The regular bouts of pouting and finger stabbing haven't shed much, if any, light on the online debates between Jesus "historicists" and "mythicists." You get the feeling that nobody is much listening to the case made from the opposite benches.
So the current discussion involving James McGrath and Tom Verenna is a welcome change. It involves the oft heard assertion that the existence of Julius Caesar is as problematic as Jesus' (and who doubts Big Julie once strode across the paving stones of Rome?)
Verenna and McGrath have the capacity to engage on this issue without ill will, polemic and ad hominem spats. That means we all might be able to actually consider the qualities of the arguments tendered. It's good to see that Tom has already flushed the excesses of Archarya S., while James has taken on board Tom's doubts about the appropriateness of the Caesar comparison.
To follow the posts in order, thus far:
Verenna 1
McGrath 1
Verenna 2
Do you get the feeling sometimes that the NT Jesus is a different Jesus than the itinerant, apocalyptic preacher who ran afoul of the authorities and got himself nailed to a Roman cross?
ReplyDeleteDo you get the feeling sometimes that the Jesus depicted in the NT is more of a personification of Jewish scripture than he is a flesh and blood human being?
If you do, your feelings are probably right and the Jesus of the NT is 1% human and 99% personification of what they wished he was.
Ever wonder why there is so much about demon possession and fallen angels in the NT but there is none in the OT? Well, the people who wrote the OT didn't have the book of 1 Enoch as a reference like the Essenes and the people who wrote the NT gospels did.
There were no fallen angels in original Judaism and some didn't believe in angels at all except as visionary manifestations of the one God.
Mythicism started to gain traction after year 2000 now that we have fully entered the Aquarian Age (the Christian "Piscean" era now fully passed?). But areas of strong resistance remain (S.E. USA) from where J McGrath, JP Holding et el fiercely defend the status quo.
ReplyDelete"Ever wonder why there is so much about demon possession and fallen angels in the NT but there is none in the OT?"
ReplyDeleteSay what? I don't know which "Old Testament" you're reading, Corky old man, but the "Old Testament" I'm reading has Lucifer (THE "fallen angel") and the Nephilim, and as for demon possession, let's see, there's the witch of Endor, and Saul (whose breath used to be cut off), and the (OK, this is a bit of a stretch) "spirit of ill will" sent by God to cause a rift between Abimelech and his brothers (God even has control over Lucifer because angels do not have free will, remember), and that's just for starters....
Velvet,
ReplyDeleteWhere does the OT say that Lucifer is an angel? The parable of Isaiah concerning the king of Babylon says that Lucifer is the morning star - which is Venus. It's a metaphor for the king of Babylon.
The OT doesn't say that the "giants" (nephilim) in the earth are fallen angels. The whole passage is about intermarriage between believers and unbelievers - a no-no in the law.
The witch of Endor? Do you believe in witches? I think people who claim to be witches/mediums have all been shown to be fake. You can't talk to the dead because, well, they're dead.
The search made by the famous magician and escape artist, Harry Houdini, for a real witch/medium failed and they were all exposed as fakes. They only pretend to talk to the dead and that the dead talks through them.
I've just been reading the Psalms. They are chock full of information that I certainly do not recall as having been taught in Armstrongism. Worshipping pagan gods is described by one of the psalmists as worshipping demons.
ReplyDeleteHoudini was an amazing individual, to be sure. But, I certainly wouldn't accept his unofficial reasearch as conclusive.
We know that many of the "witches" that were burned during the 1600s actually suffered from ergot poisoning. And, we know today that there are illnesses of the mind, such as schizophrenia. However, such facts do not constitute proof against the spirit world. They just give us a couple more things that we have to watch out for.
BB
Corky,
ReplyDeleteDid I at any point, in my comment, assert that any of the examples I provided, were literally true? Because I do not believe that, and have never believed that, with the exception of Lucifer being a fallen angel, and responsible for the world as it is today.
You are arguing with me as though I am some fundamentalist Bible-beater. In my opinion you don't remember the actual teachings / philosophy of the Church very well; either that, or the Americans were more fundamentalist than we were. I do not, however, recall them ever being inerrantist; that domain is left entirely up to fundsmentalists, of which, the more I see of fundamentalism, the more I think the Church actually was not.
We disagree on that point, I realize; but I do wish you would not approach arguments with me, as though I was like any other professing Christian; I can absolutely 100% reassure you that I am not now, nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be, that unfortunate type of believer.
The point of my comment was this: You provided one of the standard, cliched atheists' arguments, that "there are no fallen angels or demonic possession in the Old Testament," and I cited the examples that easily refute this claim.
That has absolutely nothing to do with whether those examples are historical, allegorical, or otherwise. It is simply, a very weak argument, one I didn't even touch with a barge-pole, when I was an atheist.
Ever wonder why there is so much about demon possession and fallen angels in the NT but there is none in the OT?
ReplyDeleteBecause the books about demon possession, fallen angels and the fall of Lucifer were written in the Second Temple period, and usually not in Hebrew. Therefor they didn't make it into the canon established in the 3rd century.
What exactly are you trying to get at?
The whole passage is about intermarriage between believers and unbelievers - a no-no in the law.
Where did you get that? AFAIK, it's understood that the passage in Genesis is a condensed form or a precursor to the story of the fallen angles in 1 Enoch.
The whole passage is about intermarriage between believers and unbelievers - a no-no in the law.
ReplyDeleteWhere did you get that? AFAIK, it's understood that the passage in Genesis is a condensed form or a precursor to the story of the fallen angles in 1 Enoch.
I get that from "sons of God" marrying "daughters of men". Believers are called the "sons of God" in the bible.
"They are chock full of information that I certainly do not recall as having been taught in Armstrongism. Worshipping pagan gods is described by one of the psalmists as worshipping demons."
ReplyDeleteI certainly remember the Church teaching that worshipping pagan gods was "worshipping the god of this world;" and if Satan doesn't qualify as a demon, I don't know what does...I can't find the Psalm you are referring to Bob, although I am just flipping through it briefly; can you give a cite? Thanks.
Corky,
ReplyDeleteThe "sons of god" referred to in that passage in Genesis are also referred to as Nephilim; nowhere else in the Bible, is this word used in conjunction with "sons of god."
(Although Ezekiel is referred to throughout his eponymous prophecy, as the "Son of Man." Chew on that for a while.)
Hmm.
ReplyDeleteIt occurs to me now, that this is the first time, in the almost ten years I have been reading Gavin's blogs, that we are all actually civilly debating Biblical topics, and verses.
Gavin, did you slip something in our water?! :-)
singsongsofpraisetohim said...
ReplyDeleteCorky,
The "sons of god" referred to in that passage in Genesis are also referred to as Nephilim; nowhere else in the Bible, is this word used in conjunction with "sons of god."
Notice that there were nephilim (translated "giants" in the KJV) in the earth before and "also after that" when the sons of god chose wives from among the daughters of men.
The question is, what does nephilim mean and the nearest thing in English is "fellers". Which would refer to the ancients who were fellers of trees like the one in the Epic of Gilgamesh and this same method of hermeneutics would say that the "giants" were "tyrants", aka, the priest/kings of Mesopotamia - like Nimrod, for example, the men of renown, the mighty men of old etc.
The thing is, they were men, not angels.
My own opinion is that "the sons of god" refers to the descendants of Seth - the believers (Gen. 4:26) and "the daughters of men" refers to the descendants of Cain - the unbelievers.
People really should quit believing in demons and witches, seriously, what good has ever come from those beliefs? What bad has come from those beliefs?
No good things have ever came from those beliefs, only bad things have happened because of those beliefs in demons and witches.
Psalm 106, Velvet, IIRC. I don't have my Bible with me just now, so can't give you the exact verse.
ReplyDeleteOh, by the way, one thing that almost always happens once our alienation from God has finished is that some people disregard our IQs, and do treat us as ignorant Bible thumpers, or fundies. We're easier to deal with when they have us in the stereotype box which they reserve for believers.
If it's any consolation, about a year from now, you'll realize how many of your friends you actually got to keep. The ones we lose are what I call "issue" friends, or partisans.
BB
General comment:
ReplyDeleteIt is totally predictable that demons would come out in droves right about the time the most important event in human history was taking place. Does anyone seriously believe that Satan would allow God in the flesh to walk amongst us as a human, and to live a perfect life and to die for us and be resurrected, all without mounting some sort of challenge?
Christianity emerged and flourished in spite of the efforts of both Jews and Romans to eradicate it! If one reads the writings of the antenicene fathers, or the histories of the various Caesars, one gets a very gruesome picture of the extreme inhumanity directed towards Christians. The early church was built on the testimonies of the thousands of martyrs. This is so well documented that I've never even seen it contested by the holocaust denyers!
BB
Byker Bob said...
ReplyDeleteIt is totally predictable that demons would come out in droves right about the time...
I wonder how those demons were roaming the earth possessing people and yet confined under chains of darkness in tartarus reserved for judgment day at the same time (2 Pet. 2:4 and Jude 1:6)?
Corky,
ReplyDeleteI don't believe you know your theology as well as you seem to want others to believe. The verses you quoted describe something which has not been a permanent condition. Not only are these demons to be left loose in the end times, but they are in Tartarus because of Jesus' work.
Alert to anyone out there on the fences: Always be cautious when an atheist begins quoting scripture! Flashing red lights: Agenda! Agenda! Agenda!
BB
Byker Bob said...
ReplyDeleteOh, by the way, one thing that almost always happens once our alienation from God has finished is that some people disregard our IQs, and do treat us as ignorant Bible thumpers, or fundies. We're easier to deal with when they have us in the stereotype box which they reserve for believers.
I hope you are not developing a persecution complex...
By the way, didn't you just stereotype unbelievers there? It's not your IQ, Bob, it's your blinders. With 'faith' you are required to wear them. Otherwise, you may catch sight of something that contradicts your faith.
Explaining away reality is what religions have done for thousands of years. It has nothing to do with IQ or friendship. If you feel you have to be in total agreement with someone to be friends, then I say you have a serious problem and not many friends. What do you do about relatives who don't believe in your God? Do you disown them? Sounds like a cult to me.
No, Corky, I don't believe I stereotyped non-believers. However, perhaps I did make an educated stereotyping of WCG-atheists, based on their presence and behavior on our Armstrong-related recovery forums and blogs, and comments which are regularly directed towards myself and others.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is, I would much rather be around a science-atheist than a believer with strong denominational bias. As a business owner, and one with regular social activities, I have friends from all walks of life. You're not going to find many people around that could sit in the stands with some Jehovah Witness motorcycle friends, and enjoy a national drag race event with them. As I've related before, the people at Ambassador College knew I had left the church in 1975, yet when they needed service on certain equipment, they called in and asked specifically for me. I don't have any problem being open-minded, or interacting with open minded people, but do tend to distance myself from people who make a federal out of partisanship.
BB
Blogger Byker Bob said...
ReplyDeleteI don't believe you know your theology as well as you seem to want others to believe. The verses you quoted describe something which has not been a permanent condition. Not only are these demons to be left loose in the end times, but they are in Tartarus because of Jesus' work.
Where do you get that?
2Pet 2:4-5 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah..."
That sounds to me like they were cast down at the same time as Noah's flood. Do you have anything to show that this was done at the time of Jesus? And, if it was, why are the demons still out running around possessing people since that time?
Alert to anyone out there on the fences: Always be cautious when an atheist begins quoting scripture! Flashing red lights: Agenda! Agenda! Agenda!
I haven't always been non-theist. Are you upset because non-theists know scripture better than theists? Oh, and don't forget, you have an agenda too - getting people to believe in your god.
I think you are getting all out of sorts, so I'm going to leave it with you for a while.