[civilian_number_two]

Mark 7:18


by saying this, Jesus declared all foods 'clean' since food comes from outside of the body. And by clean he does not mean physical, but spiritually.

Again. This is just interpretation. Since in that very story, all Jesus is referring to is the practice of ritual hand-washing, and not the food itself, I say you have no evidence that Jesus ever ate pork or shellfish. None. Zip. I know it sounds like he may be declaring all foods to be clean, and I know that is what Mark goes on to say. But I say there is insufficient evidence. The very last meal Jesus ever ate was a Kosher Passover dinner, complete with unleavened bread. And his parable of the Prodigal Son is complete with the detail that the son sank so low, that he was staying in a foreign farmstead and tending to pigs. See, pigs being the unclean animal. Since this was not a true story, but a parable only, I say the pig detail is significant. Jesus was very much Jewish, no matter what Mark and Paul and so on wanted him to be.

Anyway, you missed the second half of my question, about why Jesus would come along and change the diet. I say the early Christians made this crap up and put it into the Gospel in order to sell the story to the Romans. I say the God that asked Abraham to kill his own son, and who promised him that his were the Chosen People, would not abandon his people to a group of Hellenite upstarts with book-learning.

Also the Gospels were written 30 years after his death. That is not long enough for myth to form. 1000's wittnessed him, 30 years would not make them forget.

You have to be kidding here. We live in a world of electronic record, and look what thirty years did to the myth of Kennedy, from the assassination in 1963 to the Oliver Stone film of 1993. That is not some fever-dream; Stone quoted only popular and widely-accepted myths about the shooting. Look at the Waco story, a modern day Masada. Hell, look at the current myth of Al-Qaida and Osama Bin Laden. Thirty years is plenty for a non-scientific word-of-mouth people.

Yes, thousands of people saw this man. Thousands who likely would never have read the material written about him, given that they spoke Aramaic and the Gospels were written in Greek. Mark wrote the first gospel, some thirty years after the death, when many of those thousands would have died. The others were much later; the much-quoted Gospel of John, the bourne of most of Christianity, came about after the turn of the century. And I hold that the stories were embellished by writers wanting the man to seem more than he was, and that thirty years is enough for this. Five Thousand people fed with a few loaves of bread and some fish. Sure, why not. Plus, he rose from the dead!

To say that the true eyewitnesses would have been able to wrest the myth from the hands of its makers is to say that there have never been any false cults since the beginning of religious history, that noone ever believed Jim Bakker or Oral Roberts, and that Jerry Falwell was right when he said that the attacks of 9-11 were retribution on a nation of homosexuals. Yes, he said that, and he still has followers. Any shit is true, if enough people believe it.

The fact is, Christianity exists because people were told about it by a handful of people either who claimed to have been there or who claimed to have had visions or visitations. You are a Christian because someone told you about it, and because you read about it. You have not seen a man rise from the dead or ever witnessed water turning into wine. Why this is enough for you, I do not know. I give you John 20:25 (I hope I have that right).

What do you think the christian message is? You find that half of it is just a historical track record? What would you rather have? Out of no where Christ appears! No prophecies means no validification.

You might have missed my point here. My point is that the Bible is not a Christian book. It is a collection of Jewish books and then some Christian ones, re-interpreted by Christians as telling only one story. I say no way. If it is all the story of Jesus, then what is that bit about Rebecca hiding stolen loot by sitting on it? She refuses to get up because she is having her period. It is a great story, one of my favourites, but I see no direct line to the Jesus story.

No prophecies = no validification; well I see that, but the majority of the Old Testament is not prophecy at all, and a good many of the so-called prophecies are bogus, or lines out of context. The Old Testament, as Christians call it, is a set of the histories and myths of the Jewish people. It is not a book about how Jesus is going to come along one day. This business about God sending Jesus to heal Mankind of the sin of Adam, it just makes no sense. Did he not already send his people a Flood, and Pillars of Fire, and the confusion of Babel, and numerous periods of captivity, and hardship, and all that, as punishment for various periods of hard sinning? Was he running out of ideas, or am I supposed to believe that all along, through the Floods and the Visitations and the Captivities, he was working up to this Jesus thing? Do you have any idea how tacked-on and crazy that sounds?

[Heccubus]

You have to be kidding here. We live in a world of electronic record, and look what thirty years did to the myth of Kennedy, from the assassination in 1963 to the Oliver Stone film of 1993. That is not some fever-dream; Stone quoted only popular and widely-accepted myths about the shooting. Look at the Waco story, a modern day Masada. Hell, look at the current myth of Al-Qaida and Osama Bin Laden. Thirty years is plenty for a non-scientific word-of-mouth people.

He makes a good point...

[George_TheT]

I've never met a Jehovah's Witness. What keeps cryogenically frozen people alive?

[Heccubus]

I might be wrong here, but to the best of my memory, the way that cryogenic freezing works is that the vital organs are still operative, just not working at their usual levels. Basically, sort of like freezing water. It's still water, just in a different state of molecular activity...you know? I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about...
Anyway, there are still a lot of unanswered questions regarding cryogenic freezing, usually after a while muscle tissue begins to break down, organs shut down completely, very nasty things like that. It's by no means a dependable system.

[Jordan]

You have to be kidding here. We live in a world of electronic record, and look what thirty years did to the myth of Kennedy, from the assassination in 1963 to the Oliver Stone film of 1993. That is not some fever-dream; Stone quoted only popular and widely-accepted myths about the shooting. Look at the Waco story, a modern day Masada. Hell, look at the current myth of Al-Qaida and Osama Bin Laden. Thirty years is plenty for a non-scientific word-of-mouth people. 


He makes a good point...

No one saw the killer of Kennedy, no one knows much about Osama other than the fact he is bad and is hiding.

This is called speculation and intrigue. Not a solid myth. 1000's wittnessed Christ. No one saw the killer of kennedy so....let your imagination run wild. No one knows where Osama is.....let your imagination run wild again.. maybe he is an alien...Great point you made.

[Jordan]

Again. This is just interpretation. Since in that very story, all Jesus is referring to is the practice of ritual hand-washing, and not the food itself, I say you have no evidence that Jesus ever ate pork or shellfish.

"Are you so dull? he asked "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach , and then out of his body"


Read it again Civilian

"For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body"

My hand does not reach as far down as my stomach. This is blatantly obvious that he is talking about dirty hands, food, or anything else that can enter your body will never hurt you spiritually.

From my engineering stand point, I always assume the obvious. Sure he did not say "don't eat shell fish" directly, but the fact that he said -nothing from the OUTSIDE can make you unclean- is good enough. Food can also be classified as coming from the "outside".

The pharisees just happen to notice the dirty hands bit and tried to get Jesus with that. So Christ came back and defended himself and the people eating with him and at the same time declared that nothing from the outside ( dirt, food) can make you a sinner.

The messiah is foretold in old testament. It is foretold that he will fulfill prophecy and the law. That is just what he did. No more burnt sacrifices, no more temples, no more priests with special robes, no more eating diets, no more marrying only your own kind....etc

And I hold that the stories were embellished by writers wanting the man to seem more than he was, and that thirty years is enough for this. Five Thousand people fed with a few loaves of bread and some fish. Sure, why not. Plus, he rose from the dead!

If you think they're all fake well ok.

The examples you gave are nothing big. If Christ is God then feeding people and rising from the dead are small potatoes.

I did not come to Christianity based on the miracles, other facts presented before me is what forced me to become a Christian....and as a result I now believe the miracles to be true.

so-called prophecies are bogus, or lines out of context

Examples?

[civilian_number_two]

"Are you so dull? he asked "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach , and then out of his body"


Read it again Civilian

Ok ... if I have to take the statement beyond its contect, then you are right. Jesus in one fell swoop declared that no food of any kind could make you unclean, that it was what was in your heart that mattered. Therefore, if you were preaching to pagans, say, and they sat you down to eat, it would be okay to eat food that had been ritually sacrificed to their pagan god, so long as you did not, in your heart, personally pledge to that god any allegiance. I don't think you're right, but I don't care enough to belabour the point.

The examples you gave are nothing big. If Christ is God then feeding people and rising from the dead are small potatoes.

This is what is known as "begging the question." Jesus is God; therefore these miracles are true. A more appropriate argument would entail the proof that the miracles are true to show that Jesus was God. Not the other way around, you see.

QUOTE 
so-called prophecies are bogus, or lines out of context



Examples?

Here's a bogus one: there's a prophecy in Micah foretelling that from Bethlehem would come a ruler (Micah 5:2). According to Matthew, this is satisfied by the birth of Jesus. Apparently he was born in Bethlehem, and the author goes out of his way to say how it was all due to this census that was being taken at that time, and then this mass slaughter that made Jesus's parents flee to Egypt. All this because of course everyone who would have seen this guy (the thousands you refer to) knew he was from Nazareth. There is no record of any census, and certainly none of any mass slaughters of infants at that time. Matthew completely made this stuff up. Also, to cover his ass, Matthew says that this whole sordid moving-around was to fulfill the prophecy "He will be called a Nazarene." Naturally, there is no such quote anywhere in the Old Testament. And with good reason: the town of Nazareth was a fairly new settlement, and didn't exist in OT times. So you see, this is a totally bogus "prophecy."

Now, I could go the other way, and say that "Nazareth" literally means "the Green Branch." I could point out many references to branches and greenery in the OT. Not many of them are actually prophetic, but there are some that can be taken to be. For instance, "The Branch of the Lord" comes up in Isaiah 4:2, and the trendiest of Christian apologists like to bring this up as referring to Jesus and therefore, obliquely to a play on the word Nazareth. Of course, as Messianic prophecies go, it's pretty lame. It talks a lot about the enemies of Israel suffering, and their women going bald. It doesn't mention shepherds or light or any of the usual Jesus stuff, so I doubt we should really use it. This is what I would call a "prophecy" taken out of context, since if it referes to a Messiah it's not the sort of Messiah Jesus was. The coming of Jesus really didn't cause such hardship to the enemies of Israel. The women certainly didn't lose their hair over it!

Anyway, Matthew's effort to make up a random quote speaks volumes about his intent. And while I'll forgive him for a lot (the Beatitudes are wonderful, so, props), this behaviour is hardly excusable. And the apology I refer to above? It's like saying that the Messiah would come as fresh water to the people, and then trying to make points for noticing that he was born in a town called Clearbrook.

Conclusion: Jesus was from Nazareth, not from Bethlehem at all. Matthew wanted to show that he was the fulfillment of prophecy, so he made up a story about a census and an inn. He also added a bogus citation aboout how he was also predicted to have come from Nazareth, or to have been called a Nazarene, at least. This may have been enough for the dozens of people still alive when he read the gospel who might actually have met the man, but knowing that those still alive would never actually read the gospel, it's not super convincing.

-----

Matthew also brovides an elaborate family tree, tracing Jesus all the way back to David. This is to show that he was born of the house of David, as foretold. All very nice, and Luke liked it so much that he made his own. His tree, however, goes all the way back to Adam. Nice, nice, very nice. Except that while they agree from Abraham to David, at that point they depart and the lists are completely different. Some folks have tried to argue that one line traced the line to Joseph, and the other to Mary, but that doesn't make any sense since Mary isn't mentioned in either list, and since they are both collections of Men's names and connectors of the "Son of" variety.

So ... too bad there.

-----

The best bogus prediction is the one where Jesus refers to the destruction of the temple. Since the temple was destroyed before even the first gospel was written ... well, do I even need to finish this sentence? A convincing prophecy is one where you say something, and *then* it happens. This sort of prophecy is like the know-it-all drunk at the party who follows eberything you say or do with "I knew you were going to say/do that!"

-----

Now, I don't want to come off as a jerk, so I'll add a really good fake prophecy. Psalm 22 is often used to stand as a prediction of the Passion. And it's pretty good. There's a lot of stuff in there about oxen and lions, and being surrounded by dogs, so too bad there, but there are some great details. There's the notion of people jeering, and saying "He trusts in the Lord; let the Lord save him;" there is the detail of the piercing of the hands and the feet; there's the casting of the lots for his clothing. Best of all, it begins with "My Lord, why have you foresaken me?" which Jesus is said to have uttered on the cross. So Paslm 22 is pretty amazing in that way.

BUT: I think it's possible for anyone to have made up those details for the gospels, or to have selectively remembered things that way. No evidence any of the Gospel writers were present at the crucifixion, and all but one of Jesus's closest associates (none of whom wrote a gospel) were conspicuously absent. So the jeering, the quote, the division of the garment, could all be made up. The only really good detail is the piercing of the hands and feet, which in the light of my previous skepticism now sounds to me like a coincidence. I mean, I've watched THE WIZARD OF OZ while listening to DARK SIDE OF THE MOON. Damn, there are some great moments. The cash register ka-ching right when Dorothy opens the door to the colourful land of Oz? They *must have* planned that!

Anyway, goofy aside notwithstanding, I hold that Psalm 22 is never identified by its author as "prophecy;" it's just a lament followed by a message of hope. There are many other Psalms just like it. It's pretty selective to take it as prophecy just because it has a few verses in it that can be made to sound like something. The biggest fault of Christianity in general is the apparently random way in which some parts of the Bible are metaphor and others are literal. The most amusing thing, of course, is that a lot of the stuff that is obviously metaphor, or at least folklore (the creation story, Noah's Ark, the Tower of Babel, Revelations) is the stuff you take literally!

[civilian_number_two]

This is called speculation and intrigue. Not a solid myth. 1000's wittnessed Christ. No one saw the killer of kennedy so....let your imagination run wild. No one knows where Osama is.....let your imagination run wild again.. maybe he is an alien...Great point you made.

Actually, that's about the worst retort you could have come up with. You see, someone did see Kennedy's assassins. And there are a lt of people who know a lot about it. It just so happens those people aren't talking. And an awful lot is known about Osama bin Laden, so I'm not sure what you're after there. Thousands saw Jesus, sure. But how many saw him rise from the dead? Since I say it never happened, I say none. Even the gospels say very few did. But ... certainly if they'd been lying, someone would have said so at the time, right?

It's not a case of "let your imagination run wild," since I assure you that people have done that in the case of Jesus, and what's more, they've written it down. It's a case of the popular myth being the one that the greatest nymber of people had access to. The gospels became the story because that's what people were reading. Because those were the books selected by the early church fathers. There were other books available to them. The ones they didn't like they stopped using. And Oswald shot Kennedy because the Warren Commission sealed all findings that admitted doubt. It doesn't mean that the accepted story is true!

There are numerous publications today, there are numerous urban legends, there are all sorts of things commonly held as true that simply aren't so. And if all it takes to "prove" the myths of ancient people is to attest that thousands saw it at the time and didn't deny it, then Mohammed is a true prophet and we should really end this holy war with Islam. Because thousands sure saw the hell out of that guy!

[Supes]

Someone posted this link on another thread. Apologies to the original poster as I cannot remember who it was or where it was posted originally. It's an interesting read:

Sceptic's Guide to Christianity

While I consider myself a Christian, the unfortunate truth is that the Bible as an historical text is actually quite laughable. It is one of the very few places that you can find any reference to Jesus. Most other writings from this time either do not refer to him or make a mere passing comment.

Most historians do not use the Bible as a reference cource for events that occurred for the simle fact that they are just not reliable. They arenot coroborated by any other texts or records. This is one of the cornerstones to making a credible resource.

You can read the historian Tacitus and see his extremely biased approach to the Rome that he was describing, but you can make this statement about bias because there are other records that present the events from differeing points of view. A single source is not sufficient to create fact - especially when we are talking about events over 2000 years past.

The Bible is not about the historical facts that some people want to try to prove. It is about the overall message. Now the controversial part of this statement is that this message is not that dissimilar to many other religious doctrines. Try getting any religious leader to admit that their base tenents preach the same thing.

[Jordan]

who witnessed kennedy's killer(s)?

[Heccubus]

I think we need to start a long running debate forum.

[civilian_number_two]

who witnessed kennedy's killer(s)?

Yawn.

Kennedy's killers saw Kennedy's killers. Whoever hired them knows that they did it. Several people claiming to know things mysteriously diappeared, comitted suicide, or were murdered over a short time.

The details of the Kennedy assassination are not written down, but that doesn't mean that the popular conclusion (Oswald did it) is correct. Certainly not just because it's written down. It's the received story, it is history, and there are thousands of detractors, many of whom may really know better. AND YET THE STORY PERSISTS. But this is an analogy, and we shouldn't dwell too much on it. The comparison made is that within thirty years there are dozens of conflicting rumours, and they have no effect on the received story. So I say that in thirty years the same would be true of the Jesus story.

Thousands saw the man. Yes. Some claimed that he was the Son of God and that he rose from the dead. Yes. Your argument that this MUST be true is that thousands saw the man and that some wrote this about him. You don't see how the writers could have just made this up, and how the people who didn't believe he'd risen couldn't possibly have stopped them from writing it?

If all it took were detractors to make a nonsense story go away, we wouldn't have all the people who believe that Jim Morrisson faked his own death, despite the public record of his autopsy. Or say Elvis, or all the folk who believe that Jesus invisibly returned to Earth in 1914 to tell Charles Russell how to better interpret the Bible and to create the Watchtower Society (Back on topic, at last!). MILLIONS of people believe that, and noone saw it!

The fact that Christianity didn't much catch on in Judea, where those thousands lived, but it caught on just fine in North Africa and Southern Europe, pretty much makes my point for me. The people who believe in the Risen Christ are the people who never saw it, but were told about it by some nice and charismatic men. As for me and my house, we will believe if he comes to us and invites us to put our fingers into the wounds in his hands and feet, and our hands into the wound in his side.

[Supes]

If all it took were detractors to make a nonsense story go away, we wouldn't have all the people who believe that Jim Morrisson faked his own death, despite the public record of his autopsy. Or say Elvis...

Hey Now!

We all know the King aint dead. It's also funny that he comes up in this discussion because when he re-emerges he is going to be a major spiritual leader. I saw this on an Elvis Presely special. This woman was telling everyone all about the unique characteristics of Elvis that would lead to this transformation of a man that she had never met. I've seen it so it must be the truth.

Sorry, couldn't resist. I've made a couple of serious posts and really felt the need to get back to reality.

[Supes]

I think we need to start a long running debate forum.

You may be on to something Hecc!

Also, I'm beginning to believe that Anniemate was a Clairvoyant. This discussion has jumped up a nothch.

[civilian_number_two]

Also, I'm beginning to believe that Anniemate was a Clairvoyant. This discussion has jumped up a notch.

No way. Anniemate was either a jittery religiophope or a no-good, stinking troll. There's no venom here, and were I to run into Jordan in the Bible studies section of the the UBC library, I'm sure he'd offer to buy me a coffee.

You just can't talk about religion without getting heavy. It's a big subject. And no, I ain't gonna convince anyone of anything, and neither is he. We're just a couple guys mouthing off about stuff we think we know. When we get bored or bogged down, we'll stop. It won't get personal.