My Jesus Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Lots of people die for beliefs that both you and I consider false, all the time.
Or do you think the Saudis who flew passenger planes into the WTC towers are now enjoying the attention of houris in heaven?

If you think those pilots were martyred for their faith, I submit you don't know what a martyr is.

 

[Zoness]

If you think those pilots were martyred for their faith, I submit you don't know what a martyr is.

Definition of martyr notwithstanding I think the point that people die for beliefs we think are wrong, holds. It's shown to happen constantly.

 

[Zoness]

Lots of people die for beliefs that both you and I consider false, all the time.
Or do you think the Saudis who flew passenger planes into the WTC towers are now enjoying the attention of houris in heaven?
Do you think Joseph Smith went to his death for the Truth?
What about the followers of Mani, who kept loudly proclaiming that their founder was alive (Mani chai = Mani lives) even after the Persian king displayed his corpse and brought death to anyone who openly declared allegiance to the faith?

Even ideologies pretty much everyone considers (rightfully) despicable can produce uncompromising loyalty unto death: thousands upon thousands of young Germans died for the sake of the National Socialist world view, and even those who perpetuated it embraced it so wholeheartedly that they'd rather die (and kill their loved ones) than forsake it. When Goebbels and his wife realized that the war was lost, they wrote a letter declaring that they would not wish to live (or have their children live) in a world devoid of the ideals they held sacred, then proceeded to kill both their six children and themselves.

Her letter to her adult son (then in Canada) read as follows:
"[...]Unsere herrliche Idee geht zu Grunde, und mit ihr alles was ich Schönes, Bewundernswertes, Edles und Gutes in meinem Leben gekannt habe. Die Welt, die nach dem Führer und dem Nationalsozialismus kommt ist nicht mehr wert darin zu leben und deshalb habe ich auch die Kinder hierher mitgenommen. Sie sind zu schade für das nach uns kommende Leben und ein Gnädiger Gott wird mich verstehen, wenn ich selbst ihnen die Erlösung geben werde. [...] Wir haben nur noch ein Ziel: Treue bis in den Tod dem Führer."
(Translation: "Our glorious ideal is perishing, and with it everything that was beautiful, adorable, noble and good in my life. The world to come after the Fuhrer and National Socialism is not worth living in, and therefore I've also brought the children here [into the Bunker, to die]. They are too dear to continue in the coming era and a merciful God will understand, when I bring them salvation by my own hand. We've got but one goal left: devotion to the Fuhrer unto death.")

So you see, people dying for an idea(l) are hardly an argument for its veracity.

Besides, the borrowed elements were not plagiarized or deliberately added to deceive, but slowly made their way from one culture into the other, the way they usually do when people are in close contact with each other. None of the proto-Christians were the ones who borrowed them - that had happened centuries earlier, with Jewish folklore gradually adopting the image of an adversarial spritual entity.

I know it has nothing to do with anything but I'm happy with myself that I could still get the gist of Goebbels wife's correspondence auf Deutsch before reading the translation. I'm kind of inspired to dive back into the language but am hopelessly out of practice.

 

[AV1611VET]

Definition of martyr notwithstanding I think the point that people die for beliefs we think are wrong, holds. It's shown to happen constantly.

Same question then:

Did they then die martyrs' deaths, screaming:

WE WERE JUST KIDDING! WE BORROWED IT! WE THOUGHT THE JOKE WAS ON YOU!

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Same question then:

See above:
1. They were not the ones to borrow it.
2. The borrowing was not a process where individuals decided to deliberately promote falsehood , but a gradual influence and exchange of ideas - like Santeria in recent times.

 

[AV1611VET]

See above:
1. They were not the ones to borrow it.
2. The borrowing was not a process where individuals decided to deliberately promote falsehood , but a gradual influence and exchange of ideas - like Santeria in recent times.

Jane, according to Matthew's gospel, Herod was made to look like a laughingstock at times.

Matthew died for what he wrote.

Did Matthew just make all that up, then die a martyr's death thinking: THE JOKE'S ON YOU!?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Same question then:

See above:
1. They were not the ones to borrow it.
2. The borrowing was not a process where individuals decided to deliberately promote falsehood , but a gradual influence and exchange of ideas - like Santeria in recent times.

 

[Zoness]

Jane, according to Matthew's gospel, Herod was made to look like a laughingstock at times.

Matthew died for what he wrote.

Did Matthew just make all that up, then die a martyr's death thinking: THE JOKE'S ON YOU!?

Matthew probably died believing what he wrote. That doesn't speak to it's truth claims, though.

 

[AV1611VET]

Matthew probably died believing what he wrote.

And where did that info that he wrote come from?

That's the difference between what we believe and what others believe.

I can't believe Matthew spends three years walking and talking with THE Messiah, creator of Heaven and Earth, God in the flesh ... then goes and writes a work of fiction.

(And what did you mean by "probably died believing what he wrote"?)

Don't you know what a martyr is either?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Is the Biblical Jesus Christ a man-made invention?

I guess it depends on your definition of biblical Jesus. Some believe He was half man half God. Some believe He was just a prophet. Not God at all. Some believe He was created by God. Some believe He was a heretic. Then there are those of us who believe that He is fully man and fully God, who has always been God, and is the creator of everything. Most people believe these things about Him according to the Bible.

 

[Zoness]

And where did that info that he wrote come from?

That's the difference between what we believe and what others believe.

I can't believe Matthew spends three years walking and talking with THE Messiah, creator of Heaven and Earth, God in the flesh ... then goes and writes a work of fiction.

Good question is to where it came from. I assume if it was ever factual (which I am doubtful of), it was severely embellished upon or downright fabricated in parts.

I see why you feel that way, you've already concluded Christianity is true so any information to the contrary has to be rejected categorically. We differ in even basic premise, you automatically assume that he walked with a god so why would he lie? Good point, if you already believed in that god.

If you don't believe in that god, then why would you believe the claim that he walked with god? Lots of people make similar claims.

Lots of people write things they believe sincerely. Do you believe someone if they said they were visited by aliens who gave them all the secrets of the universe? What if they wrote about it extensively?

(And what did you mean by "probably died believing what he wrote"?)

Don't you know what a martyr is either?

I think you're reading too much into my choice of words; I used it because I don't know what he actually believed in his head and I wasn't present at his death.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think you're reading too much into my choice of words; I used it because I don't know what he actually believed in his head and I wasn't present at his death.

If I read Jane's post right, Matthew "borrowed" his facts from Zoroastrianism, then refused to recant.

Meaning Matthew was martyred a Zoroastrian, not a Christian.

Or something like that.

I'm not sure what she said.

If someone has to stoop to bringing Zoroastrianism into the picture, then I'd say they're pretty desperate.

 

[Zoness]

If I read Jane's post right, Matthew "borrowed" his facts from Zoroastrianism, then refused to recant.

Meaning Matthew was martyred a Zoroastrian, not a Christian.

Or something like that.

I'm not sure what she said.

If someone has to stoop to bringing Zoroastrianism into the picture, then I'd say they're pretty desperate.

Oh, I was making my own separate point about why I would be skeptical of the gospels. With regard to Zoroastrianism, I'll leave that to Jane as I do not have the relevant info.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, I was making my own separate point about why I would be skeptical of the gospels. With regard to Zoroastrianism, I'll leave that to Jane as I do not have the relevant info.

Okay, sorry about that.

My bad.

 

[Zoness]

Okay, sorry about that.

My bad.

No harm done

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

If I read Jane's post right, Matthew "borrowed" his facts from Zoroastrianism, then refused to recant.

Wrong.
SInce I already explained it, this misrepresentation seems deliberate.

Let's recap the timeline:
Zoroastrian elements begin to filter into Jewish folklore several centuries BCE, as evidenced by apocryphal OT texts such as the book of Enoch and a marked change in Talmudic commentaries. (Earliest discussions treat the serpent in Eden as a literal snake. Only later does it become equated with an "evil one".
By the time Christianity started, they were one among many groups who embraced these elements ,whereas Rabbinical Judaism would go on to reject them as much as possible. (There's no "war in Heaven" in Judaism, and Satan is a loyal angel.)

 

[the iconoclast]

Zoroastrian elements begin to filter into Jewish folklore several centuries BCE, as evidenced by apocryphal OT texts such as the book of Enoch and a marked change in Talmudic commentaries.

Hey hey jane

Did you read my reply to you?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Hey hey jane

Did you read my reply to you?

I did, and my answer to that can be gleaned from the very post you quoted:
We can reconstruct when these elements appeared where, and who borrowed from whom. If you acknowledge the findings of philology in relation to Zoroastrianism in order to make your case ,you'd also have to acknowledge them in relation to the Jewish and Christian scriptures.
Which is to say: we've got proof that the "war in heaven" did not originate in Judaism. There's a good chance that angels didn't, either.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

With an omnipotent, singular (or triune) deity, the very concept of a war in heaven becomes nonsensical, as the Rabbinical Jews realized. You basically pointed it out yourself, iconoclast: any act of Satan can only happen with God's permission, so the very concept of "rebelling against god" becomes anathema. God could undo or prevent any damage effortlessly, and any damage that DOES happen takes place with the deity's knowledge and consent.

 

[AV1611VET]

Zoroastrian elements begin to filter into Jewish folklore several centuries BCE,

What does this have to do with Matthew?

That's like saying a boy scout troop snuck into the White House and ransacked the place.

Any "elements" that tried to filter in to the Jewish camp would have been documented by God; and I don't see Zoroastrianism anywhere in there.

God had checkpoints ... like the SHEMA ... in place to keep that from happening.

For example, if you read Leviticus 10, you'll see that any attempts to change the ingredients used in the making of incense would cost the priests their lives.

Read Ezekiel 8.

Nothing got past God, who documented even what they were doing in secret.

Ezekiel 8:6 He said furthermore unto me, Son of man, seest thou what they do? even the great abominations that the house of Israel committeth here, that I should go far off from my sanctuary? but turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations.

Their shenanigans were documented for all the earth to read and understand that nothing happens without God's knowledge.

I'll give you credit for saying these elements filtered into their folklore ... not their [religion] ... but big deal.

Folklore is defined as "a body of popular myths."

No ... any attempts to sneak Zoroaster into their mindsets would have been documented -- and Matthew would have read about it.