mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (04/07/85)
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 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. > 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. > 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. > 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. > 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. > 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. > 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. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh