The Primitive and Superstitious Christ

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

The Primitive and Superstitious Christ

Post #1

Post by Jagella »

Matthew 24:29 (NRSV):
Immediately after the suffering of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven will be shaken.
John 1:3 (NRSV):
All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being.
So here we have the Christ of Christianity through whom all things supposedly came to be, displaying the most woeful ignorance of what stars are and what they physically can do. We know from modern astronomy that stars except the sun are trillions of miles away and like the sun are nuclear furnaces that are thousands of times more massive than the earth. It is physically impossible for them to fall from the sky to the earth like Christ is saying here (assuming we can trust the gospel writers).

Question for Debate: What then can we conclude about what Christ knew about the cosmos he is said to have created?

Well, he didn't know much about stars! Today any schoolgirl who has studied stars would know better than Christ reputedly did. This ignorance that Christ displayed about stars is not a trivial matter. It demonstrates that he knew nothing more than his fellow peasant Jews. He shared their primitive and superstitious beliefs about the world. No creator-god would lack such knowledge, but a delusional man living in first-century Israel probably would know nothing more than anybody else in his culture.

I doesn't stop there. Christ also knew nothing about germs and the unhealthy practice of not washing one's hands before eating. He even knew nothing about what causes both physical and mental illness attributing both to demons.

Christ, if he existed at all, was primitive, superstitious, and ignorant.
Last edited by Jagella on Mon Sep 09, 2019 7:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Post #2

Post by Zzyzx »

.
It appears most rational to me that gospel writers were either repeating / reporting folklore by people ignorant of the Earth and the Universe OR were writing their own invented tales by attributing ignorance to their icon Jesus.

A ‘god’ (or third part thereof or whatever is claimed) would seem likely to have knowledge of the Earth and Universe FAR in advance of common knowledge of the times. An average high school student today could make up a more credible tale.
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Post #3

Post by Jagella »

Zzyzx wrote:It appears most rational to me that gospel writers were either repeating / reporting folklore by people ignorant of the Earth and the Universe OR were writing their own invented tales by attributing ignorance to their icon Jesus.
I think it's more likely that the gospel storytellers were borrowing the mythology of their fellow Jews or that of pagans, but they could have easily made up their own mythology. We have no knowledge at all that any real man they believed was the Christ existed, but if he did exist, he may have borrowed the lore of other people, made up his own myths, or both.
A ‘god’ (or third part thereof or whatever is claimed) would seem likely to have knowledge of the Earth and Universe FAR in advance of common knowledge of the times. An average high school student today could make up a more credible tale.
Yes, that's my position as well. It's going to be harder for an apologist to slip out of this logical quandary than for Jesus to pass an astronomy exam. I predict that as usual few if any of the apologists will even try to engage in discussing the topic I'm bringing up.

Image

User avatar
historia
Prodigy
Posts: 2609
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 221 times
Been thanked: 320 times

Re: The Primitive and Superstitious Christ

Post #4

Post by historia »

Some questions, so I can better understand your interpretation of this passage:

First, does poetry often include figurative language?

Second, is apocalyptic imagery and language often figurative?

Third, what Christology have you adopted (even just for the sake of argument) in analyzing your main question?

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1917
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: Manassas, VA
Has thanked: 681 times
Been thanked: 470 times

Re: The Primitive and Superstitious Christ

Post #5

Post by bluegreenearth »

historia wrote: Some questions, so I can better understand your interpretation of this passage:

First, does poetry often include figurative language?
Yes. Now demonstrate how this question is relevant to this debate topic. Even if the Biblical language about stars was demonstrated to be figurative in that specific instance, how would that disprove the claim that Jesus failed to demonstrate knowledge which should be reasonably expected from a divine being?
Second, is apocalyptic imagery and language often figurative?
Depends on the intent and mental health of the author. If the author describing the apocalyptic imagery and language understood those things to be figurative, then that is how it should be interpreted. If the author was experiencing vivid hallucinations as a consequence of a mental disorder or the use of narcotic drugs, it is possible that person intended for those things to be interpreted literally. There is really no way to know the author's intended meaning since it was not explicitly disclosed in the given texts. Either way, how would the use of figurative imagery and language in a few isolated Biblical passages disprove the claim that Jesus failed to demonstrate knowledge of the kinds of things which would be reasonably expected from a divine being?
Third, what Christology have you adopted (even just for the sake of argument) in analyzing your main question?
Christology literally refers to the study of the nature, humanity, divinity, and work of Christ. This is precisely what the debate topic is trying to consider by questioning Christ's failure to adequately demonstrate knowledge which would have been reasonably expected from him. Until this problem is resolved, it would be premature to adopt a particular Christology. Otherwise, any Christology we might adopt will introduce a bias into our investigation.

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Re: The Primitive and Superstitious Christ

Post #6

Post by Jagella »

historia wrote:Some questions...
I have a question for debate in the OP. If you want me to answer your questions, then it's only fair for you to answer mine.
...so I can better understand your interpretation of this passage...
Chapters 24 and 25 of Matthew quote Christ as making predictions about his "coming" and the end of the age. One of the signs of this end involves stars falling from the sky.
First, does poetry often include figurative language?
Yes, poetry is often figurative, of course, but poetry often involves literal elements too. To determine what is to be taken literally and what is mere metaphor, it's important to read the poetry to see if it points out what is to be taken figuratively. Knowing the author's background is also important to distinguish what he may have meant literally and what he said that should be taken figuratively.

Allow me to cite an example of a Bible passage that can be sensibly interpreted figuratively. In Matthew 24:27 (NRSV) we read:
For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
Here Christ is preaching that his coming will be as lightning comes from the east. He made it fairly obvious that his coming won't be actual lightning coming from the east--but he is using lightning as a metaphor for the quick and surprising nature of his coming. By contrast, Matthew 24:29 uses no such wording that indicates that the stars falling is metaphor.
Second, is apocalyptic imagery and language often figurative?
Yes, I suppose some "apocalyptic imagery" is symbolic, but it's not proper to conclude that some apocalyptic elements are metaphorical just because those elements would be obviously wrong if taken literally!
Third, what Christology have you adopted (even just for the sake of argument) in analyzing your main question?
I don't think I adopted any Christology to discuss this issue. It doesn't need to be that complicated. I just want to discuss if Christ's predicting that stars will fall from the sky demonstrates that he was a Jew who was the product of his time who held the same primitive beliefs and superstitions that they had.

In conclusion, I see your apologetic as an ad hoc attempt to save Christ's status as the son of an all-knowing god. There is no good reason to conclude that Matthew 24:29 is meant to be taken figuratively. It means what it says. If you deem errors in the Bible to be metaphorical like this just to save face, then you paint yourself into a corner because a skeptic can play the same game concluding that God and Christ himself are only symbols!

And Christian faith will not allow such conclusions.

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Re: The Primitive and Superstitious Christ

Post #7

Post by Jagella »

bluegreenearth wrote:...how would the use of figurative imagery and language in a few isolated Biblical passages disprove the claim that Jesus failed to demonstrate knowledge of the kinds of things which would be reasonably expected from a divine being?
It does not logically follow that Christ's use of metaphors in some of what he said demonstrates that all he said was to be taken figuratively. If it did follow, then we would need to conclude that his Father Of The Sky (FOTS) was also a symbol only.

Apologists never to my knowledge explain how they distinguish metaphor from actual elements in the Bible. It appears that they call any errors in the Bible symbols that should not be taken literally.
This is precisely what the debate topic is trying to consider by questioning Christ's failure to adequately demonstrate knowledge which would have been reasonably expected from him.
If Christ was what Christians claim he was--the son of an all-knowing god--then it seems odd that he would communicate in ways that indicated he had no more knowledge of the world than his listeners had. If he knew the true nature of the cosmos, then why didn't he correct the misconceptions and superstitions of the people of his day?

It's easy to answer this question if you see Christianity and its god as man-made. Christ was merely a deluded Jew living in the first century. Either that or he was a myth created by some Jews who had little knowledge of the true nature of the world, and the words they stuffed into Christ's mouth reflect their ignorance.

User avatar
1213
Savant
Posts: 11450
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
Location: Finland
Has thanked: 327 times
Been thanked: 370 times

Re: The Primitive and Superstitious Christ

Post #8

Post by 1213 »

Jagella wrote: ...
Well, he didn't know much about stars! Today any schoolgirl who has studied stars would know better than Christ reputedly did. ...
But do we really know better? What are� the stars� Jesus meant? Are the comets or meteors? What was the definition of a “star� during Jesus era? Can you prove what is the distance to nearest star?

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21112
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 792 times
Been thanked: 1122 times
Contact:

Re: The Primitive and Superstitious Christ

Post #9

Post by JehovahsWitness »

bluegreenearth wrote: Even if the Biblical language about stars was demonstrated to be figurative in that specific instance, how would that disprove the claim that Jesus failed to demonstrate knowledge which should be reasonably expected from a divine being?

DID JESUS DEMONSTRATE HE DIDN'T KNOW HOW STARS WORK?
MATTHEW 24:29 (NRSV):

Immediately after the suffering of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven will be shaken.
The Word translated in most English bibles as "fall" in the original Greek* is pipto (Strongs #4098) and has a wide variety of meanings. It should first be noted that Jesus did not say the stars fall onto the earth, but only that they fall. What could he have meant? Interestingly, we see the Greek ("pipto") covers the following ...

* While Jesus may in reality have been speaking in his native Aramaic or Hebrew it seems reasonable the authors used the Greek equivalent of the words uttered
PIPTO "to fall"

to fall down, fall into ruin: of buildings, walls etc.
to perish, i.e come to an end, disappear, cease
to lose authority, no longer have force
to be removed from power by death
to fail of participating in, miss a share in
NAS Word Usage - Total: 91
beat down 1, fail 1, fails 1, fall 15, fall down 2, fallen 8, falling 3, falls 8, fell 46, fell down 6
source : https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicon ... pipto.html
CONCLUSION While, given the context , one cannot be dogmatic as to whether Jesus was speaking literally or figuratively, his use of the Greek equivalent of "pipto" reflected a physical reality arguably unknown in the first century , namely that stars lose their force, fail, disappear and "die".
DEATH OF A STAR

When all its fuel has been exhausted, a star cannot generate sufficient pressure at its center to balance the crushing force of gravity. The star collapses under the force of its own weight; if it is a small star, it collapses gently and remains collapsed. ... A different fate awaits a large star. Its final collapse generates a violent explosion, blowing the innards of the star out into space.
source: https://www.infoplease.com/math-science ... -of-a-star



RELATED POSTS
Who sent the ""star" of Bethlehem?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 379#816379

What are we to understand the expression "God created the heavens"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 409#763409

How does the bible describe Early Earth
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 741#836741
To learn more please go to other posts related to...

HEAVEN , THE PHYSICAL HEAVENS and ...THE 7 CREATIVE DAYS OF GENESIS
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Sun Jan 16, 2022 8:55 am, edited 10 times in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Re: The Primitive and Superstitious Christ

Post #10

Post by Zzyzx »

.
1213 wrote: But do we really know better?
There is abundant evidence to support astronomical observations. Is there contradictory evidence?
1213 wrote: What are� the stars� Jesus meant?
Likely points of light in night sky. But, let’s play word games. Tell us the answer.
1213 wrote: Are the comets or meteors?
All of the ‘stars’ comets or meteors?
1213 wrote: What was the definition of a “star� during Jesus era?
I do not pretend to know. Do you?
1213 wrote: Can you prove what is the distance to nearest star?
Has someone in this discussion claimed to know the distance to the nearest star?

Kindly keep the stinking fish (red herring) ‘arguments’ out of the thread.


Thank you for providing readers with a religious perspective on these matters.
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

Post Reply