Atheism (3)

[Dave Ellis]

self-fulfilling? So the nation of Israel, and millions of people look on that prophecy as fulfilled and they are believing a self fulfilled prophecy? If I were told that the sky was full of strange objects by millions of people, I would at least look at the sky to see what they are saying. You are in denial because if you were to at least take a look you would be admitting that just maybe there is something to look at.

If you have a bunch of people who believe that the rebirth of Israel will bring about the second coming of their God, and eventual rapture/paradise, etc... And those people have the actual ability to create a state of Israel, guess what they'll be inclined to do? It may not even be a conscious effort, but would be something any Christian would have an inclination to do.

 

[TScott]

The problem is, is that even biblical scholars agree the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, or people that had ever met Jesus. They are not reliable sources, which is why we'd need extra-biblical evidence to verify what they wrote.

That depends on what you want to consider reliable, in this case. It's more than probable that the followers of Jesus didn't write. I think that people nowadays think in todays terms in such matters. In first c. Galilee everyday life would seem very alien to us today. In first c. Judea writing and reading were a rarity among the poor. In rural villiages maybe only the elders would be able to read, and would have posession of any reading matterial, usually scriptural. Galilee was even less literate, it was definitely outside the mainstream.

But the point of all this is that the main form of communication was word of mouth. All news was transmitted that way, and in the case of the Jesus figure, during his lifetime and probably for nearly a generation after all information concerning him was transmitted by word of mouth. This is a knife that cuts two ways. One way we know that details can change as stories pass from one person to the next, especially descriptive stories about people and events. The other way is about how parables, and homilies are passed on by word of mouth. In the cases of these stories it is not the details that are important; the individual words, but the meanings and the lessons. The actual wording, as we see from the gospels and from some of the Apochripha, varies but the general lessons don't.

Many of the Biblical Scholars you refer to will tell you that it is these stories that are the best evidence for an historical Jesus.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Mnay of the Biblical Scholars you refer to will tell you that it is these stories that are the best evidence for an historical Jesus.

If that's the best evidence for an historical Jesus, there's not much evidence at all. The stories could very well have a single source, but it doesn't have to be anyone even remotely like Jesus. It could just be some rabbi who had a life very different from the one Jesus was supposed to live.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dave Ellis]

Okay, now you're simply interpreting what you wish to hear, when it comes to the virgin terminology. Is Jesus ever directly called Immanuel?


What about Damascus?

What about the Nile?

What about circumcised people?

Please, don't act as though I know nothing about the bible. My attitude on this is incredibly apathetic because of the attitude that I'm aware you will respond with - hence why I posted a link instead of searching for articles.

Well, I think it's quite clear there was a mix-up on the Birth Certificate... Obviously the guy at the local office must have been a bad office temp and wrote down "Immanuel" instead of "Jesus"!

Or maybe Jesus was his middle name, and just preferred to go with that over his given name of Immanuel, making his actual name I. Jesus Christ. Maybe he didn't like the idea of people in the future referring to him as Manny Christ. Makes him sound more like a guy that harvests beans in Mexico rather than the Messiah.

See, there's a number of rational explanations!

And I may add, they're both more plausible than the Christian ones!!

 

[TScott]

If that's the best evidence for an historical Jesus, there's not much evidence at all. The stories could very well have a single source...

I think that was the point. And whether you (are you a scholar?) feel it's good evidence or not, isn't relevent. The whole point is that when you are trying to piece together people and events from this time in history many times you have to rely somewhat on what was written later and sometimes that has to be based on oral tradition. We know very little about 1st c. Galilee and what little we do know is not first hand information.

 

[Dave Ellis]

That depends on what you want to consider reliable, in this case. It's more than probable that the followers of Jesus didn't write. I think that people nowadays think in todays terms in such matters. In first c. Galilee everyday life would seem very alien to us today. In first c. Judea writing and reading were a rarity among the poor. In rural villiages maybe only the elders would be able to read, and would have posession of any reading matterial, usually scriptural. Galilee was even less literate, it was definitely outside the mainstream.

But the point of all this is that the main form of communication was word of mouth. All news was transmitted that way, and in the case of the Jesus figure, during his lifetime and probably for nearly a generation after all information concerning him was transmitted by word of mouth. This is a knife that cuts two ways. One way we know that details can change as stories pass from one person to the next, especially descriptive stories about people and events. The other way is about how parables, and homilies are passed on by word of mouth. In the cases of these stories it is not the details that are important; the individual words, but the meanings and the lessons. The actual wording, as we see from the gospels and from some of the Apochripha, varies but the general lessons don't.

Many of the Biblical Scholars you refer to will tell you that it is these stories that are the best evidence for an historical Jesus.

I totally agree, however... if you're basing your holy book on stories that were passed around for the better part of a century by word of mouth before anyone wrote them down, they can't be considered historically accurate, or reliable.

It would automatically make the most plausible explanation for every miracle claim and prophecy the idea that it was all made up and exaggerated.

For example, if there was a real Jesus (Meaning a 1st century preacher). It's quite possible his followers were without food for a couple days, and he went fishing, had a good day on the lake, picked up some bread and was able to feed them all. Give that a couple decades of dramatization through word of mouth, and all of a sudden he's miraculously feeding the entire town with a loaf of bread and some fish.

By the time the Gospels were written, 50-100 years later Jesus could have been some kind of 1st century equivalent to Paul Bunyan or Big Joe Mufferaw. However, taken in a religious context, he would have gone from an influential preacher to a miracle worker, and even later than that, the Messiah. (Note: Jesus was not considered to be the son of God until the council of Nicaea voted on the issue in 325AD... and even at that it was a close vote. Prior to that, Jesus was considered to be a "mere mortal" like us.)

There are some good messages in the Bible, but there are plenty of bad ones too. I agree we should keep the good messages, however the superstition and bad messages should be thrown in the trash. Anyone with a hint of knowledge regarding how the bible was compiled and the how the early church worked knows that there is no way you can take the teachings seriously from a divine perspective.

Lastly, you are also correct that they serve as the pest evidence for a historical Jesus, as there really isn't anything else.... Unfortunately, these documents aren't reliable either.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I think that was the point. And whether you (are you a scholar?) feel it's good evidence or not, isn't relevent. The whole point is that when you are trying to piece together people and events from this time in history many times you have to rely somewhat on what was written later and sometimes that has to be based on oral tradition. We know very little about 1st c. Galilee and what little we do know is not first hand information.

The problem is we can't accept claims that a man walked on water, or healed lepers, or rose from the dead based on Oral Tradition. It's simply not reliable evidence.

We would need hard proof to accept claims like that. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[SaraJarvis]

Well, I think it's quite clear there was a mix-up on the Birth Certificate... Obviously the guy at the local office must have been a bad office temp and wrote down "Immanuel" instead of "Jesus"!

Or maybe Jesus was his middle name, and just preferred to go with that over his given name of Immanuel, making his actual name I. Jesus Christ. Maybe he didn't like the idea of people in the future referring to him as Manny Christ. Makes him sound more like a guy that harvests beans in Mexico rather than the Messiah.

See, there's a number of rational explanations!

And I may add, they're both more plausible than the Christian ones!!

Haha! I'm going to go with the latter idea! He does come across as a bit stroppy (knocking over all of those tables in the temple, psht), so I wouldn't put it past him!

 

[SaraJarvis]

Is Jesus ever directly called Immanuel?

OK, it is important that when we study scripture we study verse within context. Verse reveals verse So when you read in Matthew 1:22-25.


"So the Lord's promise came true, just as the prophet had said, A virgin will have a baby boy, and he will be called Immanuel, which means "God with us" After Joseph woke up, he and Mary were soon married, just as the Lord's angel had told him to do. But they did not sleep together before her baby was born. Then Joseph named him Jesus. So yes, The name Jesus and Immanuel are directly connected. To study a book doesn't mean you have to agree with its content. But to be scholarly and be able to state your beliefs and opinions with any credibility then studying and knowing your subject of disagreement is a must. I have been studying the bible for a long time and have to tell you, the more I learn the more I realize that I don't know much. But I'm trying and studying so in that fact it makes what I do know present me as credible. If your attitude is one of being apathetic because of the attitude I will respond with then I need to clarify. I respond with good intention as to what knowledge I have concerning the bible. I'm trying to tell you how to study it in order to understand what is written in it.

I'm a Literature PhD student, I know how to study a book.

The statement is still wrong. It was stated that he would be called Immanuel. He was called Jesus. So you're telling me that it's some kind of metaphor, right? If so, that is only -your- interpretation of it. That does not mean that it is correct. One cannot take a metaphor and say "this is absolutely, 100% correct".

For example, Camille Paglia stated that the rope attached from the ship The Pequod to the whaling boats, in Moby-Dick, was a metaphor for an umbilical chord. Now, this is a clever idea, and within a Freudian reading of the text it's very believable - however, that does not mean that she is correct. That is simply her opinion and nothing more. Many academics laughed at her for this idea, and few people agreed. Mainly because she had no evidence to back up her claims. Another critic was insistent that Moby-Dick was a critique of slavery, and that Captain Ahab was black, as was Ishmael, because Ahab was described as being tanned and Ishmael got on with black characters in the book. This was also ridiculed because Ahab's skin was bound to be weather beaten and tanned; he'd been at sea in harsh conditions for years, while Ishmael was simply a kind man, and respected others - had he been black then he would not have been given kind treatment in the inn. Again, this was simply opinion and there was no credible evidence. The same goes for your "Immanuel" argument.

See what I mean about reading into things that just aren't there? Ideas are all very nice, but if you want people to take your metaphor idea seriously, then you need proof - not simply an agreement with others who hold the same beliefs.

 

[trientje]

If you have a bunch of people who believe that the rebirth of Israel will bring about the second coming of their God, and eventual rapture/paradise, etc... And those people have the actual ability to create a state of Israel, guess what they'll be inclined to do? It may not even be a conscious effort, but would be something any Christian would have an inclination to do.

So millions of people are just delusional and wanting to believe that Exekiel was fulfilled so the saviour will come back? Really? And the small percentage of atheists in the world have it right? Really? REALLY????? Does your reasoning not seem silly?

 

[trientje]

I totally agree, however... if you're basing your holy book on stories that were passed around for the better part of a century by word of mouth before anyone wrote them down, they can't be considered historically accurate, or reliable.

It would automatically make the most plausible explanation for every miracle claim and prophecy the idea that it was all made up and exaggerated.

For example, if there was a real Jesus (Meaning a 1st century preacher). It's quite possible his followers were without food for a couple days, and he went fishing, had a good day on the lake, picked up some bread and was able to feed them all. Give that a couple decades of dramatization through word of mouth, and all of a sudden he's miraculously feeding the entire town with a loaf of bread and some fish.

By the time the Gospels were written, 50-100 years later Jesus could have been some kind of 1st century equivalent to Paul Bunyan or Big Joe Mufferaw. However, taken in a religious context, he would have gone from an influential preacher to a miracle worker, and even later than that, the Messiah. (Note: Jesus was not considered to be the son of God until the council of Nicaea voted on the issue in 325AD... and even at that it was a close vote. Prior to that, Jesus was considered to be a "mere mortal" like us.)

There are some good messages in the Bible, but there are plenty of bad ones too. I agree we should keep the good messages, however the superstition and bad messages should be thrown in the trash. Anyone with a hint of knowledge regarding how the bible was compiled and the how the early church worked knows that there is no way you can take the teachings seriously from a divine perspective.

Lastly, you are also correct that they serve as the pest evidence for a historical Jesus, as there really isn't anything else.... Unfortunately, these documents aren't reliable either.

Says who? You?

 

[quatona]

So millions of people are just delusional and wanting to believe that Exekiel was fulfilled so the saviour will come back? Really?

Self-fulfilling prophecies have nothing to do with anyone being delusional. They really come true.

And the small percentage of atheists in the world have it right? Really? REALLY?????

No, that wouldn´t be the conclusion if it were shown that Ezekiel was a self-fulfilling prophecy. Whether atheists have it right or not is a completely different matter.

Does your reasoning not seem silly?

In the way you misrepresent it: Yes, it is quite silly.

 

[Dave Ellis]

So millions of people are just delusional and wanting to believe that Exekiel was fulfilled so the saviour will come back? Really? And the small percentage of atheists in the world have it right? Really? REALLY????? Does your reasoning not seem silly?

Actually, the majority of the world's population would agree the prophecy of Ezekiel, and people that believe in it are silly.

Christians make up less than a third of the world's population. So I would advise against using the appeal to popularity fallacy to make your point. Most people don't agree with you, or your holy book.

 

[trientje]

I'm a Literature PhD student, I know how to study a book.

The statement is still wrong. It was stated that he would be called Immanuel. He was called Jesus. So you're telling me that it's some kind of metaphor, right? If so, that is only -your- interpretation of it. That does not mean that it is correct. One cannot take a metaphor and say "this is absolutely, 100% correct".

For example, Camille Paglia stated that the rope attached from the ship The Pequod to the whaling boats, in Moby-Dick, was a metaphor for an umbilical chord. Now, this is a clever idea, and within a Freudian reading of the text it's very believable - however, that does not mean that she is correct. That is simply her opinion and nothing more. Many academics laughed at her for this idea, and few people agreed. Mainly because she had no evidence to back up her claims. Another critic was insistent that Moby-Dick was a critique of slavery, and that Captain Ahab was black, as was Ishmael, because Ahab was described as being tanned and Ishmael got on with black characters in the book. This was also ridiculed because Ahab's skin was bound to be weather beaten and tanned; he'd been at sea in harsh conditions for years, while Ishmael was simply a kind man, and respected others - had he been black then he would not have been given kind treatment in the inn. Again, this was simply opinion and there was no credible evidence. The same goes for your "Immanuel" argument.

See what I mean about reading into things that just aren't there? Ideas are all very nice, but if you want people to take your metaphor idea seriously, then you need proof - not simply an agreement with others who hold the same beliefs.

Well Gee!!!! I'm only a nurse physician with a masters degree. I try to help people who are sick and I sit by their bedside when they are dying and crying out to God to forgive them and accept them into heaven. so I refer to you, seeing you have more education than me. So what about Matthew 1 18-25? Just how could it be re written to prove to you that Jesus is the Immanuel of Isaiah? By the way, you are studying for your PHD and know how to read a book. Have you read the bible?

 

[trientje]

Actually, the majority of the world's population would agree the prophecy of Ezekiel, and people that believe in it are silly.

Christians make up less than a third of the world's population. So I would advise against using the appeal to popularity fallacy to make your point. Most people don't agree with you, or your holy book.

Last time I looked there were more Christians than Atheists. But that's besides the point. I was trying to make the point that if there are many people believing the prophecy then wouldn't it warrant a good hard look?

 

[quatona]

Last time I looked there were more Christians than Atheists. But that's besides the point.

Exactly. Because for the bandwaggon fallacy you were employing the ratio Christians/non-Christians would be relevant.

I was trying to make the point that if there are many people believing the prophecy then wouldn't it warrant a good hard look?

Are you referring to people who believed in the prophecy before it was allegedly fulfilled, or are you referring to people who believe it has been fulfilled?
In the latter case: The good hard look is exactly what many posters here are taking. Unless by "good hard look" you mean "accepting it right away due to the fact that many believe it".

 

[TScott]

The problem is we can't accept claims that a man walked on water, or healed lepers, or rose from the dead based on Oral Tradition. It's simply not reliable evidence.

Yeah, thats what I said in my post. The stories, when passed on in oral tradition will take on a life of their own, thats a phenom we find in all religious writings. Many times religious books, especially among the hellenized Jews, were written in what some call "layers". Probably the only book of the New Testament that was written that way on purpose was Revelation. But many of the earliest books of the "Old Testament", the Pentateuch, were written in layers. One layer contains the magic and the ju-ju that is intended for the children and the casual, or simple, believers. The deeper layers are really meant for discussion among the elders; what is Man's role what is God's role, how do they interact; do they? The deepest layers are thought to contain information only for the writers. Secrets? Who knows. The DSS showed that some of the secrets hidden in the text had to do with the sects hiding places for their wealth and what have you.

But I think the role of oral tradition with the parables are much different. The intention is different. There need be no magic here, these are lessons, and it is the lessons that are important, not the magical details. When one reads the Parables one finds that they too can be used at different levels through convoluted interpretation, however the lessons stay the same simple and in many ways elegant.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Last time I looked there were more Christians than Atheists. But that's besides the point. I was trying to make the point that if there are many people believing the prophecy then wouldn't it warrant a good hard look?

Who cares?

And no, at one point the majority of the worlds population believed the world was flat. It didn't make them any more right either.

And again, it's laughable when any religion uses the argument from popularity fallacy, because every religion is in a minority when it comes to the world's population.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Yeah, thats what I said in my post. The stories, when passed on in oral tradition will take on a life of their own, thats a phenom we find in all religious writings. Many times religious books, especially among the hellenized Jews, were written in what some call "layers". Probably the only book of the New Testament that was written that way on purpose was Revelation. But many of the earliest books of the "Old Testament", the Pentateuch, were written in layers. One layer contains the magic and the ju-ju that is intended for the children and the casual, or simple, believers. The deeper layers are really meant for discussion among the elders; what is Man's role what is God's role, how do they interact; do they? The deepest layers are thought to contain information only for the writers. Secrets? Who knows. The DSS showed that some of the secrets hidden in the text had to do with the sects hiding places for their wealth and what have you.

But I think the role of oral tradition with the parables are much different. The intention is different. There need be no magic here, these are lessons, and it is the lessons that are important, not the magical details. When one reads the Parables one finds that they too can be used at different levels through convoluted interpretation, however the lessons stay the same simple and in many ways elegant.

Fair enough, that's quite reasonable.

It almost sounds like your bible would be the Jefferson Bible

 

[SaraJarvis]

Well Gee!!!! I'm only a nurse physician with a masters degree. I try to help people who are sick and I sit by their bedside when they are dying and crying out to God to forgive them and accept them into heaven. so I refer to you, seeing you have more education than me. So what about Matthew 1 18-25? Just how could it be re written to prove to you that Jesus is the Immanuel of Isaiah? By the way, you are studying for your PHD and know how to read a book. Have you read the bible?

I think you've misunderstood what I'm saying. You're telling me how to read a book - I'm stating that I know how to read a book, as that is my subject. Literature being the key word, PhD backing up the evidence that I know how to read it. If we were speaking of medicine, and I stated that you needed to learn how to use it, then you would tell me what you do. I am stating that I am aware that to read and analyse book, one must do so from an unbiased perspective, else the text becomes clouded. The bible is no exception. Why on earth are you getting so worked up?

Yes, I have stated repeatedly that I have read the bible.

You're missing my point. Did you not read the majority of my post, and just focus on the first line? What I'm saying is the explanation that you have just given is just YOUR interpretation. It is your interpretation of what you consider to be a metaphor. That does not make it correct. From my perspective, it is not a metaphor; it is a failed prophecy. The whole point of my last post was to explain how different people can interpret a text, and yet it does not make them correct. You cannot expect others to take an interpretation of what you consider a metaphor seriously, when there is a plethora of evidence saying otherwise. You have to offer proof. You cannot simply state "it just is", and expect people not to question you.