to counterargue that you don't believe this, and that the texts could easily have been corrupted. But regardless, that is how the texts and early Christian commentaries portrayed Him, and that's what we have to go on, as far as understanding how Jesus presented himself.

I can think of no logical reason to declare the text or the men who wrote them magically inerrant.

No, but that's the evidence in front of us. I find it much harder to think that Jesus was a simple honest, platonic, "Socratic" rabbi who just told people to follow Torah and didn't pretend to be the Messiah or do magic healings like others were doing in his day, and that it was his family (James was the church's leader) and his chosen apostles who made up all these claims, whereupon some of them got killed by the Sanhedrin as Josephus records?

Why did the Romans kill him and then put the words "King of the Jews" over him, an obvious reference to the Messiah?
I suppose this is supposed to be like the Life of Brian, where the protagonist never tries to lead people as a Messianic figure, etc.?

We can't just say that
1. we like Jesus and that
2. we don't believe he was an angelic pre-incarnate being, and that
on these two foundations alone we conclude that:
Jesus would never have presented himself to be a miraculous, divine person of some kind.

We can say and believe anything we want to. As many of us do. But I prefer to use logical reason, the facts of history as I know them, and as much common sense as I can muster in determining what I choose to believe about Jesus. And I can't think of any reason at all why I should have to believe what others have believed, and claimed, simply because they believed it. Can you?

I think I have found the main foundation of your "logical reason" in the two arguments I listed above:
If you like Him and you don't believe that the claim is true, such a good, rational person must not have said that.

^
For all that I think that your literary and historical analysis is being confusedly molded by your preferences, I love the general attitude that you have about personally dealing with the fact that the Christian community presents things as one way, but you think a different way, and you are able to live with that comfortably, which is the main thing I want to get out of the thread:

Thank you, I appreciate the thought.
It is sad that the Church based their presumption of divine authority on such superstitions, instead of being honest and just saying they didn't know. But at the time it was established those superstitions were very powerful tools for controlling people, and unfortunately the "Christian Church" has been a huge political entity for nearly all of it's existence. And that ability to control lots of people through superstitions and fears and promises of salvation was it's stock in trade. They turned the ideals of spiritual healing and salvation into hammers and nails, and used them to crucify the people they ruled over (when they were supposed to be serving them).
We are all both good and evil. Often at the same time.

 

[PureX]

I think I have found the main foundation of your "logical reason" in the two arguments I listed above:
If you like Him and you don't believe that the claim is true, such a good, rational person must not have said that.

What we are reading about Jesus are stories passed down to us by people who were not witnesses to the actual events, who were intellectually limited and very superstitious, and people who had a powerful religious agenda to promote and protect.

Understanding this, I see the gospels more as legends then as historical documentation. Legends that have been manipulated and multiplied through the centuries by a number of people for a number of different reasons. Yet I won't simply dismiss them because I can grasp that underneath all the superstitions, exaggerations, and religious propaganda, there is an amazing story about an amazing man that introduced humanity to a whole new way of understanding our relationship to "God". And it's an understanding that could conceivably change the world in amazingly positive ways if it were taken to heart by enough people.

So when I read these stories I am not concerned so much about what the authors say Jesus said, as I am about gaining an understanding of this amazing new way of conceiving of and engaging in our relationship to God, through each other. I am interested in what Jesus is reported to have said as it regards this particular revelation. And I am not interested in what they say Jesus said about Judaism, or about obedience to Judaic religious ideologies, or about heaven and hell and God's wrath and all that superstitious scare-tactical stuff that enabled the Christian Church to rule the world for so long. I'm not interested in religion; Jesus', or anyone else's.

I am interested, specifically, in this new revelation about the relationship between God and mankind. A relationship that is expressed through love and forgiveness and kindness and generosity, and is engaged in by seeing God within ourselves and each other.

For all that I think that your literary and historical analysis is being confusedly molded by your preferences, I love the general attitude that you have about personally dealing with the fact that the Christian community presents things as one way, but you think a different way, and you are able to live with that comfortably, which is the main thing I want to get out of the thread:

Well, the difference may be that I'm looking for the wisdom, not "the truth". Because from my perspective 2000 years later, the truth has long since been lost to history, and if it's about religion, I'm not particularly interested in it, anyway. I'm not seeking a religion, I'm seeking a way of finding and relating to God through myself and others so that it will be real, and not just some abstract theological fantasy. And I believe this is what Jesus was trying to reveal to humanity.

 

[elohiym]

I'm making a mistake if I keep arguing on this thread whether extreme miracle stories like Noah getting the world's animals on board are true.

I agree with you because in doing so you are not refuting the points I'm making.

Is that really one of your strongest arguments?

I didn't bring up Noah. That was you. I brought up the Red Sea crossing and you keep trying to discuss Noah. It's bizarre.

That you can prove that the fantastic sounding stories the Torah says happened were real, and that based on this proof the resurrection was real?

Rather, both events have multiple eye witnesses.

Parsimony/Occam's Razor?
We found elements in Saudi desert matching the story - an altar of rocks, a burned mountain top, a divided stone, so therefore the easiest, most credible way to explain it is that the ancient stories of God being in a mountain fire where people could see he had real feet are historically real?

Yes, and certainly if you believe in God. Was I mistaken to believe you are a Christian even though you claim to be a Christian?

If a kid finds presents at the bottom of a chimney and it says "from Santa Claus", does that mean.... never mind.

Sorry I shouldn't go on. Like PureX said, it's not mentally healthy to get boxed into these kinds of mental constructs.

You allegedly believe in God ... without seeing any evidence God exists. :hammer:

 

[rako]

I'm making a mistake if I keep arguing on this thread whether extreme miracle stories like Noah getting the world's animals on board are true.

I agree with you because in doing so you are not refuting the points I'm making.

Sorry, Elohiym,

I think you are probably a very nice person in real life. And I think that the ancient stories about Moses and the fires, Noah and the flood, the Red Sea with Moses, etc. are nice stories.

But my problem in this thread is that I am really driven into a wall by these kinds of mental issues where people I like believe that these kinds of stories are real, and not only that, but it's a centerpiece of their love and faith and worldview. I have a hard time dealing with it, because when I think about it realistically, it looks like it did not happen. So that is why I created the thread.

My request is that if you want to argue that the resurrection was a real physical event, you please do so on the thread I created on that topic:

Strongest, most direct evidence for the Resurrection?
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4590472#post4590472

I wish you would bring up some different argument besides claiming that the fire on Mount Sinai really was God, the Israelites walked through the Red etc., and that therefore the resurrection happened. I already told you what my view of those Egyptian/Sumerian/early Babylonian-era stories is. But if that's your centerpiece argument for the resurrection, OK, just please argue it on the thread for that purpose, because we have hashed this issue about the Torah's stories out numerous times already.

I will even start by writing you a post there.

 

[rako]

What we are reading about Jesus are stories passed down to us by people who were not witnesses to the actual events, who were intellectually limited and very superstitious, and people who had a powerful religious agenda to promote and protect.

Understanding this, I see the gospels more as legends then as historical documentation. Legends that have been manipulated and multiplied through the centuries by a number of people for a number of different reasons. Yet I won't simply dismiss them because I can grasp that underneath all the superstitions, exaggerations, and religious propaganda, there is an amazing story about an amazing man that introduced humanity to a whole new way of understanding our relationship to "God". And it's an understanding that could conceivably change the world in amazingly positive ways if it were taken to heart by enough people.

So when I read these stories I am not concerned so much about what the authors say Jesus said, as I am about gaining an understanding of this amazing new way of conceiving of and engaging in our relationship to God, through each other. I am interested in what Jesus is reported to have said as it regards this particular revelation. And I am not interested in what they say Jesus said about Judaism, or about obedience to Judaic religious ideologies, or about heaven and hell and God's wrath and all that superstitious scare-tactical stuff that enabled the Christian Church to rule the world for so long. I'm not interested in religion; Jesus', or anyone else's.

I am interested, specifically, in this new revelation about the relationship between God and mankind. A relationship that is expressed through love and forgiveness and kindness and generosity, and is engaged in by seeing God within ourselves and each other.

Well, the difference may be that I'm looking for the wisdom, not "the truth". Because from my perspective 2000 years later, the truth has long since been lost to history, and if it's about religion, I'm not particularly interested in it, anyway. I'm not seeking a religion, I'm seeking a way of finding and relating to God through myself and others so that it will be real, and not just some abstract theological fantasy. And I believe this is what Jesus was trying to reveal to humanity.

I sympathize with what you are saying except for the bold parts.
Certainly Jesus and his message were very focused on his religion, his doctrines, and religious activities. Even the famous Sermon on the Mount (a mirror of Moses on Mt Sinai) is very "religious" and he speaks in terms of new "Commandments".

All the gospel stories of Jesus from the 1st - 2nd centuries AD were about some kind of abstract or supernatural story. Those are the writings that the community made. And I don't just mean "the Church". The apocryphal writings of people associated with Christians were the same way, whether we talk about the Dead Sea Scrolls, the gnostic Gospels, the Nag Hammadi texts, etc. If that's the kind of community Jesus was part of and leading, that says alot about him too.

Even John the Baptist was very apocalyptic in his thinking, talking about how the Messiah and apocalypse were upon them. It was a common religious theme in 1st century Judaism because they were expecting a Messiah, which commonly carried supernatural or miraculous connotations.

In other words, if this was the world and community Jesus was part of, it seems likely that he also had this kind of character.

 

[elohiym]

Sorry, Elohiym,

I think you are probably a very nice person in real life. And I think that the ancient stories about Moses and the fires, Noah and the flood, the Red Sea with Moses, etc. are nice stories.

But my problem in this thread is that I am really driven into a wall by these kinds of mental issues where people I like believe that these kinds of stories are real, and not only that, but it's a centerpiece of their love and faith and worldview.

If you claim to be Christian, and claim to believe in God, then you are claiming to believe in something more incredible than what you consider just "nice stories." I'm sorry you miss the significance of that point.

:e4e:

 

[rako]

If you claim to be Christian, and claim to believe in God, then you are claiming to believe in something more incredible than what you consider just "nice stories." I'm sorry you miss the significance of that point.

:e4e:

Pure X says he is Christian, but he does not believe in the extreme miracle stories. Whether someone is Christian depends on how one defines that term Christian.

In the case of God's existence, ancient stories of meeting God on a mountain, etc. are very secondary for me. It is more important for me to think of forces like love and see that there is a higher force like God. So in the case of God, the arguments for him can be abstract.

Jesus on the other hand was a real person in history, and his resurrection would have been a real, physical event in history too. So different methods commonly apply to see if such a specific event happened. Now, some people have used abstract arguments to prove the resurrection too. But for me, that kind of line of argumentation is not very persuasive in the case of Jesus, because again, we are talking about a real, specific person in one point in physical history in the real world, not the broader question of whether there is a supreme being.

However, if you want to make philosophical abstract arguments for Jesus' existence, please do so on the thread I linked you to. Thanks.

 

[PureX]

I sympathize with what you are saying except for the bold parts.
Certainly Jesus and his message were very focused on his religion, his doctrines, and religious activities. Even the famous Sermon on the Mount (a mirror of Moses on Mt Sinai) is very "religious" and he speaks in terms of new "Commandments".

Jesus was Jew, preaching to other Jews. So he naturally spoke to them using such Judaic religious terminology. Jesus was not speaking those words to us because we were not there. And Jews then and now did not believe in the necessity of religious conversion. They have never been "evangelical". Not once did Jesus ever claim that anyone should become a Jew if they were not one. So I think you are wrong in assuming that his "message was focussed on his religion". It was focussed on his people, not on his religion. And, in fact, his message clashed with the religion of his people in several significant ways. Which is what got him killed. I don't think his message clashed with Judaism in his own mind, but clearly, it did in the minds of the religious leaders of his time, and in the minds of many of his fellow Jews, too.

So I see no reason whatever for me, a non-Jew living two centuries later, to be concerned in any way for Jesus' use if Judaic religious terminology. It was simply the language of his time and place. And I don't speak it, nor see any need to learn how.

Also, please TRY to keep in mind that what we are reading is a legendary story, and is not an actual account of reality. Everything Jesus is purported to have said and done is just that: purported to have been said and done by people who were not there at the time.

All the gospel stories of Jesus from the 1st - 2nd centuries AD were about some kind of abstract or supernatural story.

There are not "all the gospel stories". There is only one story. Three of the gospels are copies of that one lost anonymous gospel text, and the forth is an interpretation of it or of a similar text. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that these stories are four different stories written by four different eye-witnesses. And they are not. They are one story that was told and written down by a later generation of "believers".

Those are the writings that the community made. And I don't just mean "the Church". The apocryphal writings of people associated with Christians were the same way, whether we talk about the Dead Sea Scrolls, the gnostic Gospels, the Nag Hammadi texts, etc. If that's the kind of community Jesus was part of and leading, that says alot about him too.

Jesus had become a legend by the time those texts were written. Thus, they contain the same bias and exaggeration that all legends contain (like the legend of George Washington never telling a lie, and throwing a dollar across the Potomac River).

Even John the Baptist was very apocalyptic in his thinking, talking about how the Messiah and apocalypse were upon them. It was a common religious theme in 1st century Judaism because they were expecting a Messiah, which commonly carried supernatural or miraculous connotations.

Yes, and those biases made their way into the legend of Jesus of Nazareth, effecting it greatly. To the point of making him out to be the Jewish "Messiah", and resurrecting him from the dead.

In other words, if this was the world and community Jesus was part of, it seems likely that he also had this kind of character.

It seems likely to me, from reading the story, that Jesus was very careful NOT to proclaim himself the Jewish "Messiah", or "God", while simultaneously trying to convey the idea of our spiritual kinship with our Divine Creator. I believe that he believed that he was speaking and acting as God's human representative, and that the salvation of the Jews, and of all of us, was not this sword-weilding Messiah that the Jews were waiting for, but the spirit of brotherly love, and forgiveness, and kindness and generosity that he was trying to exemplify, and did exemplify in so many ways and instances, even in the face of derision, humiliation, torture and death.

Jesus happened to be a Jew, preaching to his fellow Jews. But ultimately his message was for everyone. And so was his promise of salvation through that divine spirit of love acting within us, to each other, to heal us and save us from ourselves. This isn't a Jewish religious message and promise, and I don't need to be a religious Jew to understand it, and believe in it.

 

[PureX]

If you claim to be Christian, and claim to believe in God, then you are claiming to believe in something more incredible than what you consider just "nice stories." I'm sorry you miss the significance of that point.

I disagree. I don't see believing in God as being "incredible" at all. In fact, I see it as being both a natural and reasonable choice for me in relation to my experience of existence as a human being. My concept of God may be different from yours, however, and yours may then be "incredible"; I don't know. I only know that mine is 'wondrous', perhaps, but not incredible.

 

[elohiym]

Pure X says he is Christian, but he does not believe in the extreme miracle stories.

My point is about people who believe in an invisible deity with no evidence while not believing the miracles performed by that invisible deity because of a lack of evidence. PureX and you both fit that description, right?

Whether someone is Christian depends on how one defines that term Christian.

My assumption is that all people who call themselves Christian believe in an invisible deity they cannot prove exists, that they have faith exists.

In the case of God's existence ... It is more important for me to think of forces like love and see that there is a higher force like God. So in the case of God, the arguments for him can be abstract.

Your argument amounts to God exists because love exists so you believe you can make abstract arguments to prove God's existence. That's not really saying much, frankly.

My argument about an alleged Biblical event was based on archeological evidence that suggests the story of Israelites at Mt. Horeb is true to some extent.

 

[PureX]

My point is about people who believe in an invisible deity with no evidence while not believing the miracles performed by that invisible deity because of a lack of evidence. PureX and you both fit that description, right?

I don't believe in "invisible deities".

My assumption is that all people who call themselves Christian believe in an invisible deity they cannot prove exists, that they have faith exists.

That assumption may be correct in some cases, but not all. And it is not a necessary assumption for one to be a 'Christian'.

My argument about an alleged Biblical event was based on archeological evidence that suggests the story of Israelites at Mt. Horeb is true to some extent.

Most myths are true to some extent. But when properly investigated, no supernatural feats have ever been verified.

A good example is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Which was fully investigated some years ago by a team of social-historical anthropologists. What they found was a hastily built 'boom-town' that had sprung up in the desert around a newly (at the time) discovered well near a busy caravan crossroad. The native rock in that area was a type of porous volcanic rock that had been scorched in it's formation by natural volcanic processes. And this was gathered up and used to built the structures of the town even though it was a poor building material. The townsfolk gathered it from miles around and used it to build all their structures, anyway. Also, they weren't professional builders, and their structures were weak because the town grew so quickly to accommodate the huge increase in commerce.

Naturally, such a boom-town would have gained a reputation for being somewhat lawless, and "immoral". What boom-town isn't characterized by prostitution, gambling, alcohol abuse, and thievery? But it didn't last very long, because as the number of people living and visiting there increased, they drew more and more heavily from the town's well, and they had to dig deeper and deeper into the ground to get water, until the well finally became a giant sink-hole and it collapsed. Part of the town fell into the hole, some of the remaining town collapsed from the movement of the sandy ground around it, and the remaining structures were soon abandoned as there was no more water to be had, there, and without water, no more reason for the town to exist. The town was soon reclaimed by the desert, leaving behind piles of scorched rocks and bits of broken human structures behind to tell it's tale. And not much else.

As the caravans continued to pass the place by, and the memory of what had happened there dimmed, a legend grew among the nomads of how this town that had been destroyed by an act of God, for it's amoral behavior. And the scorched rocks led them to believe that God had rained down fire and brimstone from the sky, as the earth trembled, and the town was swallowed up and knocked flat.

As legends go that one was fairly accurate, except for the fire and brimstone falling from the sky, part, and the part of about it being a deliberate punishment from God. As it was, in fact, the result of the resident's own greed and stupidity that had exhausted the well and destroyed the town.

 

[elohiym]

I don't believe in "invisible deities".

Then what is God Almighty in your opinion?

 

[elohiym]

Most myths are true to some extent. But when properly investigated, no supernatural feats have ever been verified.

A good example is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Which was fully investigated some years ago by a team of social-historical anthropologists. What they found was a hastily built 'boom-town' that had sprung up in the desert around a newly (at the time) discovered well near a busy caravan crossroad. The native rock in that area was a type of porous volcanic rock that had been scorched in it's formation by natural volcanic processes. And this was gathered up and used to built the structures of the town even though it was a poor building material. The townsfolk gathered it from miles around and used it to build all their structures, anyway. Also, they weren't professional builders, and their structures were weak because the town grew so quickly to accommodate the huge increase in commerce.

Naturally, such a boom-town would have gained a reputation for being somewhat lawless, and "immoral". What boom-town isn't characterized by prostitution, gambling, alcohol abuse, and thievery? But it didn't last very long, because as the number of people living and visiting there increased, they drew more and more heavily from the town's well, and they had to dig deeper and deeper into the ground to get water, until the well finally became a giant sink-hole and it collapsed. Part of the town fell into the hole, some of the remaining town collapsed from the movement of the sandy ground around it, and the remaining structures were soon abandoned as there was no more water to be had, there, and without water, no more reason for the town to exist. The town was soon reclaimed by the desert, leaving behind piles of scorched rocks and bits of broken human structures behind to tell it's tale. And not much else.

As the caravans continued to pass the place by, and the memory of what had happened there dimmed, a legend grew among the nomads of how this town that had been destroyed by an act of God, for it's amoral behavior. And the scorched rocks led them to believe that God had rained down fire and brimstone from the sky, as the earth trembled, and the town was swallowed up and knocked flat.

As legends go that one was fairly accurate, except for the fire and brimstone falling from the sky, part, and the part of about it being a deliberate punishment from God. As it was, in fact, the result of the resident's own greed and stupidity that had exhausted the well and destroyed the town.

Are you making that up? Maybe you are referring to one of the several proposed Sodom sites that lack evidence. Consider reading about the archaeology done at Tall-el-Hammam proving it is the Biblical Sodom, and proving Sodom and surrounding cities were destroyed by a heat event. See page 12 of the linked document:

http://www.tallelhammam.com/uploads/TeHEP-SEASON_SIX_2011_REPORT.pdf

 

[PureX]

Are you making that up? Maybe you are referring to one of the several proposed Sodom sites that lack evidence. Consider reading about the archaeology done at Tall-el-Hammam proving it is the Biblical Sodom, and proving Sodom and surrounding cities were destroyed by a heat event. See page 12 of the linked document:

http://www.tallelhammam.com/uploads/TeHEP-SEASON_SIX_2011_REPORT.pdf

I'm not going to argue phony facts with you. There is no convincing evidence anywhere on the planet to verify supernatural phenomena. The documentary I saw was from 20 years ago, and was very professional and believable. They tracked the story through the Koran, instead of the Bible, because they determined that they were essentially the same mythic story, and the Koran's version gave more detail. When they actually found the site, the people living nearby still knew it was the place associated with the story. And the archeologists dug up part of the well and one of the nearby structures to determine what had happened.

It's a classic example of how actual events can come to represent an ideal, and thus become mythic, or legendary. That's what myths and legends are about: representing ideals through stories of supposed heroic or supernatural events. Their telling is not intended to convey the facts, but to convey the ideal. And the facts become exaggerated and manipulated as the story is told and retold, to better convey the ideal. Every time a caravan passed by that site, they would tell their children of it's destruction, by God, for the townspeople's immoral behavior, as a story-lesson. Eventually, the site's location was lost to the changes of history, but the story was written down and passed on. Until only the people living nearby knew where the site was. And even they only knew by local legend. And yet everyone had heard or read the story. And a version of it ended up in both the Bible and the Koran, because it was an excellent story-lesson on immorality and the wrath of God.

 

[elohiym]

I'm not going to argue phony facts with you.

But that's exactly what you are doing, only it's you providing the phony facts and assumptions about Sodom.

There is no convincing evidence anywhere on the planet to verify supernatural phenomena.

Who knows what you mean by "convincing evidence" and "supernatural phenomena?" You can't even tell me who/what you think God is?

The documentary I saw was from 20 years ago, and was very professional and believable.

You saw a television documentary twenty years ago that convinced you they actually found Sodom and it's destruction was a myth. In light of that you think the professional archeologists at the Tall el-Hammam Excavation Project are presenting "phony facts?"

They tracked the story through the Koran, instead of the Bible, because they determined that they were essentially the same mythic story, and the Koran's version gave more detail.

:doh: The story in Genesis was written long before the Quran existed.

When they actually found the site, the people living nearby still knew it was the place associated with the story.

The same can be said for another proposed site of Sodom. Without archeological evidence that corroborates the biblical narrative, it could just be a local people wanting a tourist economy.

And the archeologists dug up part of the well and one of the nearby structures to determine what had happened.

Doesn't sound like they did much. You can't compare your television documentary to the Tall el-Hammam Excavation Project, which is supported by two U.S. universities and the Jordanian government.

It's a classic example of how actual events can come to represent an ideal, and thus become mythic, or legendary.

That's what you have done! The actual event was the television documentary experience you had twenty years ago, and it came to represent the ideal of the Sodom story you have; hence the story of Sodom became mythic to you and those you influence. You are trying to spread that myth on this thread.

Their telling is not intended to convey the facts, but to convey the ideal. And the facts become exaggerated and manipulated as the story is told and retold, to better convey the ideal. Every time a caravan passed by that site, they would tell their children of it's destruction, by God, for the townspeople's immoral behavior, as a story-lesson. Eventually, the site's location was lost to the changes of history, but the story was written down and passed on. Until only the people living nearby knew where the site was. And even they only knew by local legend. And yet everyone had heard or read the story. And a version of it ended up in both the Bible and the Koran, because it was an excellent story-lesson on immorality and the wrath of God.

You're creating mythology.

Read the reports and other publications from the Tall el-Hammam Excavation Project if you want to discuss this rationally.

 

[Eric h]

It is more important for me to think of forces like love and see that there is a higher force like God.

If you were searching for a greatest purpose for the universe to exist, could it be that God loves us as he loves himself?

Can God create anything greater than children in his own image?
Can God love us more than he loves himself?

We are given the greatest commandments, could they be greatest because they had a greatest meaning for God first?

the arguments for him can be abstract.

Agreed.

 

[PureX]

Then what is God Almighty in your opinion?

God is the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists. Therefor, I believe that God is being expressed in my human experience of existence as life, love, and forgiveness; kindness and generosity. We humans are both the manifestations of, and the recipients of that divine love that's being expressed through us. (And to some degree through everything around us, too.)

 

[annabenedetti]

Are you making that up? Maybe you are referring to one of the several proposed Sodom sites that lack evidence. Consider reading about the archaeology done at Tall-el-Hammam proving it is the Biblical Sodom, and proving Sodom and surrounding cities were destroyed by a heat event. See page 12 of the linked document:

http://www.tallelhammam.com/uploads/TeHEP-SEASON_SIX_2011_REPORT.pdf

I found nothing in that paper that claims to "prove" the site is the Biblical Sodom, perhaps you could point out what I may have overlooked that goes beyond theory.

 

[rako]

Jesus was Jew, preaching to other Jews. So he naturally spoke to them using such Judaic religious terminology. Jesus was not speaking those words to us because we were not there. And Jews then and now did not believe in the necessity of religious conversion. They have never been "evangelical". Not once did Jesus ever claim that anyone should become a Jew if they were not one.

OK, but he said things like people should follow the pharisees when they sit in Moses' chair. Another time it says he intentionally avoided interacting much closely with gentiles. I am not sure how much I support that, but he was definitely acting within a Judaic religious framework. And so, even if we were within that world and were Jewish, we can ask whether we support him saying this. In the synagogue Jesus read from the Tanakh, so he treated it like a holy religious book. It seems that religion was a big part of his mentality.

So I think you are wrong in assuming that his "message was focussed on his religion". It was focussed on his people, not on his religion. And, in fact, his message clashed with the religion of his people in several significant ways. Which is what got him killed.

It's true that he clashed with the establishment and the teachings, but this was still within his own religion. When he gave the Sermon on the Mount, he was making his own religion in a way, with his own teachings and he had his own disciples. He gave apocalyptic predictions like he was a religious prophet.

I don't think his message clashed with Judaism in his own mind, but clearly, it did in the minds of the religious leaders of his time, and in the minds of many of his fellow Jews, too.

Yes. He had his own religious teachings that clashed with them, like suggesting that he was divine and could forgive sins and raise up people himself, despite being not recognized by them as a holy elder or whatever.

So I see no reason whatever for me, a non-Jew living two centuries later, to be concerned in any way for Jesus' use if Judaic religious terminology. It was simply the language of his time and place. And I don't speak it, nor see any need to learn how.

It wasn't just their terminology, but real ideas that he quoted from their religious writings like the Psalms.

Also, please TRY to keep in mind that what we are reading is a legendary story, and is not an actual account of reality. Everything Jesus is purported to have said and done is just that: purported to have been said and done by people who were not there at the time.

John the Disciple was there and provided the foundation for the Book of John. James and Peter wrote epistles and were close to Jesus.

There are not "all the gospel stories". There is only one story. Three of the gospels are copies of that one lost anonymous gospel text, and the forth is an interpretation of it or of a similar text. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that these stories are four different stories written by four different eye-witnesses. And they are not. They are one story that was told and written down by a later generation of "believers".

There are plenty of diverse stories. I think they came from more than one witness.

Jesus had become a legend by the time those texts were written. Thus, they contain the same bias and exaggeration that all legends contain (like the legend of George Washington never telling a lie, and throwing a dollar across the Potomac River).

If the story about throwing the dollar was passed around by the US founding fathers within 40 years or so of Washington's death, the analogy would hold. Common people would often start to imagine that Washington did not tell political lies if that's what the foundational leadership put in their official documents. you could make the case that G.Washington _presented_ himself as totally honest.

Yes, and those biases made their way into the legend of Jesus of Nazareth, effecting it greatly. To the point of making him out to be the Jewish "Messiah"

Or he actually made those claims like the other Messianic claimants from the Messianic era. That is totally expectable based on the time period, and it is reflected in the stories, and there is not really any explicit evidence to think that Jesus didn't imagine that he was the Messiah.

Rather what seems to be happening is that skeptics don't think that Jesus was Messianic, and then they conclude based on their own beliefs about his real status that he didn't portray himself that way. But this of course is very weak reasoning as I explained before.

It seems likely to me, from reading the story, that Jesus was very careful NOT to proclaim himself the Jewish "Messiah", or "God", while simultaneously trying to convey the idea of our spiritual kinship with our Divine Creator.

He did have to be careful not to make it too obvious or else the Romans would kill him this way. But there are enough quotes that he did say that He was occasionally during his ministry.

I believe that he believed that he was speaking and acting as God's human representative, and that the salvation of the Jews, and of all of us, was not this sword-weilding Messiah that the Jews were waiting for, but the spirit of brotherly love, and forgiveness, and kindness and generosity that he was trying to exemplify, and did exemplify in so many ways and instances, even in the face of derision, humiliation, torture and death.

Jesus happened to be a Jew, preaching to his fellow Jews. But ultimately his message was for everyone. And so was his promise of salvation through that divine spirit of love acting within us, to each other, to heal us and save us from ourselves. This isn't a Jewish religious message and promise, and I don't need to be a religious Jew to understand it, and believe in it.

Sure, I can agree with you that these are valuable parts of the message, and I understand your strong skepticism of the claimed extreme miracles. But this does not suggest to me that Jesus never said or proposed the kind of extreme miracles and theologies that you are so skeptical about.

It reminds me a bit of proposing that Joseph Smith, Muhammed and Buddha didn't make up or propose the doctrines or miracle claims that we disagree with and that these must instead have just been made up by their followers.

In Islam, the Quran has a passage with a somewhat ambiguous reference to the moon being split in relation to Muhammed as a miracle. (Splitting of the Moon) Later writers in Islam claimed that this was a miracle where the moon actually appeared to be split in half. Personally, I tend to think that the Muslim writers correctly understood and described what Muhammed described about the moon - even though I don't think the moon really split.

Peace.

 

[rako]

My point is about people who believe in an invisible deity with no evidence while not believing the miracles performed by that invisible deity because of a lack of evidence. PureX and you both fit that description, right?

In the case of the broad concept of God there is a general set of evidence, like love and power, for a higher being.

In the case of Jesus' resurrection, a specific act in a point in time, there is evidence, but there is comparable, if not greater, counterevidence.

My assumption is that all people who call themselves Christian believe in an invisible deity they cannot prove exists, that they have faith exists.

Your argument amounts to God exists because love exists so you believe you can make abstract arguments to prove God's existence. That's not really saying much, frankly.

Suit yourself. You can have your own opinion. I think there are higher forces and principles.

My argument about an alleged Biblical event was based on archeological evidence that suggests the story of Israelites at Mt. Horeb is true to some extent.

There is no archeological result showing directly paranormal forces. Gods existence and the Torah's existence don't prove it either.