The Jesus to whom atheists and others often refer

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Eloi
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1775
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 213 times
Contact:

The Jesus to whom atheists and others often refer

Post #1

Post by Eloi »

Many times when the teachings of Jesus and his person are discussed, reference is made to a particular interpretation of what his words may be indicating. For example, I have read a discussion about a Jesus who denies or contradicts the Law of Moses. But that is an incorrect way of understanding Jesus, just like a political Jesus is or one who does not admit rich people among his followers, as if honest possessions were sin.

Can those who debate the teachings of Jesus at least begin to ascertain that the Jesus they suppose is the one that Scripture shows us and not an imaginary Jesus?

This topic is to analyze the need to be serious in the use of terms and premises, so that the debates adjust to the truth, and the conclusions are more accurate.

What is the Jesus you have in mind? Does it correspond to the Jesus of the Bible? Can you really know what Jesus was like?

User avatar
oldbadger
Guru
Posts: 1808
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:11 am
Has thanked: 312 times
Been thanked: 223 times

Re: The Jesus to whom atheists and others often refer

Post #91

Post by oldbadger »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun Jun 05, 2022 4:25 pm
I'm always wondering about why something is there. Where did it come from? This Lazarus thing. (Elazar) And Arimathea. Can they be names picked out at random or is some real thing there? That Luke has a tale of Lazarus in the right place is a wonder, and I also concocted a (far fetched) story incorporating both elements. Just as I concoct one combining the transfiguration and Jesus running off into the hills at Bethsaida. Just as Believers combine the Nativities and the death of Judas, or Paul's escape from Damascus in Acts and the tale of the Two Corinthians 11. 32. But in all these cases, these stories come from somewhere, even though in the case of the nativity the motivation is to fulfil a prophecy they belatedly became aware of - Jesus should have been born in Bethlehem.

Possibly there was a real story of Jesus, but it's been removed without trace. I can't find a place where something has been removed. Unlike John 12.20 where you can see where the temple cleansing has been ripped out.
So you want to find all the Truth Pills? I spent twenty years training folks to clock the truth pills....... then retired and wouldn't search for a truth pill now for money or love. Sooner go cycling or bird-watching.

Lazarus? The authors of G-John definitely didn't want a Jesus who casted out demons, or carried out 'touch-and-go' healings....... so very ordinary. They wanted resurrections, and not just ones that could have been unconscious.......no, they wanted three-day death to be resurrected. The fact that there may have been a Lazarus who had a soar thumb (whatever) interests me not at all. Lazarus..... a complex truth pill.

Arimathea? As you certainly will know, Arimathea is a community in Judea on the border with Samaria. Joseph was a senior Levite, a priest and trader. Trader.... I've often wondered if he traded in tin, the best source having been Cornwall which traded with the Mid-East through Palestine for thousands of years. Sidon and Tyre. Interesting possibilities there. The Cornish tradition insists that Joseph and Jesus went there, and where Jesus founded the first church at Glastonbury........... They even point to the Cornish isle where Jesus stayed..... Well! Why not?

Question:- How do believers combine the Nativity with the death of Judas?

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3487 times

Re: The Jesus to whom atheists and others often refer

Post #92

Post by TRANSPONDER »

oldbadger wrote: Mon Jun 06, 2022 2:30 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun Jun 05, 2022 4:25 pm
I'm always wondering about why something is there. Where did it come from? This Lazarus thing. (Elazar) And Arimathea. Can they be names picked out at random or is some real thing there? That Luke has a tale of Lazarus in the right place is a wonder, and I also concocted a (far fetched) story incorporating both elements. Just as I concoct one combining the transfiguration and Jesus running off into the hills at Bethsaida. Just as Believers combine the Nativities and the death of Judas, or Paul's escape from Damascus in Acts and the tale of the Two Corinthians 11. 32. But in all these cases, these stories come from somewhere, even though in the case of the nativity the motivation is to fulfil a prophecy they belatedly became aware of - Jesus should have been born in Bethlehem.

Possibly there was a real story of Jesus, but it's been removed without trace. I can't find a place where something has been removed. Unlike John 12.20 where you can see where the temple cleansing has been ripped out.
So you want to find all the Truth Pills? I spent twenty years training folks to clock the truth pills....... then retired and wouldn't search for a truth pill now for money or love. Sooner go cycling or bird-watching.

Lazarus? The authors of G-John definitely didn't want a Jesus who casted out demons, or carried out 'touch-and-go' healings....... so very ordinary. They wanted resurrections, and not just ones that could have been unconscious.......no, they wanted three-day death to be resurrected. The fact that there may have been a Lazarus who had a soar thumb (whatever) interests me not at all. Lazarus..... a complex truth pill.

Arimathea? As you certainly will know, Arimathea is a community in Judea on the border with Samaria. Joseph was a senior Levite, a priest and trader. Trader.... I've often wondered if he traded in tin, the best source having been Cornwall which traded with the Mid-East through Palestine for thousands of years. Sidon and Tyre. Interesting possibilities there. The Cornish tradition insists that Joseph and Jesus went there, and where Jesus founded the first church at Glastonbury........... They even point to the Cornish isle where Jesus stayed..... Well! Why not?

Question:- How do believers combine the Nativity with the death of Judas?
Sorry, did I say that? I mean that they reconcile the disparate nativities the way they combine the contradictory death of Judas stories, and the resurrections. Make stuff up, ignore contradictions and claim it's all true under all the unreliable witness testimony evasions. It's just that with the nativity, you can see the plot construction, the story mechanism, and the in plain sight rationale of the whole thing as well, even without John effectively saying 'I know that Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem, even though he should have been'.

We all have our approaches to the Bible problem. It's just that the fake resurrection tale works so well and so do the other 'signs' as frauds. But it being left out by the Synoptics because it never happened is the obvious explanation and moreover is again the best explanation for the other Omissions. Luke never mentions that amazing star, or the massacre at Bethlehem. Nor does anyone else (though some chancer tried to pass of an antique coin as commemorating the star). Cue the excuses. But the killer there is that Luke cannot have a flight to Egypt while Matthew cannot have a return to Nazareth a mere week or so after the birth. So one has to be wrong at least.

I must mention :) my Major opponent and Bible apologist re the nativity on my former board, who opted for Luke as a reliable historian. Later on he argued from Matthew and I said that he'd already binned Matthew.

"Where did I say that? Where did I use those words?" I pointed out that opting for Luke as true when he couldn't deny they couldn't be reconciled (1) implied abandoning Matthew. and it did no good pointing out that opting for Luke meant binning Matthew as he hadn't actually used those words; so (he said) I was wrong and had to apologise.

Yes, thank you, I had heard that there was an 'Arimeh' where Joseph came from, though I've never been able to find it on the map. It's a very nice tale O:) Arimathea taking the Tin trader boat to Tintagel bearing the baby Jesus who played on the beach at Penzance before returning to ...being a carpenter...and after crucifixion Joseph returned to the Rome of the Mendip silver -mining slaves bearing a bit of the cross or crown of thorns or maybe Longinus' spear which grew into a Rowan tree at Glastonbury festival like Bilbo's party tree and just as legendary.

(1) at least he didn't write a new - invented story with bits of the old ones and claim that it was true until I disproved it, which is why I bothered to debate him at all. One simply has to disengage with time wasting spammers, even if it looks like i left them the field.

User avatar
oldbadger
Guru
Posts: 1808
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:11 am
Has thanked: 312 times
Been thanked: 223 times

Re: The Jesus to whom atheists and others often refer

Post #93

Post by oldbadger »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon Jun 06, 2022 3:40 am
Sorry, did I say that? I mean that they reconcile the disparate nativities the way they combine the contradictory death of Judas stories, and the resurrections. Make stuff up, ignore contradictions and claim it's all true under all the unreliable witness testimony evasions. It's just that with the nativity, you can see the plot construction, the story mechanism, and the in plain sight rationale of the whole thing as well, even without John effectively saying 'I know that Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem, even though he should have been'.
I wasn't challenging you about anything. OK, I get it...... you were mentioning similar techniques used in two accounts, nativity and Judas's death.
The nativity is just a mess, so I don't even get warm about it. When extremists insist upon some particular part of the nativity I usually ask questions to see how they stitch everything together. I don't try to tell them anything.

The last time I asked about Judas's death I was told that ...'Judas hanged himself on a tree in that field which he purchased, eventually rotted until he fell from the noose and so spilled his guts upon the ground.' Job done. I asked why the authors didn't mention parts of the story and was told ,'They didn't have to, everybody knew about that bit.' Next question...so why did they write about it at all? .......... no answer. etc.
We all have our approaches to the Bible problem. It's just that the fake resurrection tale works so well and so do the other 'signs' as frauds. But it being left out by the Synoptics because it never happened is the obvious explanation and moreover is again the best explanation for the other Omissions. Luke never mentions that amazing star, or the massacre at Bethlehem. Nor does anyone else (though some chancer tried to pass of an antique coin as commemorating the star). Cue the excuses. But the killer there is that Luke cannot have a flight to Egypt while Matthew cannot have a return to Nazareth a mere week or so after the birth. So one has to be wrong at least.
Like I say, I don't bother with the nativity stories, but if anybody tries to teach them to me I just ask questions which can't be answered.
I must mention :) my Major opponent and Bible apologist re the nativity on my former board, who opted for Luke as a reliable historian. Later on he argued from Matthew and I said that he'd already binned Matthew.

"Where did I say that? Where did I use those words?" I pointed out that opting for Luke as true when he couldn't deny they couldn't be reconciled (1) implied abandoning Matthew. and it did no good pointing out that opting for Luke meant binning Matthew as he hadn't actually used those words; so (he said) I was wrong and had to apologise.
We've all met with apologists who twisted themselves in to knots. Then they would go away. I usually felt sorry for them.
Yes, thank you, I had heard that there was an 'Arimeh' where Joseph came from, though I've never been able to find it on the map. It's a very nice tale O:) Arimathea taking the Tin trader boat to Tintagel bearing the baby Jesus who played on the beach at Penzance before returning to ...being a carpenter...and after crucifixion Joseph returned to the Rome of the Mendip silver -mining slaves bearing a bit of the cross or crown of thorns or maybe Longinus' spear which grew into a Rowan tree at Glastonbury festival like Bilbo's party tree and just as legendary.
There was an Arimathea 15 miles East of Joppa, on the Samarian border. At least it is shown upon (modern) maps of 1st century Palestine.
I don't think of Jesus going to Cornwall as an infant, but after the trial he could have been released under Joseph's supervision, going North to the ports and meeting his mates as he passed through Galilee, and then by boat to Cornwall.
Or ......the grave in Kashmir offers us a story of Jesus after the riots in Jerusalem.
They're all interesting and definitely don't involve Jesus being God, so that's something.
(1) at least he didn't write a new - invented story with bits of the old ones and claim that it was true until I disproved it, which is why I bothered to debate him at all. One simply has to disengage with time wasting spammers, even if it looks like i left them the field.
Yes......... to save from wasted time it's good to leave a field of incorrigible opinion, which can then chant that it won something.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3487 times

Re: The Jesus to whom atheists and others often refer

Post #94

Post by TRANSPONDER »

I agree about the Judas story. That's a nice one. I once read a deconversion story that had as the tipping (or starting) point reading the apparent contradiction in the death of Judas. He was shocked. Of course there a plenty of evasive excuses to tie them together, but there's also the matter of who bought the field? Who cares? :D Well it's the sort of discrepancy in a witness statement that can have the evidence thrown out. Judas could not buy the field as he'd tossed the money back to the priests. If They used the money to buy a field, it could not be Judas doing it. And it really doesn't work to claim that it was still his money though he thrown it back at them and even less that it was His field, since they had bought it for their own use. We are in the real of denial of fact here. And we won't get into rewriting the story to make it say what they would like. The Four have done enough of that already.

But it gets even better (or worse, depending which side of the barrier you are) when you get onto the OT quotes used to turn this claimed come - uppance onto prophecy - fulfilment. In Both case (Matthew and Luke-Acts) the 'prophecies' are composed of various quotes out of context and changed. We may see the process of back -engineered ''prophecy' and the death of Judas (for me) is the 'Nativity -debunk' for prophecy, which as we know is one of the Trump cards of the Bible apologist team.

User avatar
oldbadger
Guru
Posts: 1808
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:11 am
Has thanked: 312 times
Been thanked: 223 times

Re: The Jesus to whom atheists and others often refer

Post #95

Post by oldbadger »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon Jun 06, 2022 6:12 pm I agree about the Judas story. That's a nice one. I once read a deconversion story that had as the tipping (or starting) point reading the apparent contradiction in the death of Judas. He was shocked. Of course there a plenty of evasive excuses to tie them together, but there's also the matter of who bought the field? Who cares? :D Well it's the sort of discrepancy in a witness statement that can have the evidence thrown out. Judas could not buy the field as he'd tossed the money back to the priests. If They used the money to buy a field, it could not be Judas doing it. And it really doesn't work to claim that it was still his money though he thrown it back at them and even less that it was His field, since they had bought it for their own use. We are in the real of denial of fact here. And we won't get into rewriting the story to make it say what they would like. The Four have done enough of that already.

But it gets even better (or worse, depending which side of the barrier you are) when you get onto the OT quotes used to turn this claimed come - uppance onto prophecy - fulfilment. In Both case (Matthew and Luke-Acts) the 'prophecies' are composed of various quotes out of context and changed. We may see the process of back -engineered ''prophecy' and the death of Judas (for me) is the 'Nativity -debunk' for prophecy, which as we know is one of the Trump cards of the Bible apologist team.
Ah ha! Yes, I'd forgotten that Judas chucked the coins back, although he'd bought a field with them.

I have just heard that in 1965 the Catholic church announced that it did not take every word of the bible as exactly accurate, more of a spiritual message...in places.
Was this caused by increasing interest in HJ studies?
And so, you see, we are both stuffed (or cooked?) because where you produce a clear contradiction then an apologist can answer in patronising and sighing manner...'But can't you perceive the spiritual message in (whatever)?'..... And the chances are that folks like you and I just do not have the first inkling of an idea about what something 'spiritual' might be, whereupon the follower can sigh yet again and mumble a prayer for pagans to see the light.
....... at which point we are screaming and beating our heads with laptops. :D

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3487 times

Re: The Jesus to whom atheists and others often refer

Post #96

Post by TRANSPONDER »

It's not a problem for me and it remined me of another atheist Axia of evil...No 3 I think

"Metaphorically true means Not true at all."

If they want to talk about a spiritual message, that's fine. It's a different debate - really the Biblical vs. Human moral code debate. Just as the Cosmic origins or doubting Abiogenesis or origins of Human consciousness or 'Have you looked everywhere in the universe' is a different debate because that can be about any of the god -claims. They really do not matter.

The one that matters and which interests me considerably I may say is the Jesus story regarded as factually true. And specifically the resurrection -claim. If that is debunked, or at least, serious doubts are raised about it, then the case for Christianity collapses. In a way it's like wriggling out from under the not so easy Yoke of trying to maintain the Eden scenario as factual. If they opt for calling ity metaphorical, symbolic or spiritual..fine. But that means that the origins of sin is open to question. There is no disobedience, no sin law imposed on humanity (and all the critters, too (1) and no Adam's disobedience to be wiped out by Jesus' obedience to death. Indeed, The focal point of Christian Dogma collapses if Eden isn't actually true, never mind if the resurrection isn't.

Do you know, I wouldn't be surprised if the Pope doesn't actually believe a word of it, any more than I do.
'
(1) 'Funny thing' says T Rex, 'Just because you ate an apple, I suddenly started eating meat.'

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6443
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 353 times
Been thanked: 324 times
Contact:

Re: The Jesus to whom atheists and others often refer

Post #97

Post by tam »

Peace to you,
Eloi wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 12:57 pm Many times when the teachings of Jesus and his person are discussed, reference is made to a particular interpretation of what his words may be indicating. For example, I have read a discussion about a Jesus who denies or contradicts the Law of Moses. But that is an incorrect way of understanding Jesus, just like a political Jesus is or one who does not admit rich people among his followers, as if honest possessions were sin.

Can those who debate the teachings of Jesus at least begin to ascertain that the Jesus they suppose is the one that Scripture shows us and not an imaginary Jesus?

This topic is to analyze the need to be serious in the use of terms and premises, so that the debates adjust to the truth, and the conclusions are more accurate.

What is the Jesus you have in mind? Does it correspond to the Jesus of the Bible? Can you really know what Jesus was like?
Why do you speak of a living person in the past tense? If indeed it is the Christ you are speaking of?

Peace again.
- Non-religious Christian spirituality

- For Christ (who is the Spirit)

User avatar
oldbadger
Guru
Posts: 1808
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:11 am
Has thanked: 312 times
Been thanked: 223 times

Re: The Jesus to whom atheists and others often refer

Post #98

Post by oldbadger »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue Jun 07, 2022 12:34 pm It's not a problem for me and it remined me of another atheist Axia of evil...No 3 I think

"Metaphorically true means Not true at all."

If they want to talk about a spiritual message, that's fine. It's a different debate - really the Biblical vs. Human moral code debate. Just as the Cosmic origins or doubting Abiogenesis or origins of Human consciousness or 'Have you looked everywhere in the universe' is a different debate because that can be about any of the god -claims. They really do not matter.

The one that matters and which interests me considerably I may say is the Jesus story regarded as factually true. And specifically the resurrection -claim. If that is debunked, or at least, serious doubts are raised about it, then the case for Christianity collapses. In a way it's like wriggling out from under the not so easy Yoke of trying to maintain the Eden scenario as factual. If they opt for calling ity metaphorical, symbolic or spiritual..fine. But that means that the origins of sin is open to question. There is no disobedience, no sin law imposed on humanity (and all the critters, too (1) and no Adam's disobedience to be wiped out by Jesus' obedience to death. Indeed, The focal point of Christian Dogma collapses if Eden isn't actually true, never mind if the resurrection isn't.

Do you know, I wouldn't be surprised if the Pope doesn't actually believe a word of it, any more than I do.
'
(1) 'Funny thing' says T Rex, 'Just because you ate an apple, I suddenly started eating meat.'

User avatar
oldbadger
Guru
Posts: 1808
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:11 am
Has thanked: 312 times
Been thanked: 223 times

Re: The Jesus to whom atheists and others often refer

Post #99

Post by oldbadger »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue Jun 07, 2022 12:34 pm It's not a problem for me and it remined me of another atheist Axia of evil...No 3 I think

"Metaphorically true means Not true at all."
I don't think that I would ever call out metaphor for being a liar, though....... as soon as a theist (or anybody) offers a metaphor as explanation about anything I would acknowledge them/it.....as long as it isn't being used to support any kind of indoctrination, domination, control, fear etc.
Now I guess you might be able to pick a couple of those out in the case of religion but as long as the conversation is 'sweet' I wouldn't mind, because such a speaker of metaphor is simply offering to throw in the towel..... :)
If they want to talk about a spiritual message, that's fine. It's a different debate - really the Biblical vs. Human moral code debate. Just as the Cosmic origins or doubting Abiogenesis or origins of Human consciousness or 'Have you looked everywhere in the universe' is a different debate because that can be about any of the god -claims. They really do not matter.
That's how I see metaphor....not really mattering, as long as it's offered peacefully.
The one that matters and which interests me considerably I may say is the Jesus story regarded as factually true. And specifically the resurrection -claim. If that is debunked, or at least, serious doubts are raised about it, then the case for Christianity collapses.
'There was once a Jesus'........ yeah, ok, no probs, etc
'Jesus resurrected'...... total junk. If a lone single person walked the streets calling out that kind of thing he would be sectioned under our mental health act.
In a way it's like wriggling out from under the not so easy Yoke of trying to maintain the Eden scenario as factual. If they opt for calling ity metaphorical, symbolic or spiritual..fine.
Snap! Metaphor? yeah, ok, ..... like telling an infant about the stork delivering babies, yet a decade later some youth could be confrontiong parents with 'You deceiving liars!'
But that means that the origins of sin is open to question. There is no disobedience, no sin law imposed on humanity (and all the critters, too (1) and no Adam's disobedience to be wiped out by Jesus' obedience to death. Indeed, The focal point of Christian Dogma collapses if Eden isn't actually true, never mind if the resurrection isn't.
Sin is easy to knock over. A doddle.
Proposal: Sin leads to sickness, weakness, failure, lack of cohesion etc......... Now pick any of the 613 laws of Moses and see what happens if it is ignored. No hell, nothing but sickness etc.
A good example for a Christian might be :-When Jesus had healed somebody or helped somebody he often said 'Off you go, and sin no more.'
And when any Christian might hurl an 'abomination' law at you then you can point out that some food was abominable or messing with scales... some Christians do love that word 'Abomination!'..... our trawler skipper neighbour and minister could roll that words so beautifully; you could actually see your own idea of wickedness before your eyes when he growled it. I'll bet that many a congregation has quivered in secret excitement at that word. Love it.
Do you know, I wouldn't be surprised if the Pope doesn't actually believe a word of it, any more than I do.
'
(1) 'Funny thing' says T Rex, 'Just because you ate an apple, I suddenly started eating meat.'
Some Popes have kept secret love partners, fathered children, kept armies, murdered, so...... yes, it's possible.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3487 times

Re: The Jesus to whom atheists and others often refer

Post #100

Post by TRANSPONDER »

oldbadger wrote: Wed Jun 08, 2022 1:22 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue Jun 07, 2022 12:34 pm It's not a problem for me and it remined me of another atheist Axia of evil...No 3 I think
"Metaphorically true means Not true at all."
I don't think that I would ever call out metaphor for being a liar, though....... as soon as a theist (or anybody) offers a metaphor as explanation about anything I would acknowledge them/it.....as long as it isn't being used to support any kind of indoctrination, domination, control, fear etc.
Now I guess you might be able to pick a couple of those out in the case of religion but as long as the conversation is 'sweet' I wouldn't mind, because such a speaker of metaphor is simply offering to throw in the towel..... :)
See my comment below. I'm going for a coffee...
If they want to talk about a spiritual message, that's fine. It's a different debate - really the Biblical vs. Human moral code debate. Just as the Cosmic origins or doubting Abiogenesis or origins of Human consciousness or 'Have you looked everywhere in the universe' is a different debate because that can be about any of the god -claims. They really do not matter.
That's how I see metaphor....not really mattering, as long as it's offered peacefully.

As I say. The Bible as fact is one discussion. The Bible (or parts of it( as metaphor is another. It effectively says "That didn't actually happen, but it's about the human condition". Fine, but that gives up the ground of Bible authority (credibility) and it becomes a book of ethical debate.
The one that matters and which interests me considerably I may say is the Jesus story regarded as factually true. And specifically the resurrection -claim. If that is debunked, or at least, serious doubts are raised about it, then the case for Christianity collapses.
..
'There was once a Jesus'........ yeah, ok, no probs, etc
'Jesus resurrected'...... total junk. If a lone single person walked the streets calling out that kind of thing he would be sectioned under our mental health act.
I have mentioned before that I don't do 'Miracles don't happen'. Sure, normally people aren't resurrected. But Jesus (in the Gospels) was not normal. He was a one -off. Thus Normal doesn't apply. So it's not appeal to the concensus (Ghosts aren't real) but looking at the evidence, about the Ghosts, Flying saucers or the resurrection. I never bought the Ham/Ny protest 'it gives credibility to nonsense'. A claim has to be looked at. Of course, once the claim fails to stand up, we are correct to reject it unless better evidence is presented.
For ghosts, Flying saucers or even the resurrection. :D Ah gotta dream....that one day an account of the Real Jesus that escaped censorship will be dug up in Egypt. Now, it might confirm the Gospels...but then why was the Flavian fake needed?
In a way it's like wriggling out from under the not so easy Yoke of trying to maintain the Eden scenario as factual. If they opt for calling ity metaphorical, symbolic or spiritual..fine.
Snap! Metaphor? yeah, ok, ..... like telling an infant about the stork delivering babies, yet a decade later some youth could be confronting parents with 'You deceiving liars!'
While a case can be made for it doing no harm to tell stories of Santa and the Great Pumpkin to kiddies, I have always been straight about it. There's plenty of fantasy about without having to pretend that any of them are true.
One thread mentioned 'why is this child abuse?' I think it is fundamentally wrong to peddle fairy tales to kids as anything but fairy tales. There's nothing wrong in Harry Potter, even kids getting obsessed about it - they still don't think it's real. So that's fine. If we were bringing kids up to believe it was true, I'd call that child abuse.
But that means that the origins of sin is open to question. There is no disobedience, no sin law imposed on humanity (and all the critters, too (1) and no Adam's disobedience to be wiped out by Jesus' obedience to death. Indeed, The focal point of Christian Dogma collapses if Eden isn't actually true, never mind if the resurrection isn't.
Sin is easy to knock over. A doddle.
Proposal: Sin leads to sickness, weakness, failure, lack of cohesion etc......... Now pick any of the 613 laws of Moses and see what happens if it is ignored. No hell, nothing but sickness etc.
A good example for a Christian might be :-When Jesus had healed somebody or helped somebody he often said 'Off you go, and sin no more.'
And when any Christian might hurl an 'abomination' law at you then you can point out that some food was abominable or messing with scales... some Christians do love that word 'Abomination!'..... our trawler skipper neighbour and minister could roll that words so beautifully; you could actually see your own idea of wickedness before your eyes when he growled it. I'll bet that many a congregation has quivered in secret excitement at that word. Love it.
Ah. We have the morality debate. The Commandments are a stock moral code prefixed by religious Authority like a Myanmar constitution that has 25 seats reserved for the Junta. What is bad for humanity, society and the species is up for debate. "Abomination" plays the Authority Trump card to block all discussion.

I may be wrong, but I recall that it was only the Flexible woman he told to sin no more. And she was doing fine until the Morality Squad nabbed her.
Do you know, I wouldn't be surprised if the Pope doesn't actually believe a word of it, any more than I do.
'
(1) 'Funny thing' says T Rex, 'Just because you ate an apple, I suddenly started eating meat.'
Some Popes have kept secret love partners, fathered children, kept armies, murdered, so...... yes, it's possible.
:D I once read an apologetic (I don't know whether spawned by the Vatican or by some individual) but it told a tale (which I didn't credit for a second) of a Jew who went to Rome in some earlier century, saw the greed, avarice, corruption and veniality of the papacy...and became a Catholic. His rationale: "If something with such bad leaders can deoso much good, it must be true/from God'. It still upsets my stomach to recall it, after all these years.

Post Reply