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 39 by Willum]

Willum,

You need to start providing ANCIENT SOURCES. Can you provide anything that clearly states that Jewish law forbade Jews from giving back pagan coins to pagan overlords?


Until you do, why should anyone accept your claim that this was a sin? Or are you making up your own rule about what a faithful Jew could or could not do?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 38 by liamconnor]

How about plug in the actual Latin word for our very English Jove, which is not Iove, but Iuppiter? Does Iuppiter sound anything like Yahweh?

Liam, at the risk of continuing off topic, I find your historical scholarship far wanting here.

For surely you more than most know that Juptier, Iopater, or to make it simple; Jovian, is simply Jove-father, or Io-pater. Or father Jove.

Zeus --> Dyeus --> Dyeus-pater --> Jupiter, and so on.

Of course Jove, pronounced Jov-eh, is the proper way to say Zeus, et&al., I admit, it does take some historian scholarship, but it should be trivial for a professional, like yourself.

Here, a crutch:

His name is cognate with the first element of his Roman equivalent Jupiter.-

Zeus

Kind regards

[Willum]

[Replying to post 41 by liamconnor]

You need to start providing ANCIENT SOURCES. Can you provide anything that clearly states that Jewish law forbade Jews from giving back pagan coins to pagan overlords?

Well, despite your best efforts, my friend, that is not my claim. My claim is that the coins were graven images of ?false? gods, and that Jesus advocated venerating these gods through the tribute they required.

Please don't try to change the subject in order to accept Jesus as a real saviour. I don't think the principles of the religion respect that kind of deception.

As to ancient sources...

I call them the ten commandments.
I suppose I am unsurprised that you are not familiar with them.

They talk about not venerating other gods.
They talk about graven images and false idols, and a few other items that escape me at the moment.

But I am assured both Jews and Christians consider them solid references.

[JehovahsWitness]

...the Jews didn't object to the tax, they objected to the blasphemy (using the term loosely)

Well I think we are past the stage were we uses terms "loosley", lets get specific shall we. Please site the law in question and provide evidence that any of the actions I stipulated in my post # 37 violated said law.


JW

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 30 by Mithrae]

It seems that the person here who is promoting a sense of certitude - which implies a mathematical conclusion - is you, not I. The uncertainties surrounding Christian origins are substantial, to the extent that some highly qualified historians suggest that Jesus may not have even existed! That is a weak theory, a fringe theory, but it is far from impossible.

I think we both agree that History cannot provide absolutes; and so yes, I willingly acknowledge that the "Jesus Myth" theory is not impossible. Nor is the "Rubicon Myth theory" impossible. But if we applied the same kind of treatment to the Rubicon that is applied to Jesus by mythicists, it would never be taken seriously.

Some details of Jesus' life such as his hometown of Nazareth, baptism by John and existence of his brother James can be very strongly inferred; but on the other hand it is virtually indisputable that stories such as the contradictory accounts of his genealogy, birth in Bethlehem and the historically-feeble census and slaughter of infants stories surrounding them were simply inventions by people who seemingly didn't view these as matters of important historical truth.

I think we are in agreement here.

You have answered some of the biggest and most obvious problems with viewing the stories at the other ends of the gospels as sincere (if not accurate) historical accounts about as well as anyone I've seen. But these are still - to use your term - ad hoc efforts to salvage the theory against discrepancies which wouldn't otherwise be expected if the theory were correct.

You've lost me here. I would need to know which of my answers are considered ad hoc before I plead guilty. For instance, that oral testimony was considered of more value than written, and therefore would have been considered quite sufficient for at least a couple generations, is most certainly not ad hoc and completely answers the question as to why we have no biography of Jesus earlier than 60-70 AD. I also need to know which "discrepancies" should not exist if Jesus were actually raised. The delayed proclamation? I appealed to psychology. The psychological blow to the disciples would have been traumatic; a little time in the company of each other is quite understandable. However, since you have referred to Acts, you are well aware that Luke presents Jesus as remaining with the disciples for some time, and then commanding them to wait.

However there's a huge gap between merely thinking it the 'best' theory, and considering it so overwhelmingly superior that alternative views can be dismissed as irrelevant nothings in comparison - which is what you try to present. If the resurrection theory were even twice as compelling as three other possibilities (eg. swoon, fraud, mistaken identity) it would still be more probable than not that Jesus didn't rise from the dead.

That is not actually my tactic: the three theories youve mentioned are weak by themselves. I do not need to drag in a miraculous explanation to dismiss them. Put another way, Suppose a miraculous explanation were off the table; I would still not accept any of those three theories. I would (as many historians do) simply plead ignorance; and declare the origins of Christianity to be the greatest historical puzzle currently at hand. And I think it telling that very few atheists here are devoted to a single natural theory.


As for probability: On what do you base the improbability of the resurrection? I confess if I came to the texts fully convinced on other grounds (metaphysical, moral etc.) that there was no God and miracles don't happen, then of course, miracles don't happen. But then I would not talk of the improbability of a miracle; I would talk about the impossibility.

But then I have not yet met a non-historical argument that compels me to dismiss either God or his supernatural intervention.

Edited to add:
You seem to be contradicting Paul in your comments below, which is strange considering the 'creed' of 1 Cor. 15 is probably your most frequently-cited source on this topic - how can you so easily forget what it says? With their Messiah crucified, Psalm 22, Daniel 9, the servant songs of Isaiah and especially chapter 53 provide ample grounds for supporting the theology which Christians did in fact develop.

Luke 24:25 And He said to them, “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?� 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

It is hardly implausible to suppose that instead of receiving that theology from a resurrected Christ, it may have been developed by fervent believers searching for meaning during those fifty days* following their leaders' death; a revelation and relief which of course they would then attribute to Jesus himself.

...and now I have completely forgotten what we were debating, ha. I am not terribly interested in debating the historicity of the Emmaus Bible lesson. But I think we are carrying the cart before the horse (or however that saying goes). You point out the plausibility of Jesus' disciples rummaging through the Scriptures to explain his death. I would like to know why they were rummaging through the Scriptures at all. There was no incongruency between a crucified pretender and their scriptures. Their scriptures know all about "sometimes sht happens" and "you backed the wrong horse; now get on with life."

There is, however, an enormous incongruency between a crucified Messiah who is resurrected. The puzzle to be answered is, why did they believe he was raised.


*May I say I find you a very capable and amiable debater.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 44 by JehovahsWitness]

OK, but like Liam, I am not surprised you are unfamiliar with it:

I am the LORD thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.

Exodus 20:2

and

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth: 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
— Exodus 20:4-6 (KJV)

So, as I am TIRED of pointing out:
Caesar was a god of gods, worshiped by the Greeks and Romans, as was Pax, the goddess on the obverse.
These gods required a tribute of a coin proclaiming their divinity, as proof see: Mathew 22:18-22

But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, “Why do you test Me, you hypocrites? 19 Show Me the tax money.�
So they brought Him a denarius.
20 And He said to them, “Whose image and inscription is this?�
21 They said to Him, “Caesar’s.�
And He said to them, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.� 22 When they had heard these words, they marveled, and left Him and went their way.

Jesus is clearly putting the gods of Rome before Yahweh.
Jesus is clearly telling everyone to revere those gods the way they desire to be revered, through tithing (tithe = tax in Latin). (Now you must remember - there were pagans and Jews in the audience, no Christians at the time).
The coins are graven images, whose worship includes using the coins in sacrifice.

So my proof is from the Bible.
I think y'all should become more familiar with it.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 46 by Willum]

I have read your passages from Scripture several times. Perhaps you could underline the sentence that says, "Thou shalt not give back foreign coins to foreign overlords, for this is a symbolic act of worshiping another god". Now, I clearly see where God tells them not to make their own idols and worship them. I just can't find the sentence that tells me paying forced taxes to an overlord is a sin.

Now don't get me wrong; I see clearly where you have made the enormous inference that because Caesar thought himself a god and thought that taxes were a form of worship, therefore so did the Jews and their god.

What I don't see is where your speculation ends and the actual commandment you have in mind begins.

[JehovahsWitness]

So, no, my dears, paying taxes to a foreign government isn't a sin.

• • Excellent. The paying of foreign taxes would of course involve obtaining foreign coins. Governments don't usually accept foreign currency in payment of taxes. These coins would normally have all sorts of images of gods and animals engraved on them. Are you suggesting that it would be acceptable for a Jew to pay his taxes but not obtain or possess the coins needed to pay those taxes?
    
    The paying of foreign taxes would also involve the handing them over engraved coins in exchange for rights and freedoms at the bequest of a foreign authority . Are you suggesting that handing over coins in ones possession with engravements pagan gods violates some biblical law?

CONCLUSION: Since "paying taxes" would by necessisity involve the obtaining, possessing, and handing over engraved coins to a foreign authority at his request, by saying that the paying of foreign taxes was no sin, one is also saying that the components of this action (the possession of engraved coins, regardless of the engravement, the exchange of said coins in return for certain rights) is also no sin.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 48 by JehovahsWitness]

Perhaps it is also worth pointing out that the Jewish law was treated like any other law: with interpretation. And this was all the more troublesome for the Law was not written for 1st c. Jews in subjugation, but to autonomous Jews in 1444. It is therefore inevitable that situations would arise not directly addressed in the Torah. Jews would therefore have to find a rule "by extension". For instance, the kosher practice of separating cheese from meat apparently goes back to the prohibition of boiling a kid in its mother's milk. That is not the leap I would have made, but it was made and apparently received wide acceptance.

I do not doubt that some Jews would have regarded possession of a denari to be idolatrous. The zealots come to mind. However, the assertion that all Jews held this position is false; the position that they should have, is an interpretation.

Apparently, our friend Willum is a Jewish zealot.

[JehovahsWitness]

... graven idols dedicated to false gods [...] is a problem on soo many levels.

IDOL
an image or other material object representing a deity to which religious worship is addressed.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/idol

Firstly, the Jews did not worship Roman coins.

• If the Romans viewed their coins as idols that was their business but for a Jew an engraved coin was merely an agreed method of payment and we have already established the possession and uses of engraved coins for payment (whether that payment be for the goods and services of an individual or, as in the case of taxes, of a State or authority) violated no Jewish law. The coin could have had Zeus himself copulating with a pig on it, as distastful as that would be to the Jewish sensibilities the touching or handling or use of such a coin for non-religious purposes violated no Jewish law.

Trafficking in graven idols dedicated to false gods [...] is a problem on soo many levels.

TO TRAFFIC
trade; buying and selling; commercial dealings.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/trafficking

While (traficking) trading in idols would definitely violate bible principle, the Jews did not view Roman coins as idols nor is there any evidence they used them as such. There fore, if certain Jews chose to trade in coins (and to be fair I think it is not impossible that there was some "dealing" in coins on the part of the leading Herodian families and wealthy merchants) that was not illegal under Jewish law and they most certainly had the right to do so.

NOTE: The blatent exploitation of the less fortunate did violate God's law though and it was that that Jesus spoke out against when he chased he merchants from the temple. They charged exhorbitant exchange rates and disregarded the hardship that caused.