mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (04/12/85)
In article <281@cvl.UUCP> david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) writes: > > 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? The disciples were probably fully aware of JC's fraudulence. They worked together as a religious cabal, with JC as leader and the apostles as shills. In the prophet biz, you have to talk up your main man. > 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.) Well of course. If they said gawd ruled in some material way we could see, their audiences would have laughed and said "No, the Romans do." This is an example of the god of the cracks school of religion. God's not nearly as busy as he used to be now that we have materialistic explanations for winds and planetary movements and such. > 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"? Consider the parable of the bind men and the elephant. You say the elephant is like a wall because you examine 2000 years of interpretation by believers who didn't question their assumptions. I've felt the wall, and may not know its wrinkles as well as you do, but I have also felt the snake-like trunk of interpretation without supernatural assumptions. > (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?) (You, who can't even avoid using blatant fallacies of argument -- has someone said that you are a "hack" because you don't know that you're using ad-hominem attacks, the use of emotionally toned words, making a statement in which "all" is implied but "some" is true, and argument by imperfect analogy all in the same paragraph? Just maybe, then, the authors of other sacred texts know something YOU don't understand. Or perhaps I do. Hitler probably knew things we don't understand. Does that mean we have to believe everything he said unskeptically?) > > 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. How do you know the parables were not used before they were written, perhaps even while JC was alive? You're guessing. > 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. Are you saying the miracles did not all actually occur? Is that what you mean by "hardly an important mention of 'miracles' as if they were external events"? If they are just parables, then why shouldn't we consider the resurrection and god itself as just more parables? > > 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. 2000 years of constant reinterpretation testify to the vagueness of the Gospels. Some interpretations may view them as ambiguous, with geniuses for authors, but like criticisms of art, the results are subjective and vary with the phases of the moon. That's why there is so little agreement among the thousands of Christian sects about specific meanings of passages of the bible. > > 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. My quote above is how the biblical parable of JC and Satan can be used as a simple conspiracy theory explanation for (McCarthy-like) silencing of skeptics. > 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. Tsk tsk. Rudeness. > 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. Your interpretations in terms of "spiritual" things are as irrelevant to me as stories based on fairy aristocracies. Forgive me if I don't bother to address them, as they're not my strong point. > 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? Isn't that funny. Fraudulent psychics and their ilk follow this same practice today. All of a sudden their "powers" won't work in front of professional magicians and other skeptics. > 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? Aha! Yet another conspiracy theory! If you doubt, you can't tell, and if you're convinced you'll be convinced! Wow! > 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 Yet another convenient cop-out: JC could say "I really would like to work a miracle for you right now, but God isn't willing just now. Sorry." > 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 Aha! The same conspiracy theory again! If you doubt, you can't tell, and if you're convinced you'll be convinced! Wow! > 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. Until around age 12, I was a sincere believer, yet received no proof from god. (I made the transition to agnostic by 16.) Do you challenge my testimony? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > 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. I wrote the above to illustrate your fallacy of special pleading. No muddling about there. > 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. What appalling parochialism. The religions of empire builders have always spread with the empires. Christianity just happens to be the religion of the Western Imperialists who have dominated the world for the past 4 centuries. Islam became widely accepted in all the cultures the Moorish conquored, displacing Christianity in some. And Christianity is not the only major religion with charitable love. > 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. I say there's some marvellous land for you in the everglades: give me your money first. > > 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. I've done it, and not gotten any results. Before I discovered agnosticism. If I was foolish enough to try again, and didn't get results again, you'd simply claim (as if you had any way of knowing) that I didn't really believe. So why don't you then believe in Buddha? Get down in your lotus position and contemplate until you achieve enlightenment! Not there yet? You're not sincere enough! Too bound up in maya. Aw, you skeptics are all alike, profound in your ignorance. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh