david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) (04/11/85)
Reply to a reply ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Path: cvl!umcp-cs!seismo!harvard!godot!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: the three temptations of Christ; reply to David Harwood Message-ID: <452@cybvax0.UUCP> In article <261@cvl.UUCP> david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) writes: > Of course, this was not my point at all, as I'm sure you're aware. Of course I'm aware that you intended to draw a different conclusion from the story of JC being tempted. My purpose in presenting the Jesus as charletain hypothesis is to show that a simple explanation suffices to explain the purpose of that "teaching" passage. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The story of the Gospels is not told by Jesus, but by their authors who are early disciples, and they also say that Jesus did work miracles among some of the people. Obviously, you prefer to deny the account of the miracles, while accepting their "rationalization" of a "charlatan". Why should they bother to contradict themselves? And why should you draw any simple conclusion from an apparent contradiction, especially when you are unfamiliar with the scriptures, unless you are simply prejudiced? But the real point of the passage is that the rule or kingdom of God is by spiritual power, rather than by what is material. Simply consider the quality of the three temptations and the replies. As Jesus said, "Do you not understand; the kingdom of heaven is within you." The "heaven" which is over all others, by which the universe is humanly effected, is between the ears, much as God is said to rest upon the Ark between the cherubim (or, perhaps, the body of Christ is said to have lain in the tomb between the two angels, before he was risen.) If you are looking for "miracles" out there somewhere, you are like the one who is looking for the living among the dead, though the one is said to be dead, and the others said to be living. But if you do not understand the simplest figures of the scriptures, then why should you make wild accusations about "charlatans" and "fraudulent miracle-workers"? (You, who can't even spell "charlatan" correctly, -- has someone said that you are a "hack" since you don't know what you are spelling, nevermind talking about? No, you may know something about programming machines. Just maybe, then, the Gospel authors also know something you don't understand; and simply because they choose to write about this in a way which you may distort does not mean they are "fraudulent" at all. After all, why should someone who merely speaks English expect to understand your "obscure" Lisp code?) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The important thing at the time when JC or his disciples might be called upon to work a miracle would be to have a ready excuse for not working a miracle right then (assuming, of course, that they were not divine.) There are abundant claims in the Bible of JC casually working miracles. People would expect to see him work a miracle for them. If JC was a real miracle-worker, he wouldn't need an excuse. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ What nonsense. Jesus was already dead for years when this passage was written. The Gospel writers, of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts(Luke), are writing "theological" parables of the life of Christ, not histories, although there are certainly some factual "tent-stakes". Besides this, outside these writings, there is hardly an important mention of "miracles" as if they were external events: the only prospective miracle, which is mentioned again and again, is the unexpected (so-called second) "coming of Christ," on the "Day of the Lord," when the "dead" shall be resurrected and judged. As for the Gospel accounts of the miracles, in my opinion, all of them should be understood as fulfillment of prophetic figures for the kingdom of God: they are parables by the first Christians, themselves containing parables by Jesus, of the spiritual power of God revealed in the life of Christ: whether "feeding" the hungry people with the five loaves of bread and few fish (5 books of the Torah, the old teaching, and the "fish" of the new teaching; in one place, 7 loaves representing the 7 churches), or calming the storm about their boat on the Sea of Galilee (something like the providence at the Sea of Reeds), or changing the ordinary water into "new wine" when the old wine had lost force to bind (marry) mankind to one another and to God, or healing the spiritually crippled or imprisoned or blind, as prophesied by Isaiah, or even resurrecting the "dead". These are all written to show the spiritual power of God, shown in the life of Christ and in those called to be Christians. Are these the miracles and signs you would like to see in order to be convinced? I very much doubt it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Perhaps, this passage of the early part of the Gospels is not quite > relevant even to the points which I believe you want to make, which are > important. But Jesus is here portrayed as rejecting some very common and > dangerous temptations -- that is the point of the passage. On the other > hand, surely you would not want yourself to accept these temptations, > would you? I hope not, whether or not you are religious. It's not exceptional for one vague pronouncement to be used to teach several different points. As a matter of fact, that's common in most of the world's religions. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You confuse "vague" with "ambiguous"; the Gospels are written by perhaps the greatest literary geniuses of all time -- there is nothing "vague" about them; rather they are deliberately ambiguous, in the sense that they have an a real meaning which is not the same as their external one, but one which is understood somewhat after one has become a Christian. There are also "obscure" matters in Paul. But nearly everything written in the Gospels has a clear point to make about the spiritual kingdom of God, revealed through Christ. Even the Gospel according to Mark, the oldest of them, is not literal at all, and explicitly refers to the "secrets" of their parables which may be understood only by the disciples; this can only be expected: according to very ancient Jewish tradition, predating the life of Jesus, some things are not to be discussed unambiguously with ordinary people for various reasons; therefore Jesus himself did use parables in his teaching; as his disciples, the Gospel writers did the same also. The Gospels, as I've said before, are parables told by Jesus about the kingdom of God, within parables told by the first Christians about the life of Christ. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Neither would > you be impressed if he was portrayed as proving himself to Satan, the > accuser, who proposed these things. (I might presuppose that you are familiar > with this passage, so that you know what you are talking about, realizing > that it was Satan who proposed these things before Jesus began his ministry. Here we have an ideal conspiracy theory interpretation of skeptics. Skeptics are like Satan, they really know who and what JC really is, and their testing is only malicious and evil and so should be disregarded. And any way, that's all beneath JC's dignity. I can't be expected to believe such paranoid claptrap. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ As you say yourself, "such paranoid claptrap." I simply observed that you make an accusation against Jesus, demanding to see a "miracle", as you materially understand this. And I observed that you omitted Satan from consideration, in your speculations about the "motivations" of ancient others. All this other stuff about "conspiracy", who "knows who and what", "malicious and evil" is in your mind, and has absolutely nothing to do with what I said: I said what I meant. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``````````````````````` > Actually, it seems to me that you are not familiar with the Gospels, but > are superficially familiar with some criticisms of claims made for Christ.) A friendly word of net advice: it doesn't pay to speculate about what I do or don't know: instead, stick to discussing my points. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Let me give you a friendly word of advice: I will say what I want. You should watch out for yourself: you have already proved to go far afield with "speculations" about what is already clear, including motivations for the passage at hand, as well as my own words, which you manage to completely distort. As for sticking to the point, you recall that in your original comment you made simply one point, an accusing speculation about a passage, about which I made a different point which you deleted, a speculation which was made ignoring the context, including the presence of Satan, and the symbolic places where it occurred, the time in his life, the facts that Jesus did not write anything, and that he was dead 40 years when this was written. Besides this, you do not consider what is said in the rest of the Gospel about signs and miracles, which is germane, if you really want to know what you are talking about. For example, why do the Gospels appear to contradict themselves, even intentionally, about the importance of these things? As I have already explained: it is so to make a distinction between what is spiritual and what is not. First, the Gospels say that even Jesus could not work miracles among those who had no faith, and he was amazed by their lack of faith. Why do they portray the "failure" of his power at all, long after his death, if they want to decieve someone? Second, the Gospels explicitly have Jesus say that he himself has no power, but rather that God does these things. Why do they appear to deny his own divine power, if they want to decieve? Why do they even have him misquote the Jewish scriptures at one point? Would God do this? Third, Jesus is said to tell his accusers that there shall be no signs for this evil generation (what is your complaint). Why then do the Gospels present all these miracles? It seems that the Gospels are determined to confuse matters, but actually they confuse those like you who are so materially literal. There is no contradiction when you consider, as I have pointed out already, that the Gospels are talking about spiritual realities. First, there are signs only for those desire faith, and these are spiritual (or psycholog- ical if you prefer), although they certainly have objective consequences. Second, God is the one who did these things, not Jesus a human being; but he did them, dignifying Christ, but according to His will. Finally, addressing your complaint, according to the tradition, God heals those who are troubled and seek Him; He does not help others who are arrogant and do not desire Him. Also according to the tradition, He simply will not be tested. There is no possible expectation of proof as you would like, since you are testing God, and have no sincere desire for faith, so far: you prefer to be agnostic. Of course, there are indeed miracles, but these are only certainly known among those who desire faith, who are made to understand the spiritual power of God over what is hidden within the "heavens" of our hearts. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > But your point is: you propose that Jesus prove himself to you, > and everyone, by a supernatural act. In this sense, you are his accuser. > Also, you wish to disregard the testimony of others, because you prefer > your own more 'rational' viewpoint. (And we all do this sometimes, but > it is wrong to dismiss the views of those who have no pretty obvious reason > to deceive anyone; the earliest followers had no such obvious motivation, > but sought to be faithful, yet they were in agreement that God had made > known to them that Jesus was the Christ.) The choice is not JC or nothing: it is JC, Buddha, Mohammed, Zoroaster, Moses, Krishna, etc. or nothing. They all have testimony in their favor by believers who have "no obvious reason to deceive anyone". Until I have some reasonable way to select one as being real, I think it is foolish to believe in any of their claims about gods or the supernatural. I invite any of them to convince me. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I never said they intended to decieve. Neither did I say that there was no truth in them. You are the one with groundless accusations about "charlatans" and "fraudulent miracle-workers", which flatly contradicts what you've quoted. Surely, you really believe all these witnesses are also frauds as well, but you prefer to muddle about. The only thing I would say about these others is: first, unlike Christianity, they are not widely accepted throughout the world in every culture. This is because of missionaries, but also because the simple Gospel message of charitable love is compellingly universal, and untainted by either violence or escape from reality: it is about good will in the real world; second, if we are to survive as a human race, we shall someday have to live as Jesus did, securing justice and peace with steadfast charitableness and truth. There is the "beatitude": "Happy shall be the gentle; for they shall inherit the earth." But this is from a Psalm, where it essentially says that the wicked shall have someday destroyed themselves. Finally, if this is so, and if there is God, then from the point of view of racial survival, Christianity is morally axiomatic; and not only this, if there is God, then surely Jesus was His Son who revealed the way of life. All these considerations, regardless of claims based on "miracles". ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > This is complicated by three considerations. First, according to > Jewish tradition, is the Messiah to prove himself by his own power to act? > Second, if he acts, not by his own power, but according to the power of > God, can we test him, expecting God to prove this to our satisfaction by > acting extraordinarily? Finally, what are we to make of the contradictory > references in the Gospel which appeal to the evidence of 'miracles', however > we may take this, or rather deny their expectation? > This makes for a fair number of problems. I expect religious works to claim miracles. They're one of the big selling points of religions. I also expect frauds to have reasons why they won't work a miracle right now in front of you. Thus, there is no contradiction in seeing both claims of miracles and excuses for not making them in the bible. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ As I say, there are miracles all the time, but not as you imagine, and not for you, unless you will someday want to get down on your knees. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Actually, I may be able to answer these partly, but first you will > have to want to listen very carefully (I know because I am deaf and cannot > hear anything if I do not pay very close attention; on the other hand, if > I did not realize that I was deaf, then I would never understand anything > at all.) But now that I have your attention, and since you are such a smart > son of a gun, I will not deprive you of your conceit, but let you prove > that you do not know the answers, but that neither do you want to listen. > Why, therefore, would God prove anything to you? After all, God > is not foolish, so that he does not conceal some things. I've never made a secret of not knowing the answers: I have openly billed myself as an agnostic. You claim you know something about god: if you think you know why any hypothetical god would or wouldn't prove anything to me, feel free to tell us all. Or let that deity show us. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I've already speculated about these things at length in other replies; as for you, are you prepared to get on your knees before God, or would you rather not? He will simply give you what you would sincerely desire.
root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) (04/13/85)
Subject: reply to Mike Huybensz, concerning miracles > [David Harwood replys to Mike Huybensz] > (You, who can't even spell "charlatan" correctly, -- has someone said > that you are a "hack" since you don't know what you are spelling, > nevermind talking about? [Lord Frith jumps into the fray] You shouldn't criticize David. Your own grammer and sentence constructs leave much to be desired. Have I accused you of having "hack" your concepts or beliefs because you are unable to articulate them in a way that is easily understood by other people? Of course not. Then don't accuse people of having invalid beliefs simply because they spell one word incorrectly. Seriously. Your articles are very difficult to slog through. Go take English composition 101. You really need to work on this. > [David Harwood] > You confuse "vague" with "ambiguous"; the Gospels are written by > perhaps the greatest literary geniuses of all time Perhaps. Perhaps not. Why do you bother making claims like this without any proof to substantiate them? Have you studied ALL the literary greats throughout time and compared their works to the bible? Why haven't all of the other literary scholars concluded this as well? Now as I recall Paul DID go to one of the better schools at the time and was quite a scholar and debater in his time, but that hardly makes him a "literary genius" as you describe him. Looks to me like you're embellishing the scriptures with your own triumphalistic notions. >> [Mike Huybensz] >> A friendly word of net advice: it doesn't pay to speculate about what I >> do or don't know: instead, stick to discussing my points. > [David Harwood] > Let me give you a friendly word of advice: I will say what I want. And you'll still be wrong. You prove yourself even more stubborn and liable by not listening to the valid criticisms of your bretheren. > [David Harwood] > Why do they even have him misquote the Jewish scriptures at one point? I think I might have missed *this* one. Which one? Why DID he misquote it (specifically within the context of the record)? >> [Mike Huybensz] >> The choice is not JC or nothing: it is JC, Buddha, Mohammed, Zoroaster, >> Moses, Krishna, etc. or nothing. They all have testimony in their >> favor by believers who have "no obvious reason to deceive anyone". > The only thing I would say about these others is: first, unlike > Christianity, they are not widely accepted throughout the world in every > culture. Popular acceptance is NOT a valid test of how "right" or accurate a religion is. Is Christianity REALLY the number one religion in the world? With over a quarter of the world's population in China I would have expected the dominant religion to be found there, but as I say, popular support is not a causal gauge of which religion is the right one. I also think that you'll have a hard time really figuring out just how many REAL Christians there really are out there. A lot of evangelical and charasmatic organizations love to trumpet their claims as to how many people they baptised and saved from damnation last night at the prayer rally in some remote country. Remember, many are called. Indeed many will claim they have been called. But few are actually chosen. > [David Harwood] > This is because of missionaries, but also because the simple Gospel > message of charitable love is compellingly universal, and untainted by > either violence or escape from reality: it is about good will in the real > world; second, if we are to survive as a human race, we shall someday have > to live as Jesus did, securing justice and peace with steadfast charitableness > and truth. There is the "beatitude": "Happy shall be the gentle; for they > shall inherit the earth." But this is from a Psalm, where it essentially > says that the wicked shall have someday destroyed themselves. Finally, if > this is so, and if there is God, then from the point of view of racial > survival, Christianity is morally axiomatic; and not only this, if there > is God, then surely Jesus was His Son who revealed the way of life. I agree with this. Indeed this fits somewhat into Laura's "if it works, it's right" philopsophy. Remember of course that the above consitutes an informal rationale. Not a proof, but compelling reason. > [David Harwood] > As I say, there are miracles all the time, but not as you imagine, and > not for you, unless you will someday want to get down on your knees. Now you're being unreasonable Dave. Only God knows our hearts. Who and what are you to dare usurp his position and authority? By the above you are essentially denying someone what God may decide to provide out of the goodness of his heart. > I've already speculated about these things at length in other replies; > as for you, are you prepared to get on your knees before God, or would > you rather not? He will simply give you what you would sincerely > desire. God acts as he sees fit and not upon your word. -- UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO Or as Jabba the Hut would say, "Brrrruuuuuurrrrrrrpppppp!"
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (04/18/85)
Mike Huybenz wrote: >The choice is not JC or nothing: it is JC, Buddha, Mohammed, Zoroaster, >Moses, Krishna, etc. or nothing. And David Harwood replied: > The only thing I would say about these others is: first, unlike >Christianity, they are not widely accepted throughout the world in every >culture. David, I know you and Mike have been going at this "miracles" thing hot and heavy, but don't let your intensity do away entirely with your reason. The world has many widely accepted religions, of which Christianity happens to be the most widespread, for historical reasons having nothing to do with its specific theology. Moreover, suggesting that any religion acquires more moral force because it's popular is pretty silly, isn't it? Would you become a Buddhist if, 10 years from now, Buddhism had the largest number of adherents? - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry