Christians, what would it take?

[Inigo Montoya]

What would have to happen for you Christians to abandon your beliefs in God, miracles, the accuracy of the Bible's stories, etc.?

We have a couple panentheists, at least one Muslim, and heaven knows what else frequenting this subforum; you folk feel free to chime in on your respective versions of "God/god" and apply the OP to it as you see fit.

On a personal note, I'm especially anxious to hear from Ted and FtK, Goose and BThread.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 9 by liamconnor]

Well, when asked if the Jews should pay a tax of coins that had the graven images of two (false) gods on them, Jesus blasphemously responded,
"Render to the god Caesar, what is Caesar's, render to the god Jehovah,what is his."
And not very far from the temples dedicated to either god, either.

Has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of the resurrection. Jesus most certainly implied that he did not care about taxes to Caesar. That was not blasphemy. There is nothing in the law stating that paying taxes to foreign powers was blasphemy. The prophet Jeremiah instructed Jews in exile to pray for their captors and to buckle down and work. Jesus was not a revolutionary. So far your point is pretty innocuous.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 11 by liamconnor]

Has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of the resurrection.

Who said it had to?

Jesus most certainly implied that he did not care about taxes to Caesar.

However, he most certainly said it was OK to touch and revere graven images of false gods.
Why do you think the tax was such a big deal?
It wasn't because of the tax, it was because Rome was a divine monarchy. Tithing to Caesar was tithing to a god with temples in Jerusalem.

That was not blasphemy.

Well, you may be right about blasphemy, there is Nixon's argument that if the President does it,it is not against the law, and it is so hard to get an applicable definition of blasphemy.
He did break a couple of commandments, and certainly by tithing to another god, and before Yahweh, that must mean something.

There is nothing in the law stating that paying taxes to foreign powers was blasphemy.

Ah, typical gentile, only seeing money, "it is easier for a camel to fit..." It was not about the tax, it was about the coins being graven images of other gods.
You see a Jew would see the foreign god asking for sacrifice with a idolatrous coin, as would any Christian, had they existed at the time.
You with your 20-20 hindsight can pretend this isn't the case.

You see, Yahweh at the time wanted a sacrifice of rams, Caesar wanted a sacrifice of copper.

So, what religion are you looking at going into?

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 1 by Inigo Montoya]

A natural explanation of the early Christian movement (tracing how we get from no Jesus to a Jesus as described in the N.T.) that satisfied basic historical criteria. It would have to be plausible on its own merits (i.e., the assertion of the agnostic that alien interference is "more" plausible than miraculous intervention is not adequate) and demonstrate knowledge of the cultural context; it would have to have explanatory power and scope; and, most especially, it would have to resort very, very infrequently to ad hoc assumptions (e.g. "The Centurion failed to puncture the vital organs of Jesus").

I find this an incredibly bizarre metric for a guy that spends so much time criticizing others for failing to apply historical methodologies properly.

You, the apparent representative of all a historian is supposed to be, require a paint-by-numbers recreation of the earliest days of this movement, thousands of years ago, along with the motives of all actors within arms length of circulating the tales, BEFORE you'll discard the supernatural version.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 1 by Inigo Montoya]

A natural explanation of the early Christian movement (tracing how we get from no Jesus to a Jesus as described in the N.T.) that satisfied basic historical criteria. It would have to be plausible on its own merits (i.e., the assertion of the agnostic that alien interference is "more" plausible than miraculous intervention is not adequate) and demonstrate knowledge of the cultural context; it would have to have explanatory power and scope; and, most especially, it would have to resort very, very infrequently to ad hoc assumptions (e.g. "The Centurion failed to puncture the vital organs of Jesus").

I find this an incredibly bizarre metric for a guy that spends so much time criticizing others for failing to apply historical methodologies properly.

You, the apparent representative of all a historian is supposed to be, require a paint-by-numbers recreation of the earliest days of this movement, thousands of years ago, along with the motives of all actors within arms length of circulating the tales, BEFORE you'll discard the supernatural version.

Moderator Warning

Address the content of the post, not the writer of it, especially not in derogatory terms.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 14 by dianaiad]



Deleted.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 13 by Inigo Montoya]

I find this an incredibly bizarre metric for a guy that spends so much time criticizing others for failing to apply historical methodologies properly.

You, the apparent representative of all a historian is supposed to be, require a paint-by-numbers recreation of the earliest days of this movement, thousands of years ago, along with the motives of all actors within arms length of circulating the tales, BEFORE you'll discard the supernatural version.

Despite the rhetorical and dramatic nature of this reply, (which does not address the argument), I respond:

You are incorrect; I accept the supernatural version because it is abundantly clear that all natural explanations fail when weighed against basic historical methodology.

As well, I have frequently presented a natural explanation which I think comes as close as any possibly can to satisfying historical criteria; you may review my history if you are interested.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 12 by Willum]

Quote:
Jesus most certainly implied that he did not care about taxes to Caesar.

However, he most certainly said it was OK to touch and revere graven images of false gods.
Why do you think the tax was such a big deal?
It wasn't because of the tax, it was because Rome was a divine monarchy. Tithing to Caesar was tithing to a god with temples in Jerusalem.

Simply untrue. There is nothing in the Pentateuch that says Jews could not pay tithes to a foreign empire. Jeremiah admonished Jews in exile to pray for their leaders and to buckle down and work; hence, contribute to the pagan community. There was nothing odd about Jesus saying "Render unto Caesar". His opponents were playing a political game: "Are you going to start a revolution, or are you going to be a complacent Jew, like a tax-collector?"


In short, You are inventing your own 1st c. Judaism. It has zero weight behind it. I recommend you do your homework: provide actual documentation for your claims. Even an allusion (i.e., "in the Mishnah it says x") would be refreshing.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 16 by liamconnor]

Despite the rhetorical and dramatic nature of this reply, (which does not address the argument), I respond:

You are incorrect; I accept the supernatural version because it is abundantly clear that all natural explanations fail when weighed against basic historical methodology.

As well, I have frequently presented a natural explanation which I think comes as close as any possibly can to satisfying historical criteria; you may review my history if you are interested.

It is abundantly clear to you, you mean. What are all the natural explanations again? You have them all? Where did you get them? I'm interested in reading them, indeed. Not enough to search your history but if you link them, I'll click them.

I grow concerned you may be displaying a bias toward the not-supernatural. Without God, some things are possible. That deserves to be a bumper sticker, I think. If I see that online after tonight, I'm taking credit for it. Hell, I'm bolding that. Standby. The scotch takes the lead, let's wrap it up.

I also find it curious you say you accept the supernatural version because it is abundantly clear that all natural explanations fail when weighed against basic historical methodology. It sounds suspiciously like you can't find an explanation for X with the data available, ergo God. But hey, if you've exhausted your resources accounting for a natural explanation from every conceivable angle, accounting for the motives and beliefs of a largely anonymous and ancient source, then I agree. What's left? Well, historically speaking, it's apparently magic.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 18 by Inigo Montoya]

It is abundantly clear to you, you mean. What are all the natural explanations again? You have them all? Where did you get them? I'm interested in reading them, indeed. Not enough to search your history but if you link them, I'll click them.

A legitimate question.

All natural explanations of the origins of Christianity will fall into a category of either Conspiracy or Psycopathy; that is, either someone/s was lying, or someone/s was mistaken.

The conspiracy explanation fails. No historian today takes it seriously.

After that we have a psychological explanation. The only psychological explanation that warrants an historical explanation is that all initial proponents of Christiainity really, truly, believed that their master was raised from the dead.

Numerous historians (non-Christians) hold this.

I grow concerned you may be displaying a bias toward the not-supernatural. Without God, some things are possible. That deserves to be a bumper sticker, I think. If I see that online after tonight, I'm taking credit for it. Hell, I'm bolding that. Standby. The scotch takes the lead, let's wrap it up.

I grow concerned you are out of your element and are using humor to disguise the fact. How about read a book on this stuff. I recommend E.P. Sanders' "Historical Jesus".

I also find it curious you say you accept the supernatural version because it is abundantly clear that all natural explanations fail when weighed against basic historical methodology. It sounds suspiciously like you can't find an explanation for X with the data available, ergo God. But hey, if you've exhausted your resources accounting for a natural explanation from every conceivable angle, accounting for the motives and beliefs of a largely anonymous and ancient source, then I agree. What's left? Well, historically speaking, it's apparently magic.

I find it curious you have not defended a natural explanation; you simply assume there "must be a natural explanation". Sounds like "Faith", i.e., "Look, I can't offer a natural explanation...but I just know in my heart of hearts that there must be....".

Sounds like a bunch of religious fundamentalist talk to me.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 19 by liamconnor]

So there is one conspiracy that historians take seriously, the one of where, ever since ~300 BCE, wherever Rome conquered, it used religion to rule.

It drew analogies between the local gods and the Greco-Roman ones. For example Sulis-Minterva. As they conquered they said, "See your gods are our gods with different names. They said they give us the right to rule, therefore you should obey us."

Very like Romans 13:1-7.

So the question I always ask is:
Why having had this successful policy for over 300 years, do Jews and Christians believe it ceased when Rome conquered Jerusalem?

It is vulgar knowledge that Roman Gods were both enforced and absorbed traits from conquered nations... why does this stop in the Judeo-Christian mind in Jerusalem?

I propose that in the years of development that religion simply got to be good enough to "fool most of the people most of the time," and the Dark Ages did the rest.

So, historian, it is a conspiracy, acknowledge by history...
How do you answer the question? Why did Roman religious opportunism stop with Jerusalem? Or did it just press on through - and that is why Jesus is the homophone of Hey Zeus, and Zeus, as Deus is worshiped in the Catholic world?
Or why Jove is the Hebrew word for God?

Sullis-Minerva and other examples of the phenomena should be "understood by those in the art" aka historians, but are an easy reputable Google away, so...