(Follower;60302)
A band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced [c] my hands and my feet. I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing. Yeah, I can see how when those "evil men" are made into metaphorical beasts how these words become so meaningless as to applicable to just about anyone, like kids on a school playground. As you said, "If you take it as a metaphor, I guess it can apply to [Jesus]. But it can also apply then to anyone who is suffering, so you've destroyed its power as a prophecy. If bulls can be enemies, then a little teenager at school can see that as his bullies."
Fine. Okay. You win on this point. I will concede that we can say that the bulls are metaphor, but the band of evil men, and the casting lots, etc. are all literal.But you need to show me two things: a) why we should take this as a prophecy at all, instead of what it appears to be - a psalm about a suffering man, and
how you know that Mark didn't just creatively squeeze in these details about Jesus to make him fit this supposed "prophecy".(Follower;60302)
I'm not assuming that Jesus performed miracles. Remember, you were saying that the NT was written after 70AD and I was pointing out how absurd that is. For the books of the NT to leave out the destruction of the Temple would be like a collection of books on terrorism to discuss the Twin Towers without mentioning 9/11. To Jews and Christians, the destruction of the Temple is
more significant than 9/11 to America! (BTW, Paul who wrote a big chuck of the NT, wrote to established churches, and he died before 70AD.)
So when Jesus tells people to look at the Temple and then says that "not one stone will be left on top of another", this is not a reference to the destruction of the temple? Oh wait, no it's just a prophecy. Okay, so here we go, let's examine this. The gospels were (obviously) either written before or after 70 AD. If they were written before this time, then Jesus spoke prophecies. If they were written after, it was likely a Christian interpolation, making it look like Jesus predicted such an event. It could still possibly be the case that he gave a prophecy, but we wouldn't know without further information. And where do we find said further information? Well, as you mentioned, Paul lived and died before 70 AD, and none of his writings mention anything about the Temple at all. He never indicates that there was a rumour going around that Jesus had made a prediction of the destruction of the Temple, and so it was to be expected. Certainly this does not prove anything, but it certainly doesn't disprove any theory. At best, we can only shrug our shoulders on this issue and say, "I dunno." But in the absence of any other evidence, it seems more reasonable to assume that people wrote these predictions in, rather than a person having a supernatural ability to predict the future.Oh, and my view is at least consistent with the majority of biblical scholarship on the issue. Doesn't make it right, but it at least makes it more reasonable to believe.(Follower;60302)
You argument would have to be that there is a huge conspiracy by the early Christians to avoid not only manufacturing Jesus's prophecy of the destruction of the Temple, but to refrain from the instant gratification of gloating over the fulfillment of that prophesy. To you, the authors of the Gospels are master con-men.
It did not have to be a conspiracy, nor "huge" either. Legends grow with the telling, and in the pluralistic society that was the Roman empire, religions often "competed" with each other, trying to "outdo" each other. "Yeah, well my Jesus can beat up your Mithras." If you are already convinced that Jesus is the Messiah, what difference does it make to a person with no written authority to fact-check whether you add in a story about him predicting the Temple? As I mentioned earlier, people in that day and age often just made stuff up. Seriously. This is a notable fact about that day and age, and it's why even noted historians of the time period are still taken with a grain of salt. People made up whole speeches that they thought the person would be "likely to say". That's how you get historians writing down supposed "word for word" accounts of what someone said...100 years earlier. There was no way for them to know, but they made it up anyway.The reason you view this theory that I'm presenting as a "conspiracy" is because you are interjecting your modern mindset into their situation. People were more concerned about "truth" than "fact", if you understand what I'm saying. In their day and age, if you had a great figure that you wanted to talk about, you started telling stories about how grand they were - and yes, sometimes those stories were just made up. Or passed on from earlier people who had gotten it from earlier people, etc. It's just the way things were done back then. The problem is that we go and look at the gospel accounts from our modern, literate, post-printing-press mindset and interpret them as being a play-by-play narrative of Jesus's life.(Follower;60302)
You further argue that the Jews just ignored Christians. Those underground churches that archaeologists have dug up are just because the Christians liked to meet in holes in the ground, not because anyone was bothering them. The Talmud's anti-Christian vitriol which contains condemnations of Jesus and gloating over Jews killing Jesus doesn't imply any sort of hostility the Jews would have had over a growing blasphemous cult.
You know what, as this is not my area of expertise, I will concede this point, alright? Will that make you happy?
Either way, the existence of persecution does not make a belief true. I hope you at least agree with that statement.(Follower;60302)
And, of course, the records of the various saints being murdered for their beliefs is all fabricated, with the accused culprits never so much as lifting a finger to say it's not true.
Again, I'll concede it, but with a note that we must be careful not to assume that the "accused culprits" never did lift a finger as you say. Christianity has burned much of the "heretical" material over the years that we might find useful to give a less biased opinion of these matters. It's quite possible that the Jews did vehemently deny it, but their work was burned. But either way, as I said, persecution does not imply truth.(Follower;60302)
The majesty of the universe doesn't convince you, but a psychotic episode would convince you of what is written in the Bible?
Majesty is in the eye of the beholder. As far as Jesus appearing to me, you seem to automatically assume that it's a psychotic episode yourself. Wouldn't a Christian, whose entire faith is based on a series of appearances to the disciples as well as Paul, be more trusting of such experiences? But as for me, as I mentioned, I've never had such an experience. If it were to suddenly happen, it would be much more convincing, and even more so if I had just prayed a prayer asking for him to appear to me. True, I would not be able to know for sure - but that is the standard that I have set for myself. I work upon reasonable certainty, and I am telling you that yes, if I had such an experience, I would,
at the very least, be seriously reconsidering the conclusions I've reached. If not re-converting on the spot.(Follower;60302)
Yeah, if a cult doesn't get fire bombed in self-loathing, liberal America, it sure isn't going to get fire-bombed in a theocratic culture controlled by primitive religious zealots. And, anyone who makes claims to the contrary is a liar, or just amazingly mistaken.
It's important to remember that Palestine was not a "theocratic culture controlled by primitive religious zealots." There were certainly areas of Palestine that were more religiously charged than others, but on the whole, it operated much like the rest of the Roman empire did - pluralistically. There were many cities in Palestine that were built by the Romans, and they were generally very tolerant of religions. There were large populations of Jews living outside of Palestine as well, and they were tolerated out there, too. And Rome tended to keep a pretty tight lid on zealots and rebels - they were free to believe whatever they wanted, as long as they didn't try to upset the peace or topple the government. That's when they were viciously brought to their knees. The empire was very much a place of "don't step on my toes, and I won't step on yours."(Follower;60302)
Jim Jones decided to build his own Socialist Paradise where he would have all the wealth and a lot of concubines. I can see how you think he was keeping the faith in the face of persecution, even though you don't think cults ever face more than a few exposés (which the Jews forgot to write in the days of the early Christian cult).
Let's try to cut the sarcasm, out, shall we? Despite the fact that we certainly don't agree, I think that we should still be able to have a civil and reasonable discussion. As for cult leaders, I can't stress enough that the best cult leaders are the ones that are themselves deluded. They have a higher rate of experiences which they take as "religious" - visions, dreams, hallucinations, voices, whatever - and then they try to make sense of it. When this is combined with charisma and charm, you've got yourself prime cult leader material. And along with that, the principal way to help a cult grow in cohesiveness is to claim that they are being persecuted. Then, when you start breaking the laws (by sexually abusing people, defrauding people of their money, or whatever), it simply confirms your suspicions. The persecution is getting worse! And the group rallies together for support.I understand that Jones took on concubines and wealth, but I don't see his motivations as "Man, I really want to get rich and sleep around. I'm going to start a cult." People who do that become con-men, not cult leaders. The biggest difference is their belief - do they believe what they're saying is true? And this is where we can make the distinction - a con-men would likely not die for their beliefs. A cult leader probably would. This isn't an absolute statement, for sure, but I think it works as a general rule.(Follower;60302)
Yeah, how noble of Jim Jones to kill himself, and murder his followers, to escape trial and life in prison, if not execution. Yeah, a real lying coward would have done as the Apostle Paul and continued to preach from prison, only ending when the government kills him. Oh wait, Paul couldn't have been in prison and his death must have been fabricated by Christians.
You're absolutely right - Paul is still alive and living in Oklahoma. I just saw him at a gas station the other day
Haha but seriously, I think you're automatically assuming that cult leaders are looking to rip people off. If we go by the definitions I gave above, I would say that some con-men become cult leaders to do so, but generally they would attempt at some point to make away with the money. Jim Jones moved
into a jungle, and while he amassed quite a fortune, he was still living in a jungle. He wasn't using said funds for his own personal benefit, or he'd be living in a palace somewhere drinking champagne. I think it's safe to say that this was not his motivation. What is more likely is that he was not entirely right in the head, as confirmed by his brother (if I remember correctly), who said that later on, he started to develop paranoid tendencies, likely indicative of schizophrenic delusions.(Follower;60302)
Not only do I disagree with you, but I'm finding it increasingly difficult to take your statements seriously.
Well, try your best then. As well, keep in mind that I am not preaching this stuff as absolute truth, but rather as plausible theories that deserve attention. If there are reasonable reasons to reject them, then that's fine - we can throw them out. However, much of what I am saying, particularly about the conditions of the time period, is backed up by biblical scholarship, so if you have a problem with it, take it up with them.