spock@maths.tcd.ie (Tommy Hayes (Thanks Dr.W.)) (12/11/90)
Why can't everybody just realise that Jesus was just an ordinary, albeit very ahead of his time,person who had a lot of brilliant ideas about how we should live? There is absolutly no need to bring in god,heaven or anything like that to explain anything,and anybody who does was either brainwashed by their parents or else are too ignorant to think objectivly about their religion. I remember one of my many religious instructors in school once gave a very cutting address against people like the dreaded 'Moonies' and 'Born Again Christians' who kidnap people unbeknowns to them and brainwash them for a couple of weeks into their way of thinking. The thing is, he said he was giving the opinion of the catholic church.Will somebody please tell me what the difference between this and your parents doing the 'right thing' and brain-washing you for the first 14 odd years of your life? Objective replies will be appreciated.... [The problem with rejecting parents' attempts to "do the right thing" for their kids is that if they don't do so, each generation has to start from scratch. So there has to be some way of transmitting culture and values that still allow enough freedom for change to occur where it's needed. I'd say proper education includes not only one's own values, but a critical attitude and the intellectual tools necessary to be critical. I've heard descriptions of what some of the cults do that is classified as "brainwashing". It includes things like a diet that is low in proteins, emotional blackmail, and a high-pressure environment that is designed to avoid providing the opportunity for critical thought. I can't comment on how your parents educated you. I hope they didn't do these things... It seems to me that the key is that education should assume it is trying to provide you a basis from which you will do further development, and not just a set of beliefs that you will adopt unchanged. Not that there's anything wrong with trying to teach kids specific beliefs, but you should assume that some of them are probably wrong, and the kids are going to need ways to decide which ones. --clh]
djo@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) (12/13/90)
In article <Dec.11.00.55.17.1990.7476@athos.rutgers.edu> spock@maths.tcd.ie (Tommy Hayes (Thanks Dr.W.)) writes: > Why can't everybody just realise that Jesus was just an ordinary, > albeit very ahead of his time,person who had a lot of brilliant > ideas about how we should live? > There is absolutly no need to bring in god,heaven or anything like > that to explain anything... It's been mentioned before, and probably in this newsgroup, but: IT IS LOGICALLY INFEASIBLE TO ACCEPT JESUS AS "JUST A TEACHER." First, all we know about Him is what the Gospels say. Most people who want to see Jesus as "just a teacher" try to drop the Resurrection and the miracles and go just on the basis of what Jesus said: Well -- leaving aside the question of the miracles and the Resurrection -- they have him claiming, repeatedly, to be the Savior, the Son of God, the Son of Man, etc. Now, it is possible to claim that these are later interpolations or additions by scribes etc., but if you choose to do this, how can you assume that any of his "brilliant ideas" were not such interpolations or additions too? In other words: we either accept the Jesus of the Gospels or forget Him entirely. Okay: so we have this guy with all these brilliant ideas who *also* claims to be divine. This leaves us with four possibilities: 1) He was lying. In which case, I'd say that He was not a good man or teacher at all, but evil. Given the other things He said, his "teachings," I reject this idea. 2) He was mad. (You can have this one if you want it; it isn't logically flawed, but I find it inconsistent with the idea of Him as a "great teacher.") 3) He was speaking of His divinity in some esoteric sense like that of Buddhism. I find this as illogical as the first possibility; nothing else in His life resembles esoteric religion. 4) Jesus was what He claimed. As Sherlock Holmes used to say, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be true." Now let's bring back -- for just a moment -- the question of the Resurrection. That was, of course, for those who believe in it, the final proof of Jesus's divinity. What evidence do we have for it? Four eyewitness accounts, the Gospels, plus some further such in the "Gnostic Gospels." The testimony of Paul who claimed to have met him "on the road to Capernaum" long after the Crucifixion. Enough eyewitness accounts, in other words, to establish in any court of law that an event (murder, etc.) took place. Many events in history are accepted as truth on less than that (there are, for example, only _two_ accounts of the death of Socrates, and both of them are second-hand.) If you want to claim that these witnesses were lying, you have to give an explanation for it -- and then you have to give an explanation for why we should take the word of such liars about the "teachings" of the man they're already accused of lying about. In other words, logically, you have an all-or-nothing situation. > I remember one of my many religious instructors in school once gave > a very cutting address against people like the dreaded 'Moonies' > and 'Born Again Christians' who kidnap people unbeknowns to them > and brainwash them for a couple of weeks into their way of thinking. Yo -- I'm not fond of cultoids, but they generally *don't* do this. They invite people to dinner, to weekends, etc., and serve them up with loving propaganda; people join these cults for essentially positive reasons -- it fills a hole in their lives, often left by the loss of faith in their religions, their families, or whatever. You know who *does* do this? The deprogrammers hired by the "victims'" families. > The thing is, he said he was giving the opinion of the catholic > church.Will somebody please tell me what the difference between this > and your parents doing the 'right thing' and brain-washing you for the > first 14 odd years of your life? By gosh, you're right. We shouldn't teach our children any values at all. You asked for "objective" replies, and I've done that for your questions above, but this one is such a subjective question that I don't see an objective reply as remotely possible. Sorry. Mona boba yoda, rupu dzhunay doda! -- Folk song in some Eastern European language my grandfather used to sing. I have no idea what it means. The Roach
ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (12/13/90)
In article <Dec.11.00.55.17.1990.7476@athos.rutgers.edu>, spock@maths.tcd.ie (Tommy Hayes (Thanks Dr.W.)) writes: > Why can't everybody just realise that Jesus was just an ordinary, > albeit very ahead of his time, person who had a lot of brilliant > ideas about how we should live? Because He _wasn't_ ahead of His time. I am assured by a Jewish friend that nearly everything Jesus said *except* concerning His own nature and relationship to G-d and *except* His attitude to the Sages of His time can be duplicated from the Talmud, and based on my own very limited reading so far this seems to be true. It's also what a number of Christian commentators have said. There is a book by Vermes called "Jesus the Jew" which I mean to buy, but I am *way* over my book budget this year. This is important point; how could we *possibly* ever have hoped to get away with saying that Christianity is the continuation of the true Faith, how could any honest man ever have begun to criticise any Jew at any time for not following Him, unless His teaching were a recognisable development from the Tanakh? Now, as for His statements concerning His relationship to G-d, (a) you might believe that they were added later (but then why put any more trust in the other sayings?) (b) you might believe that He said them but didn't mean them the way they were taken (in which case He was as bad a teacher as I am, and was less worthy of admiration than Hillel) (c) you might believe that He said them and meant them, in which case (c1) He was lying (what's admirable about that?) (c2) or insane (what's admirable about that?) (c3) or telling the truth. > There is absolutly no need to bring in god,heaven or anything like > that to explain anything,and anybody who does was either brainwashed > by their parents or else are too ignorant to think objectivly about their > religion. My dear feller, there's no need to bring in the physical universe either. You can explain everything with the idea that you are the only reality there is. If you believe that the physical universe exists, were you brainwashed by your parents, or are you unable to think objectively? There is no way at all to prove that the world or other people are real. If you are going to talk about Jesus, there *is* a need to bring in G-d and Heaven, because *He* did. I repeat, if you throw out the texts in which He is said to have talked about these things, why keep any of them? (If you want to tell other people they are ignorant, it would be well to protect yourself rather better against spelling and grammar flames.) > I remember one of my many religious instructors in school once gave > a very cutting address against people like the dreaded 'Moonies' > and 'Born Again Christians' who kidnap people unbeknowns to them > and brainwash them for a couple of weeks into their way of thinking. I've never heard of "Born Again Christians" doing this. Evidence, please! I could give a very cutting address against almost anything you please, but that wouldn't make it _true_! -- The Marxists have merely _interpreted_ Marxism in various ways; the point, however, is to _change_ it. -- R. Hochhuth.
billy@tcom.stc.co.uk (Billy Khan) (12/14/90)
Hi....don't know your name! > Why can't everybody just realise that Jesus was just an ordinary, > albeit very ahead of his time,person who had a lot of brilliant > ideas about how we should live? I appreciate the objection! It has been said that Jesus was a man born five thousand years ahead of his time, i used to think that myself. Trouble with that view is this. Jesus was a normal human being, in every way. He had a human mum, grew up as a human kid, did a normal job until he was in his thirties. The difference was that he was the son of God. Jesus could have had all his super amazing Godly powers if he had wanted them. But he came to earth as a human so we could relate to him so much better. If you read the bible, all the miracles that he performed, he prayed to God about first, he didn't do them through his own power. He was just as human as you and I. > There is absolutly no need to bring in god,heaven or anything like > that to explain anything,and anybody who does was either brainwashed > by their parents or else are too ignorant to think objectivly about their > religion. No need to bring god or heaven in? From your previous pargraph I would say that you accepted that jesus existed (whatever your views on who he was). There are plenty of documented miracles (apart from the bible... mainly the Romans). Personnally I would like to see a man, who gets beaten up so bad that not even his mum could recognise him, gets whipped with a vicious roman style whip til most of his back is gone, has to lug a massive cross halfway up a hill, then gets nailed to it, hung for a few hours, has a spear stuck in his side, gets wrapped in loads of clothe and put in a tomb for three days, and still manages to get up and walk around afterwards without the power of God with him. I am thinking objectively and the object is Jesus! You might think I've been brainwashed, I've been called worst things! Christianity transcends intelligence. I have three A-levels and am studying a degree( no brag intended, I am just trying to prove a point), i am not ignorant or stupid, but Christianity is beyond intellectual examination, you can debate it as much as you want. > I remember one of my many religious instructors in school once gave > a very cutting address against people like the dreaded 'Moonies' > and 'Born Again Christians' who kidnap people unbeknowns to them > and brainwash them for a couple of weeks into their way of thinking. You won't like the answer to this one! Its a bit heavy! Write back if you are prepared to listen to a spritual answer. The short answer is...'If you were some one who was trying their hardest to stop people becoming christians, wnat would you do?' Suffice to say that no born again Christians are brainwashed or forced into anything, you can't force someone to love someone can you? My parents made me go to church every sunday, I hated it. Going to church isn't Christianity at all. I didn't become a Christian until a few months back. Many people get the wrong idea of christianity from being dragged along to church at an early age, though this isn't always true. > Objective replies will be appreciated.... Bit hard to be objective with infinite objects. Hope this helps, any questionS, feel free to write back on the net.... Drew. "...Go to church now, and beat the Christmas rush...!" [If you meant that there is Roman documentation for Jesus' miracles you are wrong. There are no records of Jesus' life outside Christian writings. There are of course Roman records quoting what Christians believed. --clh]
johnb@gatech.edu (John Baldwin) (12/14/90)
In article <Dec.11.00.55.17.1990.7476@athos.rutgers.edu> spock@maths.tcd.ie (Tommy Hayes (Thanks Dr.W.)) writes: > Why can't everybody just realise that Jesus was just an ordinary, > albeit very ahead of his time, person who had a lot of brilliant > ideas about how we should live? > There is absolutly no need to bring in god,heaven or anything like > that to explain anything,and anybody who does was either brainwashed > by their parents or else are too ignorant to think objectivly about their > religion. [Deleted for brevity] > Objective replies will be appreciated.... I wish I had more time to address this properly, because it is such a good question! [I couldn't have set one up better myself! :-)] I would have no problem realizing Jesus as "just an ordinary... person who had a lot of brilliant ideas" if it weren't for a great bulk of Scripture references to the contrary. I shan't go into the whole discussion of higher and lower criticism, hermeneutics, and the like; I will simply say for the time being that I have not been able to rationally and honestly discount the validity of any Scripture references which I have studied. [Which is why I am called a Christian.] * (Gospel of) John 8:48-59. Starting at verse 56: [Jesus speaking] 56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." 57 Then the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" 58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." 59 Then they took up stones to throw at Him; When Jesus said "I AM," He was using exactly the same turn of phrase (in Hebrew) that GOD used when He responded to Moses' question about who he (Moses) should say gave him the commands for the Jews. God's response was: "I AM that I AM." Unless I'm terribly mistaken, the name "I AM" in Hebrew continues to this day to be considered so holy that it is still one of the seven "Names of God" which are forbidden even to be spoken. Jesus' statement above was tantamount to saying "...because I'm GOD, that's why..." The penalty (in the Jewish Law) for blasphemy was death by stoning, which these Jews completely understood. If Jesus was "just an ordinary person," then, by the Law, these people would have been acting entirely correctly. Indeed, *I* was forced to resolve a dispute of my own... either Jesus was a megalomaniac, and probably a madman, or else He was the Son of God... i.e. Diety in His Own right. The evidence I've been able to see all points to Jesus' claims being entirely correct. Another reason why I ended up becoming a Christian for rational reasons. More references: * (Gospel of) Matthew, Chapter 16 Starting at verse 13: 13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Phillippi, He asked His disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I, the 'Son of Man,' am?" 14 So they said, "Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." Bear in mind that each of these figures were *dead* at the time of this question being asked. Obviously, the masses believed there was *something* supernatural about Him... 15 He said to them, "But who do YOU say that I am?" [emphasis mine --jtb] 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven." "Christ" was (and is) a TITLE, *not* a surname. It means "Messiah." If I may be allowed to paraphrase... Peter: You're not only the Messiah! You're GOD'S SON!! Jesus: You're right, Peter, son of Jonah. And the only way for you to have known that is if My Father (God) told you so... IMHO, brilliant but ordinary people don't go around claiming to be God. If someone else tries to give you (or me) the title of "God," the only non-reprehensible action is to immediately disclaim it. Unless you really ARE God. * (Gospel of) Matthew, Chapter 9 1 He got into a boat, crossed over, and came to His own city. 2 And behold, they broght to Him a paralytic, lying on a bed. And Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the paralytic, "Son, be of good cheer; your sins are forgiven you." 3 And at once some of the scribes said within themselves, "This Man blasphemes!" 4 But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, "Why do you think evil in your hearts? 5 "For which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven you,' or to say, 'Arise and walk'? 6 "But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on Earth to forgive sins" -- then He said to the paralytic, "Arise, take up your bid, and go to your house." 7 And he arose and departed to his house. Keep in mind that Jesus Bar-Joseph was a Jew, and this was in a Jewish culture. Only God has the ability to forgive people of their (general) sins. Each of us can forgive someone when they do something *to* us, but only God can forgive EVERYTHING. And here is Jesus, a Jew, in a Jewish city, claiming to forgive sins. BTW, there were no reliable cures for paralysis in the day --- and no "instantaneous" cures available even now. Jesus backs up His claim to Godship here with a demonstration. Earlier, in Matthew, chapter 4, is the account of Jesus being tempted in the "wilderness," by Satan (whose name means "Adversary"), before starting His public life... 5 Then the devil took Him up into the holy city, set Him on the pinnacle of the temple, 6 and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down. For it is written: 'He shall give His angels charge concerning you,' and, 'In their hands they shall bear you up, Lest you dash your foot against a stone.'" 7 Jesus said to him, "It is written again, 'You shall not tempt the LORD your God.'" We are not specifically provided with the information as to how Matthew came to know about this dialogue. We DO know that Matthew was personally acquainted with Jesus. Without conjecture about the path the information took, the Old Testament references which Satan has the gall to quote above are generally taken to refer to the (then future) Messiah. Satan (or whoever originally ascribed the quotes in Matt. to him) equates "Messiah" and "Son of God." Jesus makes no attempt to rebut this; on the contrary, He answers in anger: "YOU DON'T TEMPT GOD." The end of this story (verses 1-11 of chapter 4) comes with Jesus ORDERING Satan to leave Him! Well, I've spent a lot more time than I rightfully had to spend. I could go on like this for hours; hopefully this is enough for a start, and other can answer more specific questions. Hope this helped! -- John Baldwin | srchtec!johnb@gatech.edu | johnb%srchtec.uucp@mathcs.emory.edu [Most Jews do not speak any name of God. And in fact the actual pronunciation of the holiest -- whose consonants are YHWH -- is no longer known. (That it is related to I AM in Hebrew seems true though.) I should note that the term "Son of God" could have a variety of meanings. "Son of" is a Hebrew idiom. Son of god could mean simply godly or have a stronger meaning. Peter seems to have meant something fairly strong, but at the time of that confession probably not quite what modern Christians mean by the term. Oddly enough "Son of Man" as used of Christ is probably a stronger term, because it seems to refersto Dan 7:13, which describes a supernatural creature. (However the same idiom applies here, so literally "son of man" simply means "human".) --clh]
tywang@cs.washington.edu (Tak Yin Wang) (12/17/90)
In article <Dec.14.03.53.10.1990.27651@athos.rutgers.edu> billy@tcom.stc.co.uk (Billy Khan) writes: >difference was that he was the son of God. Jesus could have had all his >super amazing Godly powers if he had wanted them. But he came to earth as a >....................... he prayed to God about first, he didn't do them >through his own power. He was just as human as you and I. When you say "jesus could have had all his .....Godly powers if he had wanted them", do you really think he was still just as human as you and I. >he was). There are plenty of documented miracles (apart from the bible... >mainly the Romans). Personnally I would like to see a man, who gets beaten up >so bad that not even his mum could recognise him, gets whipped with a >vicious roman style whip til ........ [stuff deleted] Does this necessarily mean that he is the God which is described in the Bible? His sacrifice doesn't mean that he is God either, could you use your limited knowledge or power to judge if that power really came from God besides you believe it subjectively deep inside your heart? In other words, is your knowledge or power enough to judge if those incidence were really done by God, but not done by some other superior being, other than God(if exists)? >..'If you were some one who was trying their hardest to stop people >becoming christians, wnat would you do?' Why do most of the Christians always want to assert what you think that is good on others? Did not you realize that if you ruin one's faith in something, like disproving his belief, you probably will drive him crazy? I don't like to persuade people to or not to become a Christian, but I would ask them to clarify to themselves about their own belief, to make sure they believe in a open mind, to make sure they live happily. There may be a lot of Gods, or only one benevolent God, or only one very cruel and meany God..... etc. Personally, if NOT believing in him gonna make me guilty, I would say that is a very meany, cruel, unreasonable, non-loving, stupid God. I know this gonna make some of you angry, but calm down a little bit first, this is my own feeling, I am not telling or asking you to agree or believe in that, so, you can treat me bull-shiting if you don't like it, don't send me mail concerning with this 'cause this means you don't understand what I am talking about. (I would really much appreciate some other comments on the other part of this news.) Please remember the conditional case above, "IF", it is just unacceptable to me as well as unacceptable to Christians if I say there is no God. I also prefer a benevolent, reasonable and loving God, if he is not all-knowing..... this is another story. Tak Yin Wang (Wilfred) Remarks: It is said that the lonely eagle flies to the mountain peaks while the lowly ant crawls the ground, but cannot the soul of ant soar as high as the eagle? -- fortune.
maas@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mike Maas) (12/25/90)
In article <Thu Dec 20 22:18:04 PST 1990> Okeefe writes: >In article <Dec.11.00.55.17.1990.7476@athos.rutgers.edu>, >spock@maths.tcd.ie (Tommy Hayes (Thanks Dr.W.)) writes: >> Why can't everybody just realise that Jesus was just an ordinary, >> albeit very ahead of his time, person who had a lot of brilliant >> ideas about how we should live? >Because He _wasn't_ ahead of His time. I am assured by a Jewish friend ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ He wasn't? It would seem to me that he both was and remains ahead of his time in some very meaningful sense. The lessons he teaches are still every bit as applicable today as they were when he taught them. Likewise, for just that reason we can also say that his lessons are always timely. So perhaps the summation is that the teachings of Jesus were in some sense lessons that, at least up to now (and I for one am not confident that things will change in the near future), seem to be for all of time and that he was and indeed remains ahead of his time by virtue of just that quality of his teaching. >that nearly everything Jesus said *except* concerning His own nature and >relationship to G-d and *except* His attitude to the Sages of His time >can be duplicated from the Talmud, and based on my own very limited >reading so far this seems to be true. It's also what a number of >Christian commentators have said. There is a book by Vermes called >"Jesus the Jew" which I mean to buy, but I am *way* over my book budget >this year. This is important point; how could we *possibly* ever have >hoped to get away with saying that Christianity is the continuation of >the true Faith, how could any honest man ever have begun to criticise >any Jew at any time for not following Him, unless His teaching were a >recognisable development from the Tanakh? I hardly claim to be a scholar in this area but I have read Vermes book, and another of his as well _Jesus and the World of Judaism_ Fortress Press ISBN 0-8006-1784-3. Vermes does seem to be a superb scholar but not a particularly sympathetic one. I would like to recommend another book to you which comprehends most of Vermes work and which is much more recent and written from a Christian perspective: _Jesus: A New Vision_ by Marcus Borg. Harper & Row, ISBN 0-06-060914-1. Borg's book is a fascinating vision of Jesus. In it he quotes Martin Buber: "...From my youth onwards I have found in Jesus my great brother. That Christianity has regarded and does regard him as God and Saviour has always appeared to me a fact of the highest importance which, for his sake and my own, I must endeavor to understand...My own fraternally open relationship to him has grown ever stronger and clearer, and today I see him more strongly and clearly than ever before. I am more than ever certain that a great place belongs to him in Israel's history of faith and that this place cannot be described by any of the usual categories." _Two Types of Faith_ I think that what Buber recognizes here, and what I would argue as well is that while Jesus is best understood as a Jew, the way he taught, lived and faithed transcended his background in very significant ways. "Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk..." I Peter 2:2
ka@felix.uucp (Kenneth Almquist) (12/25/90)
djo@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes: > IT IS LOGICALLY INFEASIBLE TO ACCEPT JESUS AS "JUST A TEACHER." > First, all we know about Him is what the Gospels say.... [The Gospels] > have him claiming, repeatedly, to be the Savior, the Son of God, the > Son of Man, etc. And there are problems with reading these as claims to divinity. I don't recall that the term "savior" appears in any of the Gospels. The term "son of God" could be metaphorical (I recall that there is a reference to David being a son of God) and would have been understood that way by the Jews of Jesus's time (because the Jewish version of monotheism doesn't allow anything besides God to be divine). "Son of Man" is a code phrase for the messiah, and the term "Christ" is greek for "messiah". Although there were various views on the nature of the messianic role, the messiah (literally "the annointed one," which in itself implies a human *called into* service) was not a divinity. Jesus probably saw himself as the messiah, which suggests that he did not believe himself to be divine. There are a number of passages in the Gospel of John which have Jesus claiming to be God. However, a representative was considered to be the person being represented in a very significant way. So these passages are consistent with the view that Jesus was a human representative of God. This issue is more complex than I have time to do justice to, but in summary, the Gospels do not unambiguously claim that Jesus was divine. > Now, it is possible to claim that these are later interpolations or > additions by scribes etc., but if you choose to do this, how can you > assume that any of his "brilliant ideas" were not such interpolations > or additions too? In other words: we either accept the Jesus of the > Gospels or forget Him entirely. There is another alternative: read the Gospels the way historians read any historical document and attempt to separate the true from the false. This involves reconstructing the biases and intentions of the author so that these can be allowed for in judging the document, which is particu- larly hard to do in the case of the Gospels because we know so little about the authors. It is possible to make a case that early Christians preserved many of the teachings of Jesus but gradually elevated him to the status of a divinity. I won't attempt to do this because (1) I would have to dig into the reference books just to locate the most relevant evidence for this theory, and (2) the theory addresses the mindset of early Christians, and therefore cannot be defended or dismissed just by looking at a few pieces of "relevant" evidence. > What evidence do we have for [the Resurrection]? > > Four eyewitness accounts, the Gospels, plus some further such in the "Gnostic > Gospels." The testimony of Paul who claimed to have met him "on the road to > Capernaum" long after the Crucifixion. Enough eyewitness accounts, in other > words, to establish in any court of law that an event (murder, etc.) took > place. Many events in history are accepted as truth on less than that (there > are, for example, only _two_ accounts of the death of Socrates, and both of > them are second-hand.) The Gospels are not eyewitness accounts. And note that courts of law permit cross examination. If a prosecutor put on four witnesses whose accounts differed as much as the gospels, any competent defense attorney would rip them to shreds. As for the testimony of Paul, consider the testimony of Joseph Smith (the founder of the Mormon Church). If you don't believe Smith's testimony, why should someone else believe Paul's testimony? (Substi- tute some other religious leader in place of Smith if you are a Mormon.) The accounts of the death of Socrates written by Xenophon and Plato were (I believe) written not too long after the event. Therefore they qualify as contemporary sources while the Gospels do not. But even if the Gospels had the same degree of credibility as the accounts of the trial of Socrates, it would not matter in this instance. Suppose an account said that Socrates died of drinking something other than hemlock, something that all the scientific tests made today indicate is nonpoisonous. No historian would set aside the evidence of science based upon this account. Instead, the historian would assume that the account, while possibly accurate in many places, was mistaken about the cause of death. Based upon the evidence of the Gospels, it is fairly certain that Jesus was crucified. But all scientific study of death indicates that once somebody dies, they don't come back to life[1]. Perhaps Jesus died on the cross, perhaps he didn't; this is something that must be decided (if possible) using the limited historical evidence available. But no historian, thinking the way historians customarily think, would even consider the possibility that Jesus died and came back to life. [1] Theories can be consistent without being scientific. In fact any theory can be made consistent with the evidence if you have an omnipotent god manipulating the evidence. Thus it is *consistent* to believe that the dead can come back to life but we don't observe it because God decided to make it happen only once, or to believe that the earth was created 6000 years ago but God made it appear much older. However, those beliefs are not *scientific*.) > If you want to claim that these witnesses were lying, you have to give > an explanation for it -- and then you have to give an explanation for > why we should take the word of such liars about the "teachings" of the > man they're already accused of lying about. > > In other words, logically, you have an all-or-nothing situation. I suspect that the NT authors had mistaken beliefs and that they didn't accept the modern notion of the importance of literal truth. Outright lies seem unlikely to me. In any case, there is no "all-or-nothing situation". While the gospels are poor historical sources (being written long after the fact by people with axes to grind), there is nothing illogical about accepting some gospel claims as highly probable while rejecting others as false. Kenneth Almquist [The shorter Gingrich lexicon lists the following occurences of "soter" (Greek for savior) referring to Christ: Lk 2:11, J 4:42, Ac 5:31, 13:23, Eph 5:23, Phil 3:20, 2 Tim 1:10, Tit 1:4, 2:13, 3:6, 1 J 4:14, 2 Pt 1:1, 11, 2:20, 3:2, 18. I am not clear on exactly what you are claiming. If it is simply that the description of Christ in the Gospels is not the same as later Christian theology, I don't see how there can be any debate. (The claim was never that later Christology was present directly in the NT. Rather it is supposed to provide a philosophyical framework to deal with questions that arose after NT times. However it is supposed to be consistent with the NT evidence.) If it is that all of the claims about Christ's special role are legendary accretions, there's probably nothing I can usefully say. What I think is clear is that all of the NT writers give Jesus a special role as savior (in the sense of dying for us) and as having in some way a special unity with God. Beyond this, of course the specific images and conceptualizations differ. By the way, I believe your idea of Jesus as a human representative of God can be made to be consistent with the orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation. Recall that it is not claimed that Jesus as a human being is divine. The orthodox doctrine is always careful to avoid mixing humanity and divinity. The claim is not that we are dealing with a superhuman human being. Rather, a human being is united with God in such a way that both the human and divine nature are preserved unchanged. The way this union happens is not defined. I believe a functional or representational model can be formulated that takes as its starting point the Hebrew concepts of identity of a person and his representative, and sharpens it somewhat to deal with the specific case of Christ. --clh]
djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) (01/03/91)
In article <Dec.25.00.55.51.1990.4387@athos.rutgers.edu> ka@felix.uucp (Kenneth Almquist) writes: >djo@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes: >And there are problems with reading these as claims to divinity. > >I don't recall that the term "savior" appears in any of the Gospels. Our beloved Moderator addressed this directly, and, I believe, pretty conclusively in his endnote to your article; he listed two uses of the term in the Gospels and better than a dozen in the Letters, not all Paul's; clearly your memory on this matter is not accurate. >The term "son of God" could be metaphorical (I recall that there is a >reference to David being a son of God) and would have been understood >that way by the Jews of Jesus's time (because the Jewish version of >monotheism doesn't allow anything besides God to be divine). David was referred to as _a_ son of God. Jesus said that we could all become sons of God; but He referred to Himself as _the_ Son of God. Further, it was clear that he meant this in a more substantial way than the reference to David when He said -- referring to Himself -- "The Son and the Father are one." Consider: ...he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove to alight upon him; and a voice from heaven was heard saying, This is my Son, my Beloved, on whom my favour rests. (Matthew 3:16) I am the way; I am the truth and I am life; no one comes to the Father except by me. If you knew me you would know my Father too. (John 14:6,7) Everything is entrusted to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son but the Father, and no one knows the Father but the Son and those to whom the Son may choose to reveal him. (Matthew 11:27) And, most importantly, In very truth I tell you, before Abraham was born, I am. (John 8:59) This last is so important because "I am" refers to the answer God gave when Moses asked who he should tell the Israelites sent him: "I am that I am; tell them I Am sent you." That quote is from memory; I don't have a copy of the O.T. handy. But it is clear that in the terms of Judaea in the First century, if Jesus was "just a man," He was blaspheming the Name of God. As a result, those who were present picked up stones to throw at Him and kill Him. (They couldn't do it, though.) These are clear claims to a special relationship to the Father, and in the first and last cases to _identity_ with God. That pretty well destroys any claims that Jesus was "just claiming the special titles of the Messiah," I think. He claimed to be God and the son of God. As a secondary evidence: he went around forgiving people's sins. Who can do this? Answer: God. Now: Either He was God or He was not. If He was not, He either believed He was or He did not. These cases cover _all_ possibilities. If He was not God and did not believe that he was, then He was a liar and should not be revered as a great teacher. If was not God and He did believe that he was, then He was a madman and should not be revered as a great teacher. If He was God, then He was not "just a teacher." In _no_ case is it logically feasible to refer to Him as "just a great teacher." >Although there were various views on the nature of the messianic role, the >messiah (literally "the annointed one," which in itself implies a human >*called into* service) was not a divinity. Nobody claimed (at least not that I recall) that Jesus wasn't human. It's this nonsense about him being _just_ human we have to deal with. It doesn't wash. >Jesus probably saw himself as the messiah, which suggests that he did not >believe himself to be divine. Jesus certainly saw himself as the Messias, and said so even more often than he mentioned his divinity. >There are a number of passages in the Gospel of John which have Jesus >claiming to be God. However, a representative was considered to be the >person being represented in a very significant way. Care to support this claim? And to explain how it relates to "Before Abraham was, I am?" -- from the reaction of His hearers, they clearly didn't think He was speaking in the mode of a representative! >This issue is more complex than I have time to do justice to, but in >summary, the Gospels do not unambiguously claim that Jesus was divine. I get the impression you haven't read them in some time: or how did you miss the passages quoted above? >There is another alternative: read the Gospels the way historians read >any historical document and attempt to separate the true from the false. >This involves reconstructing the biases and intentions of the author so >that these can be allowed for in judging the document, which is particu- >larly hard to do in the case of the Gospels because we know so little >about the authors. Yes, please reconstruct the biases of the authors. Reconstruct the biases of Matthew, in particular, a taxman, hated by his fellow Jews as a sort of first- century Quisling, enriching himself by serving the Romans: what sort of bias would he have? One which would lead him to drop everything and follow the first Messiah to come along? (Remember, there was no shortage of self-proclaimed Messiahs in the first century A.D.; Judaea was full of 'em.) Or one which would tend to make him disdain Messianic prophecy until it was, as it were, shoved up his nose? >It is possible to make a case that early Christians preserved many of >the teachings of Jesus but gradually elevated him to the status of a >divinity. Such a case would ignore plenty of early records. >The Gospels are not eyewitness accounts. And note that courts of law >permit cross examination. If a prosecutor put on four witnesses whose >accounts differed as much as the gospels, any competent defense attorney >would rip them to shreds. Nonsense. They all agree on the basic facts. People who witness the same event produce wildly different testimony only minutes after the fact; there have been any number of experiments to confirm this. What might be suspicious would be if the Gospels agreed on every little detail: _then_ we might suspect a conspiracy to defraud. >As for the testimony of Paul, consider the testimony of Joseph Smith >(the founder of the Mormon Church). If you don't believe Smith's >testimony, why should someone else believe Paul's testimony? (Substi- >tute some other religious leader in place of Smith if you are a Mormon.) I'm not a Mormon, and I'm not going to call Joseph Smith a liar. But he's a single individual; we've got four, here, twice as many as required to convict an American citizen for treason (according to the Constitution). Though there were folks who apparently saw his tablets, he's the only one who saw the really important stuff. >Suppose >an account said that Socrates died of drinking something other than >hemlock, something that all the scientific tests made today indicate >is nonpoisonous. No historian would set aside the evidence of science >based upon this account. Instead, the historian would assume that the >account, while possibly accurate in many places, was mistaken about the >cause of death. But then, nobody is claiming divine intervention in the case of Socrates. >Based upon the evidence of the Gospels, it is fairly certain that Jesus >was crucified. But all scientific study of death indicates that once >somebody dies, they don't come back to life[1]. Perhaps Jesus died on >the cross, perhaps he didn't; this is something that must be decided >(if possible) using the limited historical evidence available. But no >historian, thinking the way historians customarily think, would even >consider the possibility that Jesus died and came back to life. Really? There's an awful lot of Christian historians out there! (Or do you just wave your magic wand and define them as not being historians in this case _because_ they're Christians. After all, you said "thinking the way historians customarily think," which lets you define anyone who doesn't think the way you want them to out of existence. (Christian historians beware: Big Brother is watching, and does not approve.) >[1] Theories can be consistent without being scientific. In fact any > theory can be made consistent with the evidence if you have an > omnipotent god manipulating the evidence. Bushwah. However omnipotent God may be, two plus two is still four, because that's how the cardinal numbers and addition are defined. In other words, logic applies. > Thus it is *consistent* > to believe that the dead can come back to life but we don't observe > it because God decided to make it happen only once, or to believe > that the earth was created 6000 years ago but God made it appear > much older. However, those beliefs are not *scientific*.) Really? That's mondo fascinating, but it's bushwah again. Science has to cope with extremely rare events. (Nobody's ever seen a Big Bang.) How it copes with them varies from scientist to scientist, but an intelligent scientist, imho, is one who has learned not to reject them out-of-hand. For example, it used to be the universal opinion of scientists that stones do not fall from the sky (because, they explained, there _are_ no stones in the sky), and eyewitnesses to meteorite landings were dismissed out-of-hand as liars or madmen. Eventually, they had to admit they were wrong, of course. An intelligent scientist will take the lesson of this: because something is very rare, and not to be reproduced on demand under laboratory conditions, does not mean it never happens. Now, more functionally, I agree that these "beliefs" -- more properly, hypotheses -- are not scientific, but not because they don't fit into the ideologically correct views of Science. They are not scientific because they don't fit the definition of a scientific hypothesis, which is one for which an experiment can be designed which will de-verify it. Of course, the hypothesis of meteorite landings is not scientific in this sense, either; you can only set up a lot of observers and wait until a meteorite lands near one. If one does, you've verified the phenomenon, but if none does, you haven't de-verified it. Hypotheses like the Resurrection hypothesis (which I believe) and the the-world- was-created-in-4004-BC-as-if-it-had-always-been-here hypothesis (which I don't) are unscientific not because they are counter to science, but because they and science are irrelevant to each other. Science can't verify them; neither can it deverify them. Since both are defined as unique events, the laws concerning continuous events (like those of QM and thermodynamics) aren't applicable to them. Of course, they aren't applicable to the Big Bang, at which time these laws were set up, either. In summary: the Resurrection isn't scientific. But since nobody claims it _is_... SO WHAT? >I suspect that the NT authors had mistaken beliefs and that they didn't >accept the modern notion of the importance of literal truth. "I suspect." Either defend this "suspicion," or retract it; as a rhetorical tool, it's on a level with "I have in this envelope..." Welcome to 1984! Are you ready for the Third World War? You too will meet the Secret Police -- We'll draft you and jail your niece, so come quietly to Boot Camp. We'll shoot you dead, make you a man, but don't worry, it's for a _cause_... --Dead Kennedys "We've Got A Bigger Problem Now" The Roach
maas@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mike Maas) (01/03/91)
Note: I tried to reply to this but the mailer choked so I am posting it to the newsgroup. In an article >From: spock@maths.tcd.ie Tommy Hayes (Thanks Dr.W.) says: > Tommy, Please correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds as if you have had a good deal of religious education (perhaps even indoctrination) and now you are looking for some answers to some personally very meaningful questions. Your letter indicates that you have some doubt about what you have been taught but that you are seeking answers from other people. I will answer all of your questions to the best of my ability. I will share with you my own convictions and you may do with them as you wish. Take what is useful and leave the rest. > Why can't everybody just realise that Jesus was just an ordinary, > albeit very ahead of his time,person who had a lot of brilliant > ideas about how we should live? Well, many people do accept that Jesus was quite an ordinary person in the sense that he was "fully human". On the other hand, while I don't have an answer that can be backed up by any kind of objective proof I do believe that Jesus was extraordinary in many ways. Let me just cite one of them that has proven to be very meaningful to me: In the Garden of Gethsemene Jesus accepts the cup that God has given him. Had he refused it, he would have been just one more idealistic rebel more than likely forgotten by history, but his acceptance led to the cross. I doubt that anyone described as "ordinary" would have made a similar decision. On brilliant ideas. They don't strike me as brilliant in a worldly sense, but they are mind/heart opening. What is particularly meaningful to me is the way they invite us to live the Love that God has given us. Time and again, Jesus in his actions and words points out that the way to God is through love. He calls us to love him, to love God, to love ourselves (one of the most important for the modern west) and to love our neighbors. These ideas when lived through faithing do lead one to a more content life, but the liver of such a life will look more foolish than brilliant to much of the world. On being ahead of his time. Not really in that most of what he taught existed before he arrived. On the other hand, he did cast a new light on traditional teachings and even many Jewish scholars recognize much of the uniqueness of the teachings of Jesus. Finally, those teachings, especially as lived and taught by Jesus, are in a sense out of time. They are always ahead of us who are trying to follow them. > There is absolutly no need to bring in god,heaven or anything like > that to explain anything, Well, I guess that may be true. But I would have difficulty believing that I could follow the road that Jesus followed without a very good reason. One might answer that love is a good enough reason, to which I say amen and "God is Love." This is the perhaps the main reason I am a follower of Jesus. I don't follow because I want the reward of heaven or because I fear God's punishing wrath; I follow because I know that I am loved by the risen Christ and because I want to Love. > and anybody who does was either brainwashed by their parents or else > are too ignorant to think objectivly about their religion. This appears to be a very sensitive area for you. I can certainly tell you I wasn't brainwashed. I never went to church or Sunday school as a child nor did my parents. I'm not sure I have thought objectively about my beliefs either, but I am sure I have thought just as objectively as has anyone else. The real question is "can one in any sense think objectively?" I can also tell you that the love of Christ is not an objective experience, but it is nonetheless real, nay Real. Tommy, I can only say to you that you have to open your heart to God if you want to experience him for yourself. I know this may be difficult, especially if the only idea of God you know is one that does not resonate within your heart. I would suggest that you ask God to come into your life in a way that is meaningful for you. One of the most wonderful things about being human is that we are all different, and we all need to be able to communicate with God in whatever way is most meaningful to us as individuals. One of the most wonderful things about God is that He is perfectly capable of meeting each of us in our individuality. It is a great pastoral skill to be able to mediate God to others, and one that I am sure you will be able to find in your neighborhood. I would suggest that you find someone you trust who seems to be content and happy in the religious aspects of their life and ask them for advice about who you might talk to. > I remember one of my many religious instructors in school once gave > a very cutting address against people like the dreaded 'Moonies' > and 'Born Again Christians' who kidnap people unbeknowns to them > and brainwash them for a couple of weeks into their way of thinking. > The thing is, he said he was giving the opinion of the catholic > church. Will somebody please tell me what the difference between this > and your parents doing the 'right thing' and brain-washing you for the > first 14 odd years of your life? I'll try. Cults, whether the two groups you mentioned above qualify or not is open to debate, have an ulterior motive. They often present themselves as a very loving community in order to get people to join them. Once the victim is in the net, they use other techniques that do amount to brainwashing. Peer pressure is a very strong force for most of us. The important thing to remember is that for these groups, the loving atmosphere is a ploy, or tool used to manipulate victims. Parents, on the other hand, hopefully truly love their children and seek through passing on religion and other values to give their children a strong moral/social foundation on which they can build a constructive life that will in turn allow them to function efficiently in the world and raise their own children to do the same. Not all family situations are healthy, in fact in some societies a majority of them are not, but almost always, healthy or not, the parents believe that what they are doing is good for their children, and they are doing it at least partially out of love, true love with no motive other than itself. One of the analogies that has been helpful to me to understand God is that of God as a parent. You probably are not a parent yet, but believe me when you become one, you will be disappointed many times by your children. It helps me to remember that God is disappointed in me in a similar way for many of the things I do. Yet I am still aware that God loves me, and that helps me to continue to love my children despite my disappointments. Likewise, many of us carry images of God that are remarkably like those of our father. This is something I have had to work to overcome. I was raised in a typical American family where love was not freely expressed and only in my adult life have I come to feel loved. I asked God for his love and he poured it out to me. This is my strongest evidence for his existence and it has caused me to reevaluate much of my former thought. Tommy, I don't know you or your background, but I do hope these answers will help you to understand why some of us understand what we do. Best regards and God bless, Mike Maas I know a well that flows and runs Yet remains hidden An eternal spring, a hidden well I know nothing else so full of beauty In the heavens or the earth For all beauty and all life Drink from the water of her light I know this well will run eternal Ever deep and ever wide And no one man can ever cross it Without the faith from on high I know this well does overflow To give light to mankind This spring is hidden within the living Bread Flowing from the Bread of Life And no one man can ever taste it Without the faith from on high Taken from "I Know A Well" St. John of the Cross/Michael Talbott