The following is a courtesy announcement from a concerned heathen:
“Trigger warning: the following posts contain no respect for what is true.
The header picture indicates JB contorting what’s true to suit his religious beliefs. No contortion is too extreme. Observe, however, the mental anguish exposed in this portrait when a commentator attempts to introduce some legitimate contrary view, so please avoid any use of respect, honesty, accuracy, or adult behaviour while visiting this site. The introduced dissonance might cause permanent damage.”
We drove the ‘Road to Hana’ yesterday.
I swam in the pool beneath a waterfall.
The guide said it was risky swimming at the top of waterfalls.
I’ve seen enough cartoons to believe that.
The guide was a virtual tour app that ran on a smart phone.
It was really helpful having it chatter away while we drove.
It talked about points of interest, restaurants and Hawaiian history.
Of course, you can’t talk history without religion.
So lo, there was talk of Lo.
Lo is the Creator God the Hawaiian islands.
Lo existed before everything.
Lo released mana into Po (the darkness) and brought forth life.
…this sounded vaguely familiar to me.
Hawaiian theology has nothing in common with Judeo-Christian theology.
How could it?
Ancient Hawaiians weren’t reading Bibles by the light of lava fountains.
Yet those primitive island people understood that somebody had to make ‘all this’.
Where did they get that idea?
At one point we learned about Pele, the volcano Goddess, who always fought with her sister (there were seven).
Big families often experience friction, even when siblings are gods.
Pele died and her bones are buried under a cinder pile along the road to Hana…
…allegedly.
Nobody has dug them up to check.
Nobody ever will.
Because nobody really believes in Pele anymore.
She is listed in the ‘myth’ column along with Zeus, Mithras, Odin and a zillion other legendary gods.
Jesus is a different story.
Centuries later, Jesus still has millions of disciples.
To be sure, a lot of people put Jesus in the myth column too.
They think Jesus and Pele are essentially the same thing.
They think this because they’re ignorant.
Or obstinate.
Whereas Pele was created by Lo…
…Jesus was Lo.
Jesus was that pre-existing source of mana into the Po.
(The Bible says it differently because they spoke Greek, not Hawaiian…)
And Jesus didn’t leave any bones behind.
To be clear…
…I didn’t get all this from the tour guide app.
Don’t download Gypsy Guide expecting to hear a sermon.
We have to write our own sermons.
God reveals Himself to us every second of every day.
In Hawaii, Australia, Antarctica and Central Indiana the Truth is waiting to be discovered…
…by those who care to look for it.
440 Responses
I’m not sure if there are too many comments to see where I made my mistake–or if everybody is just being too polite to ask why it apparently took me 6 years to get through high school… LOL!
I saw it, haha. Different areas around Northeastern Ohio always seem to have a different view on when middle school begins, so I just figured that maybe you considered highschool 7-12 grade. Because, I am getting my degree to be a high school math teacher, and the license is for 7-12 grade.
Between that and considering that it was probably an innocent typo, I just let it go.
HAHAHA!
I meant to write “middle and high school,” but I guess I left out the “middle.”
Oh, well.
I did graduate eventually, I promise. 😉
To Sweet Cheeks:
I must add that I thought ” Maybe she went to a special school of indoctination, where they add an extra two years just to complete the brain-washing process.” 😉
I’m amazed by how quickly ‘Sweet Cheeks’ became the moniker…
To JB:
I seem to be the only one using it now though.
Kevin uses it too.
I keep forgetting because she’s been ‘Peaches’ to me since she was in diapers…
I would kind of be surprised if one of our friends doesn’t say “it took you six years to be indoctrinate” at some future point.
Also: Sweet Cheeks!!!! hahahaha!
Ah, it was by her request for the commenters.
We could always do a catch phrase at the bottom including both.
For example ” You are a peach, Sweet Cheeks”.
Or “That was sweet, Peaches”.
I know. She asked for it. You are just obliging .
Obligations- the burden of the indoctrinated 😉
Yes! JB, we finally made the feature on KIA’s blog!
Guess we know who’s in whose head… 😉
At least it isn’t Jesus, right?
You presume. 🙂
Oh, yes indeedy.
Whoopie-doo.
Proof that Pastor Mike has nothing important to talk about.
Actually, I misspoke a bit.
It seems I’M specifically the one making the waves.
Don’t be jealous.
No offense. I still don’t care.
It’s like having your name on the donor list in a charity concert program.
Aw, don’t pee in my punchbowl.
I am enjoying the way his cheerleaders rally around and comfort him after all the “damage” I’ve done. Especially Carmen’s comment! As always, it’s interesting to see the world through her eyes…
Apparently the non-believers are the only decent, respectful people on your blog… (The same ones who tell me they feel sorry for my children and who called you a Dickhead and called Kevin a Dipshit, I assume.)
As a comedian, I’d think you would enjoy the irony here!
How did we damage him?
Not WE…
ME.
Don’t try to slip in here and steal some of my credit now! 🙂
It’s because I didn’t wither and beg for his forgiveness when he accused me of not being Jesus-y enough.
I missed the exchange.
He probably has a point about your being ‘not Jesus-y enough’ though. That’s the whole point of Christianity, isn’t it?
Of course!
But, after 25 years in the ministry, he should know that already… That’s what I told him.
You can’t show up here and literally tell me I’m wrong for not being the kind of Christian you USED TO BE.
I challenged him to admit that right and wrong are written on our hearts, and that we could go from there. Buuuuuut, all I got was more jabs at my parenting.
Seriously, you should scroll up and take a look.
It’s time for a new post…
More empty-headed vitriol …
Gotta keep shoving people away from Jesus!
Geronimo!
John,
Interesting blog about comparing the Hawaiian myths to Scriptural parallels. Clearly they got the idea of the existence of a Creator from what God has written in their hearts. Though I can’t agree that such knowledge is enough to save them (Romans 1 and other passages), I would find it helpful in sharing the Gospel, much like Paul did when he used the “unknown God” to point to the One Who is known and knowable (Acts 17:22-31).
I agree with whoever said that nobody will be in Hell for not believing in Jesus. Technically, people will be in Hell, (or more correctly, the eternal Lake of Fire where Hell will be cast after the final judgement), because they have died without an atonement for their sins. That is something that only Christ provides.
But what about the poor heather who has never heard? Is it fair that they end up in eternal damnation when they have never heard the Gospel?
What is fair? Fair is that we all spend eternity separated from God for our sins. That God saves any person is unfair. I am glad He is unfair in this sense. He is certainly not unjust, but He is unfair in that He is merciful and shows grace to some. If we complain that God is not fair enough by sending sinful people to eternal death who have never heard the Gospel, we are failing to see what amazing grace God has shown to save a wretch like me.
I take no gleeful pleasure from the idea that people “never had a chance” to have faith in Christ. But I can’t escape what Scripture says about it. I shake in my proverbial boots to ever think I could waggle my finger at God and ask Him “Why didn’t you save more?” I trust in His goodness and His plan for His universe, which He really never needs consult with me for approval to do as He wishes. Again, that any person ever has been saved, when all deserve to not be saved, displays a great mercy and grace.
I see the word “fundamentalist” bandied about, and I think it has come to have a negative connotation, with some stuff added to the basic beliefs, like judgemental behavior and the like. I wish that the word could be reclaimed… but I am satisfied to use the word orthodox. Not in the Eastern or Greek sense, but in the basic sense. I think I would describe myself as orthodox. Old fashioned. Certainly not in touch with the times.
I do take the Bible literally. In the hermeneutic sense of the word, meaning that if plain sense makes good sense, then seek no other sense. Also, literal means according to its literary meaning. Psalms are poetry, and should be thusly interpreted. Historical books also should be taken as history. I really do believe in a real Moses, Job, and Noah. I really do believe that Jesus believed them to be real, historical figures.
To pick and choose which parts of Scripture are reliable and actual history is like playing Jenga. You pull out enough pieces and it all crumbles. I take it all as true. Especially because so many attack the view, belittle it, whether they be unbelievers or those who consider themselves believers. The closer one gets to taking the whole Bible as real and literal (again, in the grammatical-historical sense), the more one is persecuted, within and without. Sounds like the perfect place for me to be, unashamedly and certainly not apologetically.
I care not one whit what humans think of my stance on Biblical inerrancy and literalness. I care all my whits what the Almighty thinks about what I think. Young earth? Sure. I have no problem with it. My God can do such a thing, to give the appearance of age to the universe. When the Garden of Eden was made, He did not have to wait for the seed to grow first. And Adam and Eve were created fully formed, not as babies. So I have no hangups with the idea that the earth is much younger than the scientists claim. Whatever a “scientist” really is.
My fear in the slippery slope many people within the church are on is that they have no foundation to say why anything in the Bible is reliable, if they allegorize or mythologize parts of it. If Noah and Moses are myths, then why trust what Jesus said about them? He could not be talking to a mythological being in the Transfiguration, when He (in front of the disciples) spoke to Moses and Elijah in their glorified forms. So not only did Jesus say they were real… He spoke to them, if we believe Scripture (Matthew 17:1-4).
As Paul said to Timothy in 2 Timothy 2:15 (ESV) – “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.”
I strive to have a consistent hermeneutic. A page that elucidates the importance of this is https://arcapologetics.org/objections/good-hermeneutics/
Here I stand, I can do no other. (Hat tip, Martin Luther)
I pray that my ramblings provoke thoughts in those so inclined to be provoked. I would be remiss in my responsibilities as a caring member of the Sojourn podcast responders if I did not pour out my heart on the issue.
Dave
2 Tim 3:16-17 (ESV) – All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Oh bother… it was not the poor “heather” who has never heard, but “heathen”. All apologies to any Heathers who were offended by my sinuously meandering post.
Dave
Philippians 3:12 (ESV) – Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own.
Hi Dave
I am really glad you took the time to expand on what you said earlier. I think we are on the save wavelength on this issue. That’s why I was curious about what you meant about fundamentalism being hijacked, or did you say kidnapped? Either way, it has come to mean a lot of things it never meant.
I am quite the literalist with the Bible myself. I know folks things that pretty much renders me a nutjob..but I’m ok with that.
Anyway, back to he post. I still maintain I don’t have an issue with what I saw as what I read. Again, we are in full agreement one’s sins being atoned for by the blood of Jesus is needed for salvation. I would have disagreed if I thought this had gone there.
Final note. You guys need to leave all the Heathers alone LOL. I am married to one of those. A Heather, not a heathen.
And another question:
If Jesus was Lo, the Creator of the Universe, why didn’t he say anything new or even vaguely original?
Seriously?
That’s the best you’ve got?
You wanted Jesus to say….what, exactly? “Water boils at 212 Farhenheit?”
All these assumptions you make about what Jesus knew vs. what he could/should have said only provide more evidence of what I’ve suspected from the beginning. You have no intellectual problems with God. You’re just upset he doesn’t fit neatly in your box.
So, can you name a single new or original thing Jesus said or did? Somethign truly revolutionary?
Just one thing.
One thing.
Consider it a challenge.
If, however, John is working on a post, which i hope he is, then don’t answer that here.
I have no idea what you consider “revolutionary.” It’s subjective standards like that which you and Tildeb like to slip in whenever possible.
So, no, I can’t name something “new” or “revolutionary” FOR YOU–because you’re a crooked judge of the evidence.
Here’s the part I promised to repeat for you:
“No once cares but you whether Jesus said something ‘original.’
I think the most important thing would be to say something TRUE. But, since you think someone unaware of the difference between Archaeology and Biblical Archaeology on an internet Thread is a huge, dastardly liar, I can see why you may struggle to decide whether Jesus spoke “truth.”
It’s easier to challenge Christians to bring up something “new” he said…. even though the fact that he was speaking ancient wisdom is far more compelling to me.”
“No one cares if Jesus said anything original.”
If you say so.
I just find it odd that the Creator of the Universe would bother to come to earth and speak (speak a lot, about all manner of things), but not utter a single sentence that was even vaguely new, or original.
Why bother?
But if you’re OK with that, then so be it. No harm done.
As I said, you find it odd because you care more about “new” than “true” for some reason.
Actually, I don’t think you find it odd at all…. I think you just tell Christians that you find it odd, hoping they will defend Jesus to you, as if you’re some kind of prosecuting attorney…or worse, the jury itself (all twelve members).
Meanwhile, you seem oblivious to the fact that you’ve walked right back into the topic of the original post.
Full circle!
Jesus was repeating things which people had been using intuition to discover for centuries.
Fascinating!
Thanks for all the references to “gateways,” down thread. I’m so glad to know God had been preparing people’s cultures and hearts for Jesus long before he actually arrived.
To John Zande,
Out of curiosity, who said ” I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” before Jesus?
To Matthew, can you demonstrate that Jesus himself even said it? Have you done any independent research of the fragility of the nt texts, translations, and transmission of the manuscripts thru the ages, let alone asked yourself if they correspond to any Jesus known and recorded to have existed in history outside of the biblical texts in actual history?
To Kia:
So are you hinting that John Zande is asking about the originality of quotes from a made-up character? What would be the purpose of that question?
The fact that John Zande asked the question is demonstrative enough.
Hi Matt,
Siddhartha Gautama taught that Buddhahood could only be attained through replicating his eightfold path, which is to say, through him.
The concept here is a gatekeeper to heaven, and the number of a heavenly “gatekeepers” is exceptionally huge. Osiris and Anubis, for example, in Egyptian mythology. In Hinduism, it is Yama who was the first mortal who attained immortality and guides the way to heaven for all men. For the Greeks, it was Heracles who became the gatekeeper of heaven. In Zoroastrianism, a dead person’s spirit is escorted to heaven by the guardian spirit, Daena, where the spirit is shown their life (thoughts, words and actions). An angel at the Chinawod Bridge (the keeper) would then determine if the dead person would go on to heaven, hell, or a third destination (purgatory) where it would wait until the Judgment Day. Further still, the Saoshyant, the Saviour in Zoroastrianism, is the “World Renovator” [Astavat-ereta] and “Victorious Benefactor” who will defeat “the evil of the progeny of the biped”, bring “retribution for offenses,” and establish “the Kingdom of Good Thought (righteousness).” Ultimately, it through the Saoshyant who all people will join Ahura-Mazda. In Norse mythology, it was Heimdall who let people into Asgard, or not.
The list is long.
To John Zande:
Surely you can see the theological differences between claiming to know the way to true life and actually claiming to be “the way and the truth and the life.”
I will ignore the others because you are speaking about Jesus as a real person and the others as myths, which is a also a significant difference. For surely you can concede that a mythical being can’t truly say anything at all.
Matt, with all due respect, there is your mistake. We are not talking about “theology.” We are talking about the things said and done, not the interpretations of the claims. Let’s just stick to that which was written, not the opinions of others concerning what was written.
You suggested that offering some sort of path or way to heaven was unique to Jesus. That concept is by no means new or original. Was anything unique in Jesus naming himself as a keeper? No. Was there anything new or unique in Jesus implying that by replicating his ways was part of that path? No. Most sages emphasised the same concepts… It’s principally why they were venerated and followed. They are “The way.”
To John,
1) I’ll rephrase my point. Surely you can see the conceptual differences between claiming to know the way to true life and claiming to be “the way and the truth and the life”.
2) Also, you are wrong in thinking that Jesus implied that the path to heaven was by replicating his ways. He taught that it was believing in Him that was the only way to Heaven.
3) The conceptual differences mentioned in 1 are spelled out in 2. To quote Paul in Ephesians 2, “8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.”
1) Conceptual differences are meaningless in the spirit of this exercise. Just because you, Matt, believe Jesus’ claim affects not a Buddhists belief, for example, that Siddhartha Gautama knew and was the true way.
2) Belief without works? That sounds like a recipe for paralysis. Either way, the claim is that he was the keeper. That is not new or unique in any way. In fact, it’s pretty much the hallmark of all religions cantered on idols.
3) Faith (and grace) is not unique to Jesus. Followers of every sage have required “faith.” Indeed, Buddhists are forbidden from performing miracles to prove the superiority of Gautama’s teachings because the convert must first find their faith. The very first aphorism in Jain’s Tattvartha sutra is: “Right faith, right knowledge, and right conduct (together) constitute the path to liberation.” Jews have thirteen principles of faith. In Zoroastrianism, Daena, which Zoroastrians must follow, means religion, faith, and law. In Taoism it’s expressed this way:
To John Zande:
I got lazy above and didn’t include your last name. I was still talking to you, not to John Branyan. I figured, from context, you would know- I’m just clearing it up, however.
I knew who you were talking to but it’s always a good idea to be clear when talking to the windbag.
Ignoring his ‘respectful’ suggestion that your theological discussion is not about ‘theology’ is bound to frustrate him though.
It is very important to the heathen that you abide by their strict definitions of terms.
No problem
To John Zande,
It isn’t my belief that Jesus is “the way and the truth and the life” that affects what Buddhists believe. It is the fact that Siddhartha Gautama didn’t believe that Siddhartha Gautama was “the way and the truth and the life”. He had said that he had found the way (the eightfold path), the truth (well, four noble ones) that would lead to a better life. But he did not claim to be “the way and the truth and the life”. That is a big conceptual difference.
It is ironic that you mention that belief without works is a recipe for paralysis- for a person who was promised (by Jesus) to see Jesus in paradise, on the day of Jesus’s crucifixion, literally couldn’t move- for he was nailed to a cross. He could not work for his salvation-yet Jesus promised to see him in paradise. I know, the concept of “belief without works” is counter-intuitive. It does seem like it would allow people to stay stagnant in their faith- however works are not a necessity, they are acts of gratitude and love. As the relationship with the Father grows deeper, the obedience of His commands is more prevalent in a Christian’s life.
PS. I apologize if this doesn’t show up in the correct spot. I have forgotten where I’ve been hitting “reply” to. I noticed that my previous comment is below replies that happened afterwards- it’s confusing to me.
Siddhartha Gautama most definitely knew he was the way. He attained Nirvana in his life, transcended death, and called all people to come through his way to Buddhahood 500 years before Jesus.
Matt, “the way and the truth and the life” is a claim, and a vaporous one at that. Siddhartha Gautama, Lao Tzu, Zhuangzi, Zhuangzi, Mahavira, even Zoroaster made similar claims. The claim (which is the important part) is not new. Each of these sages, and many, many more long before Jesus, taught their particular “way,” and claimed to be the “truth.” Emulating these sages was also central to the teachings, just as it is for followers of Jesus. As it is written in John 2:6, “Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.” (You might want to also see Philippians 2:3-8, 2 Corinthians 3:18, John 13:12-15, John 13:34, John 15:9-11, 1 Corinthians 11:1, 1 John 2:6, Ephesians 4:32, and Colossians 3:13)
So, I’m afraid, there is nothing new or unique in the claim to be the way to heaven, or some sort of gatekeeper, or a role model to imitate. Jesus was just another sage in a very, very long line of sages before him all claiming to be in possession of the ” Truth.”
To John Zande:
Surely you know the difference between “being” something and “finding/ possessing” something. Buddha and the other sages you mentioned (besides Jesus) provided a “way” towards a better life, Jesus offered himself as “the way and the truth and the life”.
As for the scriptures you offered, I had already hinted that obedience stems from the belief. You do not intentionally obey somebody ( for the sake of obeying them) unless you already believe in them.
And while you are reading scripture, apparently, John Zande, that work isn’t going to save you.
Saved by grace, through faith… Not by works.
Hi Matt
”Jesus offered himself as “the way and the truth and the life”.”
Jesus offering himself is a claim of a sacrificial atonement for the sin of others. This is also far, far, far from being anything even vaguely original. The concept is found in almost all religions, not least of all Judaism. In Leviticus (4:35,5:10) we have :
What is sacrificed (a blood sacrifice) doesn’t matter. One may simply interchange animal for human, the idea is exactly the same. What matters is a perceived debt is being paid with the life of another.
So, was Jesus original here? By no means whatsoever… The concept was in his own religion: Judaism.
But like I said, this is anything but new. In the Avesta the primordial man who represents humanity, Gayō, is sacrificed for all of creation, and in the Ṛgveda, Puruṣa-sūkta (the cosmic Man) is sacrificed for all (RV10.90.15cd). That, Matt, is 1,700 years before jesus.
Interestingly though, in Luke 7:48 there is in fact a contradictory passage where Jesus demonstrates he can erase sin without being killed. ”Then Jesus said to her, “Your sins are forgiven””… so even this opinion of sacrificial atonement is flawed.
So, when Matthew asks, “Surely you know the difference between being something and finding/possessing something” the answer is, no.
JZ sees no difference.
In his world “I KNOW” is exactly the same as “I AM.”
Can you not determine what is, and what’s not, a theological claim?
Jesus claims he’s god (John 10:30 “I and the Father are one”), but he also claims he’s not.
Jesus said “No one is good – except God alone
Jesus said “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only
John 13:3 the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God, and went to God.
John 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me
John 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak,
John 8:26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him
John 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.
A father sending his only and begotten son for sacrifice is also not new. El, of course, sent Baal to be sacrificed, only to be resurrected and return to earth to sit on the throne. And, of course, the concept is rife throughout Judaism. This is a great article on the matter by Neil Godfrey
http://vridar.org/2008/05/25/the-beloved-and-only-beloved-sons-sacrificed-by-loving-fathers-offering-of-isaac-5/
And in case you didn’t know, David was called the son of God (II Samuel 7:14 I Chronicles 17:13 Psalm 89:26) as was Solomon (I Chronicles 22:10; 28:6). Thus, Jesus’ claim to be the son of God would not seem to be anything special for the time.
It really doesn’t take that many words to explain that you don’t understand Matt’s question. 🙂
So Gayō and Puruṣa-sūkta didn’t know they were the sons of God? Really? I know of about 2 billion people who’d like to argue the opposite, Amanda
So, now you can see how valid a vaporous theological “claim/opinion” is to this exercise?
I hope so.
So, shall we stick to what was said and what was done?
Thank you.
Ah, so now you understand the difference between “I know” and “I AM,” but now your point is that Jesus wasn’t the only one who could say “I AM.”
Well, that’s a different problem, isn’t it?
Jesus seems to imply he’s God in some places. And other times seems reluctant to say it explicitly…
But–yes–there would be a difference between someone saying, “Let me show you the way,” and “I am The Way in the flesh.”
I didn’t mean to hijack Matthew’s conversation…. just got tired of you cutting and pasting your script instead of answering the question directly.
I’ll let Matt carry on.
Would you like to me to repeat the times Jesus says he ISN’T Yhwh?
So, what Matt was suggesting was a sacrificial atonement for sin…. and that, Amanda, is not new or original. It was in Jesus’ own religion: Judaism.
But lets look at the broader narrative; a sacrifice for the world by a son of god. Gayō (the prototype of the human race), was sacrificed by Ahura Mazda so man could be born. Puruṣa (Vedic religions, which predate Jesus by thousands of years) is sacrificed for the life of the world.
So, Amanda, is the idea of a godly sacrifice for man (for life, for creation, for the atonement of sin) Original to jesus?
No.
Praise God for putting breadcrumbs to the Truth in every culture around the world.
And, no thank you on repeating the times Jesus says he isn’t Yahweh.
I spent 6 years in a private high school and four more in a private college. If you think you’re teaching me things I’ve never heard, I’ve got news for you… 🙂
To John Zande:
You are acting like Jesus said “I am the way.”, “I am the truth”, and “I am the life”- Instead of “I am the way and the truth and the life”. You are putting periods where Jesus put “and”s. He claimed to be “the way and the truth and the life” embodied.
Also, you focused on the “offered himself…” part and not the “saved by grace, through faith…not by works” part. Do you have anything to add on the subject?
I apologize for my delayed response, between my school and work schedule, I barely get to speak to my parents at home, let alone people over the internet. I am appreciating this civil conversation.
To Sweet Cheeks:
Thank you for speaking in my absence, I was hoping that somebody would while I was occupied at my job.
Matt, with all due respect, all you are doing here is asserting that a “claim” is “truth.” It’s not. It’s just a claim, and as a claim it holds no more persuasive strength than any other unfounded claim. As I pointed out to Amanda, the claim itself is not even definitive. There are more verses (specific denials) of Jesus saying he is not Yhwh than the other way around. So, do you believe Jesus, or do you believe Jesus? You might believe one version, but that doesn’t alter the fact of what it is: a claim, and as a claim it’s no more unique than, for example, Siddhartha Gautama’s claim to have attained godhood 500 years before Jesus, becoming the way.
These are not new or original concepts.
As I also pointed out to Amanda, David was called the son of God (II Samuel 7:14 I Chronicles 17:13 Psalm 89:26) as was Solomon (I Chronicles 22:10; 28:6), so Jesus’ claim to be the son of God was not anything special for the time. Sons of god are somewhat common. Krishna (a part of the Vedic trinity) was called both “God” and the “Son of God.” Heracles is the Son of Zeus. Although not claiming to be Ahura-Mazda himself, Zoroaster was the “word,” and the Saoshynt (savior) who’ll come is said to be his second coming. Horis was the only begotten son of the God Osiris. The list goes on, and on…
Sacrificing the sons of god is also somewhat common. El sacrificed his son, Baal. Ahura Mazda sacrificed Gayō. The Vedic gods sacrificed Puruṣa.
Regarding Faith, I’ve already shown you that it is pivotal in many, many religious beliefs. Indeed, it’s the very first aphorism in Jain’s Tattvartha sutra: “Right faith, right knowledge, and right conduct (together) constitute the path to liberation.”
So, I’m sorry, but there is nothing new or original in Jesus’ claim, or faith.
Would you like to offer another suggestion or something genuinely new or original that Jesus said or did?
I’d never heard that Jainism quote before. Thanks for (finally) sharing something new-to-me!
“Right faith, right knowledge, and right conduct (together) constitute the path to liberation.”
I like it.
Obviously, we can’t just accept any old claim that someone is God’s son, much less God Himself. How do we decide which ones (if any of them)–or which parts of each claim–are true? Because it seems to me you STILL think a prerequisite of “truth” is that it be “something no one else has ever stumbled upon before…”
It’s a weird hill you’ve chosen to die on, in which you complain that no two religions have ever come up with EXACTLY the same doctrine…and, yet, your complaint is that Jesus didn’t come up with a new doctrine. Correct me if I’m wrong.
You hadn’t seen it before? That’s odd, as I posted it yesterday, in blockquote.
I never said truth is something no one has said before. Please don’t put words in my mouth. Your father does enough of that already.
I said correct me if I’m wrong.
I’m sure others could understand why I would think “original” is super important–since you’ve been asking about Jesus’ “original” ideas over and over. So, are you going to correct me by explaining what you DO believe and/or why you’re quoting other ancient religions?
Also, are you going to answer my question about how we can determine which religious figures (and/or which parts of each figure’s claims) are actually true?
Original is important to someone claiming to be a god. You’d assume that person would have something “new” to say, something unique. Why bother saying a single word if nothing was new? If the purpose was to just die as a blood sacrifice, then he should have been killed a few minutes after being born: Mission Accomplished.
“You’d assume the person would have something new to say.”
No, YOU’D assume that… so I was correct that your beef with Jesus is simultaneously the fact that all religions across the world have differences AND that Jesus wasn’t different.
Okay, so you’re fine that jesus failed to say a single new original thing.
Good for you.
Okay, so, you see where I’m going to go with this if you actually admit that you’ve put Jesus into an impossible to win situation, right?
Like I said, if you’re fine that the Creator of the Universe came to earth in human form and conducted a three year ministry, seeking out audiences to talk to because he said he had something to say, but in that time failed to say a single new or original thing, then fine.
Good for you.
Hahahaha!!!!
Your stubbornness is impressive, JZ.
But you’ve met your match.
And, it’s no laughing matter if you’re going to allow your stubbornness to keep you in Hell.
God should have created YOU first, JZ. Then made you his project manager. You would have been a big help to him.
“Why waste time going down to Earth? Just fill their stupid heads with everything you want them to know. You won’t even have to mess with them anymore. Mission Accomplished!”
To John Zande:
With all due respect, did you forget your original question? You asked “what did Jesus say that was new, original, or relevant?” Now you are discrediting quotes that are claims? This is about being “the way and the truth and the life”. Also, do you have something to add about the “saved by grace, through faith… not by works” part?
Not discrediting the claim, Matt, merely your assertion of its truth. The claim itself is not original, and that is what’s important.
To John Zande:
You have failed to mention who claimed to be “the way and the truth and the life” before Jesus.
🙂 I just told JZ he had “met his match” in stubbornness, referring to myself.
But I should have said “met your matchES.”
I admire your tenacity here.
Siddhartha Gautama, for one.
Matt, all sages claim to be “the way” and “the truth.” The claim is in no way, shape, or form original. It’s the bedrock of most religions.
To John Zande:
As I said before, there is a difference between “being” and “finding”. Also, it is “the way and the truth and the life”- together- with “and”s. The quote is not broken down like “I am the way”, “I am the truth”, and “I am the life”. Even if it were broken down, you still left out “the life” part.
Matt, I’m starting to believe you don’t actually know the meaning of the word, “claim.”
So, Jesus “claimed” to be the way and the truth. Great. Original? No.
The very root of the word, Taoism, means “way,” “path.”
Tao Te Ching means, “The Way of Life.” That way was to follow the words and deeds of Lao-Tzu.
The “claim,” Matt, is not original.
And any particular reason why you’re ignoring the fact that there are more verses where Jesus specifically says he’s not Yhwh, then there are versus where he claims to be?
To John Zande:
Are you still seperating quotes? Is there any reason why you are not answering who claimed to be all three- for that was my first question that got this whole thing started.
This is about the quote ” I am the way and the truth and the life”. You were very clear not to be theological. Concepts, you were willing to discuss, not theology. So, by your request, I am not discussing certain topics.
Matt, this is growing tremendously boring. You keep repeating a claim thinking it has some great meaning, or distinction, when it doesn’t.
”I am the way and the truth and the life” is the claim. Is it original? No. Siddhartha Gautama claimed exactly the same thing, 500 years before Jesus. A sage who says he/she knows the way is not new. Gautama, for example, detailed the way, through him, to Buddhahood. The eightfold path is through Gautama to Nirvana. Taoism means “way,” “path.” Tao Te Ching means, “The Way of Life.”
And you keep evading the simple fact that Jesus, quite specifically, says in numerous verses that he’s not Yhwh.
Why do you keep ignoring this? Could it be because it contradicts your “being” and “finding” distinction?
So, if you would like to suggest something else, something you think was genuinely new or original to Jesus, then by all means suggest it. I’ll be happy to review whatever you put down.
(And Matt, if you do want to continue, can you please use the Reply button)
“I am the way and the truth and the life.” –Siddhartha Gautama
What date was that, again?
To John Zande:
“He detailed the way”. Yes, he didn’t say “I am the way”. At least you finally said that there was a distinction between “finding” and ” being”.
You said not to theological, John Zande. So yes, by your request, I am ignoring certain things. You also said to discuss what was said, not the truth value of it. Unless you are going back on what you want to discuss, I will abide by the rules you set forth beforehand.
Until then, you can answer the question of “who said ‘am the way and the truth and the life’ before Jesus?”.
“finding” and ”being” is a meaningless distinction. You believe Jesus was “being.” Fine. 6 billion people disagree with that opinion. Jesus’ own words disagree with the claim. Your opinion has no truth value, which is why we should only concentrate on what was said and done.
As to the claim of being the way, Buddha, for one, did it long, long before Jesus. He was “being” Buddha, was he not, when he started teaching?
Okay, so it looks like you’re not going to suggest anything else.
Take care.
To John Zande:
My bad, the question was “Who said ‘ I am the way and the truth and the life.’ before Jesus?” Well, I think I cut out the “No one comes to the Father except through me.” part, because there is a period between “life” and ” No”. Grammar allows for it. Plus, you somewhat answered the last part-giving your interpretation of it as a “gatekeeper” claim.
You are speaking to a mighty wind, Matt. It does not reason. It merely blows.
To John Zande:
Buddha was being Buddha when he was ” detailing” “the way”. Jesus was being Jesus when he was “being” “the way and the truth and the life”. Again, when did anyone say “I am the way the truth and the life” before Jesus?
Also, if my opinion doesn’t count, neither do the others. I never said mine did. I am being a strict follower of your rules about not discussing theology and the truth value of Jesus’s statement. You seem to be the one wanting to discuss Jesus’s other claims of being or not being Yhwh and whether people agree with it or not. Let’s focus on what was said, and tell me who said “I am the way and the truth and the life.” before Jesus.
Lord Krishna said:
Krishna also said,
In the Kālāma Sutta, the Buddha encourages his listeners not to believe in scripture, logic, parental tradition, common custom or even the words of a trusted teacher like himself, but rather to be as he is, because he is the way.
And here:
Mahā-Kaccāna, talks of the qualities of the Buddha’s nature:
So, again, there is nothing new in the claim attributed to Jesus. Being the “only way” is a common theme expressed in far, far, far older religions.
And do remember, Matt, Jesus wasn’t Yhwh… Just a sage who called himself the “son of god.”
MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAS THOU FORSAKEN ME? [MARK 15:34]
OOPS!
That sounds like Theology, JZ!
If Matt wasn’t in class, he would call you out on that. 🙂
Did you forget: “said or done”?
Said is fine, its what we want, but any theological opinion attached to those words, beyond those words, is merely opinion.
You’re interpreting the words said, Dolt.
You STILL haven’t provided anyone who said, quote, “I am the way and the truth and the life” in that way, in that order, other than Jesus.
Apparently you’re the only one allowed to make inferences into the meaning behind the quotes from each “sage?”
You want word for word?
LOL!
Yeeeeeeep.
LOL!
You’re the one who outlined the rules. “We’re talking about the words said!” Not trying to philosophize or theologize or rationalize some meaning behind it.
If you conclude that Jesus wasn’t God because he said “My God, My God,” that’s Theology.
Dolt. 🙂
Not concluding anything, simply drawing attention to the stunning contradiction between the claim and what Jesus actually said.
But, in essence, that is not really even important. What is important is the claim to be the way, the truth, and the only way/truth.
Was such a claim original to Jesus?
No. Not in the slightest.
Krishna even says, quite clearly, that even if you worship another god, but do it well, with faith, then you’re only truly worshiping him because he is everything: spiritual and material.
Buddha said if you saw him, you saw Dhamma (perfection in action, law, being, life, path of righteousness, godhood).
“Just remember, Matthew. Jesus wasn’t YHWH. Just a sage who called himself the Son of God.”
Yeah, whatever, JZ. You got caught breaking your own rules, and I don’t expect you to admit it.
So, one more time, for clarity. And then I’m going to start “whooshing” at you.
Matthew tried explaining the conceptual difference between claiming to “have a way” or “know a way” and claiming to actually BE “The Way and The Truth and The Life.” But, when he hinted at the interpretations and implications of that statement, you plugged your ears and said, in effect, “THEOLOGY! STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT!” You wanted to compare THE WORDS SAID…and ONLY THE WORDS SAID. You didn’t want to delve into the meaning behind it.
That was YOU.
But apparently it’s okay for you to do a little assuming and interpreting and reading-between-the-lines of each text, when you’re trying to suggest that Jesus was a phony who borrowed his message from other religions.
I mean, that IS what you’re trying to suggest, right?
Caught?
LOL.
I’ll remember that next time I point out a severe contradiction in any statement… a contradiction that negates the claim.
But, just in case you missed that part, I don’t really care. We can still assess the claim as being original or not.
Guess what?
It’s not.
And this is why I don’t have conversations about specific religious quotes or doctrines with Atheists….
That’s why I prefer asking people like YOU to explain why “originality” is so very important to you.
Here’s a non-rhetorical question. I’d really like you to answer: Are you saying Christianity is exactly like all the other religions?
You can quote Jesus’ words. Again, “name something new or original Jesus SAID or DID”
Christianity is just flavour of all religion. There is no base from which to measure each against apart from their general attempt to offer answers to questions of origin while numbing the adherent to their terror of death. In antiquity, religions relied on the super-natural, building supernal family units out of known social constructs, but as I pointed out to your dad, ALL new religions since 1947 (of which there are plenty) have ALL been UFO religions; modern expressions of the same needs that have simply replaced the invisible, magical sky daddy with wise, technologically-awesome aliens. All religion is anthropological. Ancestor cults grew into animism, animism grew into Totemism, Totemism grew into pantheons, pantheons merged into monotheism, and, in accordance to the cultural understanding of the day, creator spirits have now been replaced with powerful aliens.
There’s a whole lot of opinion and interpretation thrown in there, JZ.
Maybe I should rephrase the question: I’m asking whether you think Christianity teaches the same things as all other religions? They “all attempt to answer questions of origin and numb adherent’s to the terror of death,” but are their messages the same?
It is a flavour of religion, not disimilar to Zoroastrianism which, like Judaism and Islam, is waiting for a savior.
Answered.
Hehe. It’s cute the way you think stating “answered” makes it so.
So–if all religions aren’t EXACTLY the same, then how is Christianity different from others?
Did I say exactly the same?
No, you were avoiding that. Now you can explain how they’re not exactly the same by describing for me how Christianity is different from other religions.
You’re boring me.
One thing that is unique is the amount of theology that has been built around Christianity. Of course, that has nothing to do with its origins in the Syrian and Turkish diaspora. But, when Greek philosophy was reintroduced into Europe by the Muslims the church was in a position to monopolise academic interests, hence the libraries of varying theologies and elaborate theodicies.
Basic Christianity is raised up on the Sermon on the Mount doctrine. It’s no more complicated, or unique, than that.
So the amount of Theology surrounding it is unique and the Sermon on the Mount is unique?
Or…were all those other words just confusing the issue?
No, the Sermon on the Mount is not unique, not by a long shot, those ideas were all articulated by many, many, many sages long before Jesus, and often articulated much, much better. But yes, the amount of theological “opinion” that has been built up around Chrsitianity is, in many way, unique.
So…the same tenants which have built Christianity can be found in every part of the globe, as far back as we look?
Fascinating.
Everyone from the Jains in India to the Buddha in China to the Hawaiians in the Pacific Ocean, all testify to the same basic truth statements.
Fascinating.
Thanks for playing, JZ.
I’d like to continue this discussion on the newest post, if you’re not too “bored.”
Well done, you’ve discovered the power of memes.
So, you accept then that Jesus didn’t say or do a single new or original thing.
Are you totally oblivious to the fact that your point is now moot?
Let it go, JZ.
Move over to the new post and keep blustering. This is buried so deep in the comment stack that you’re not the only one bored with it…
If it were moot, John, then why do people keep making suggestions of things Jesus said or did which they think were genuinely new, or original, or revolutionary, or even vaguely useful?
You find this conversation terribly awkward.
I get that. I understand. It must be thoroughly uncomfortable for you to learn that the person you think WAS THE GREATEST PERSON IN ALL HISTORY couldn’t even drum up an original thought or deliver a single piece of novel information… not even a new and more accurate cosmogony.
Not even telling his fellow Jews, “Hey, you know Moses… He wasn’t real.”
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Please, oh please, find a way to work that question into the new thread.
I’m seriously not discussing any further on a post with 383 comments, but I would LOVE for my fellow Christians to see what the Atheist problem with Jesus is, spelled out so nicely and clearly.
To anyone reading:
I’ll it be known that I will be in classes for the next five hours. So any assumption of me being “stumped” or “leaving the conversation” is false.
…of course, you have no evidence for this ‘class’ you’re ‘attending’…
To John Zande:
I do not see “I am the way and the truth and the life.” being stated by a person before Jesus. Do you accept that this is originally said by Jesus? If not, please provide an example of a person saying this before Jesus.
Also, I am not going to discuss whether Jesus was or wasn’t Yhwh. That would be a theological interpretation- which you said not to discuss. So by your request, I am avoiding the issue. You seemingly want to discuss the Trinity- arguably the most confounding aspect of theology. Yet, you do not have anything to add to my “saved by grace, through faith…not by works.” explanation. You were rather confused that a person doesn’t have to work to obtain salvation. If you are confused at that, you have some homework to do before you discuss the Trinity.
Also, I will add that you shouldn’t neglect the word “I” either. For this is a quote made in the first person, I expect a quote in the first person saying “I am the way and the truth and the life.” by a person other than Jesus-predating Jesus.
You’re free to state the god claim. The problem, though, arises in that we have contradictory statements as to that claim, rendering the subject a little hard to pin down as a positive or negative assertion. Either way, as I have pointed out, both Krishna and Buddha express the same thoughts, so nothing new there.
Regarding the trinity, I know the subject very well, and it’s anything but original to Christianity, even though it’s not mentioned by Jesus and therefore not valid as per the question. The concept is ancient, and it pops up in Jesus’ religion: Judaism:
Isaiah 48:16:“From the beginning from the time that it was, I was there: (1st person) and now the Lord GOD (2nd person) and His Spirit, (3rd person) hath sent me (1st person).”
The Trinity is however fully expressed in Zoroastrian:
Ahura Mazda (the Father), Spenta Mainyu or Vohu Mana (the Holy Spirit), and Asha Vahista (the Logos, or Son):
In the Egyptian ” Hymn to Amun” it’s written:
In Buddhism the Trikāya doctrine says that a Buddha has three kāyas or bodies (from wiki):
1. The Dharmakāya or Truth body which embodies the very principle of enlightenment and knows no limits or boundaries;
2. The Sambhogakāya or body of mutual enjoyment which is a body of bliss or clear light manifestation;
3. The Nirmāṇakāya or created body which manifests in time and space.
Toaists treach of The Three Pure Ones who are regarded as the pure and singular manifestation of the Tao and the origin of all sentient beings. They are also called the Three Pure Pellucid Ones, the Three Pristine Ones, the Three Divine Teachers, the Three Clarities, or the Three Purities.
In Hinduism, the trinity (Trimūrti, or The Three Forms) is of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. These three-in-one are called “the Hindu triad” or the “Great Trinity”
In the Hindu Puranas there is this passage:
In response, the three-gods-in-one (Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva [or Shiva]), replied,
And the concept is found with the Greeks. Aristotle wrote:
‘All things are three, and thrice is all: and let us use this number in the worship of the gods; for, as the Pythagoreans say, everything and all things are bounded by threes, for the end, the middle and the beginning have this number in everything, and these compose the number of the Trinity'”.
Thomas Dennis Rock wrote in his book, The Mystical Woman and the Cities of the Nations, 1867 (Pg. 22-23)
So, as you can see, the Trinity is not new, or original.
To John Zande,
I didn’t claim that the Trinity was a new concept. But I did ask “who said ‘I am the way and the truth and the life’ before Jesus?” You have failed to give me a quote.
Saying that the quote is a god claim is a theological opinion and interpretation-which you said not to use. I am not asserting truth values to the quote- for as you mentioned- my opinion doesn’t matter.
So, again, by your rules “Let’s stick to that which is written, not the opinions of others concerning what was written.”
Who said “I am the way and the truth and the life” before Jesus?
In John 14 (the passage you are citing) Jesus says “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.”
I’ve already posted this, but it seems you did not read it, so compare that to Buddha, saying:
Or what about Krishna saying:
So, would you like to make another suggestion?
To John Zande:
While I’m glad that you are reading ahead, you still haven’t answered the question concerning the first sentence of John 14:6.
I’ll stick with the question that I asked until it is answered.
Who said “I am the way and the truth and the life.” before Jesus?
Do you nhave trouble reading?
Both Buddha and Krishna make an even grander statement, stating unequivocally that they are God. Jesus says he’s a lesser, inferior being: “I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.” Jesus speaks about the truth not, in fact, being him, rather “another advocate” his father will send. Both Krishna and Buddha, however, state there is no other but them.
To John Zande:
Stating that those are grander statements is either an opinion or a theological interpretation, which you said not to do.
Let’s stick with what is written and not the opinions concerning what is written.
Who said “I am the way and the truth and the life.” before Jesus?
Let me guess, you’re not reading anything I post.
Yes, let’s stick to what is written.
Buddha, who taught (as the Buddha) the way to Nirvana, his way, through him, says he is the manifestation of the godhead, not some inferior entity acting as a lowly surrogate, like Jesus admits:
Give it up, Matt.
If you have another suggestion, present it.
To John Zande:
As I said, that corresponds to further down the chapter of John 14. You still haven’t answered the question concerning the first sentence of John 14:6.
Until you answer it, my question still stands.
Who said “I am the way and the truth and the life.” before Jesus?
Matt, just so there’s no confusion, there is no real situation of a “win” or a “loss,” here. I’m perfectly happy to accept anything anyone suggests which can be demonstrated to have been genuinely new or original (or even tangibly useful).
For example, at one stage, it looked like Jesus was truly original in cursing the fig tree. That was, however, until a fellow blogger discovered that there is a Chinese deity (whose name now eludes me) who not only cursed a single tree, but an entire forest.
On the positive side, it looks like Jesus turning the fish into an ATM machine is, in fact, genuinely new. I can’t find any other deity, sage, prophet, or god who has performed this act… so that counts, and I’m happy to mark it up.
Personally, I don’t, however, see how that piece of originality reduces suffering (or lifts the human condition) in any meaningful way, but hey, there it is. Something new and original.
Your suggestion, Matthew, fails to cut it. I have shown you already how it fails, but either you don’t read comments, or you are just being wilfully ignorant.
Neither, I’m afraid to say, are particularly endearing.
One last time, let’s analyse the claim.
You’re citing John 14. Good, that’s fine. In this we have Jesus claiming he is the way, the truth, and the light. Here we’ll just ignore the fact that this statement is nothing but a vaporous word-salad that contains no more intrinsic truth value than me claiming I’m the greatest craftsman of bespoke shoes.
Literally, the words mean nothing more than “The fish was this BIG…!”
Further, you have been at pains to emphasise the “I am the…” part, which is also fine.
Okay, first, claiming to be the “way” is not new or original. That theme is mirrored in all religions I am aware of. The very root of the word, Taoism, means “way,” “path.” The Tao Te Ching means, “The Way of Life.” Buddhism is centred Buddha being “the way.” Zoroastrianism has “the way,” as does Jainism, Confucianism, Sikhism, and Hinduism, just to name a few.
The claim is as common as religion.
Second, you like to emphasise the “I am…” Okay, great. Jesus elaborates on this claim by saying if you see him (Jesus) you see the father. That is the way he tries to back up the claim. Original? No. Not at all. 500 years before Jesus, Buddha (who was the way) said if you see him, you are seeing Dhamma. This is the “I am…” statement you keep ignoring:
Older still than Buddha by at least 1,500 years, Krishna goes even further, saying:
This, clearly, states he (Krishna) is everything: “I am…”
Now, here your claim runs into some severe problems in contradiction.
Whereas Krishna and Buddha are quite clear in their statements of being “I am…”, Jesus backtracks, saying he’s not, in fact, the father, but some inferior surrogate: “I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.”
So, that whole “I am…” part is negated by Jesus’own words. No such problem with Buddha or Krishna.
Jesus also says he’s not, in fact, the truth, but that it (the truth) would be sent (by his father) via “another advocate”.
Now, we can take this part as a separate claim altogether: that being the promise of a saviour. That claim is also not new or original. In Zoroastrianism, the promise is of the coming of the Saoshyant: the Saviour, who is described as the “World Renovator” [Astavat-ereta] and “Victorious Benefactor” who will defeat “the evil of the progeny of the biped”, bring “retribution for offenses,” and establish “the Kingdom of Good Thought (righteousness).”
Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
So, Matthew, if you are going to persist in demanding word-for-word, then understand that you are merely demonstrating to me, and to all readers of this particular thread, that you have backed yourself into a corner and are simply too embarrassed to extract yourself and move on.
Children often have this problem, Matthew.
So, either present a new suggestion for something genuinely new or original (or even useful) that Jesus said or did, or don’t expect me to answer you one more time. Your suggestion (as contradictory as it is) has been roundly, and repeatedly, shown to be neither new, original, nor even useful.
To John Zande:
I never claimed for this to be a “win-loss” conversation. I, out of curiosity, wanted to see who said “I am the way and the truth and the life.” before Jesus. You have failed to provide me an answer.
“We are talking about the things said and done, not the interpretations of the claims. Let’s just stick to that which was written, not the opinions of others concerning what was written.” These were your rules, not mine. You are the one who backed yourself in the corner. Whether you find that embarrassing or childish is up to you. You said “We are not talking about ‘theology.’ We are talking about the things said and done, not the interpretations of the claims.” You wanted to interpret the claims, I refrained from doing so after you asked me to. I am the one who followed your rules after you set them. You broke your own rules. If you find breaking rules embarrassing or childish, again, that is up to you.
At this rate, I do not expect you to answer the question (following your rules) either, but I’ll ask only once more for good measure:
Who said “I am the way and the truth and the life.” before Jesus?
You seem to be deliberately ignoring the awkward fact that there are no “opinions” or “interpretation” going on here, just Jesus’ own words which contradict themselves.
Contradictory or not, the claim is neither new, original, or useful.
As demonstrated.
To John Zande:
You seem to be ignoring the fact that once you start declaring claims contradictory, that you are interpreting the claims. Once you interpret quotes as god claims, that is theology. Theological interpretations are supposed to be out of discussion. So yes, I am ignoring them, by your request.
Where have you posted the answer to the question
“Who said ‘I am the way and the truth and the life’ before Jesus?
If you do not have a known quote of somebody saying “I am the way and the truth and the life.” being stated before Jesus. I’ll assume that the answer is ” nobody said that before Jesus, and I have neglected to provide a quote.”.
If, however, you do find the answer, feel free to share it on any of John Branyan’s later blogs. I’ll be looking there. Comments are getting buried further and further down on this blog, and right now, only you and I seem to care. Let everybody know the good news on a later blog. I’ll be waiting there- whenever the time arises.
As a reward for your forbearance, a little vindication:
https://jamesbishopblog.wordpress.com/2015/01/19/23-reasons-why-scholars-know-jesus-is-not-a-copy-of-pagan-religions/
LOL, that link has nothing at all to do with this exercise. I’m not saying Jesus is a copy of anything. Much of the theology that built around Jesus is copied, like the trinity for example, but I’m not, and never was, interested in that.
The exercise was always to simply identify something genuinely new or unique (or even vaguely useful) Jesus SAID or DID. I’m not interested in litigating the claims, merely seeing if they were new or genuinely revolutionary (or even useful) when compared to the words and works of earlier deities, sages, prophets, philosophers, playwrights, poets, etc.
That is to say, did the meme originate with Jesus, Yes or No?
Period.
There is no trick. It’s really quite straightforward.
For example, are the beatitudes unique to Jesus? No. Is the Golden Rule unique to Jesus? No. Was Jesus feeding the multitude unique? No. Was Jesus turning a fish into an ATM machine unique? YES!! YES, THAT WAS UNIQUE!!!
Was Jesus claiming he was the truth/way unique? No. “I am the…” was said by Krishna and Buddha, and probably others whom I’m presently unaware of.
To repeat what was already written:
To John Zande:
“One who sees the Dhamma sees me; one who sees me sees the Dhamma. For it is when one sees the Dhamma that they see me; and it is when they see me that they see the Dhamma.”‘ [S 22.87]”.
Do you see “I am the way and the truth and the life.” anywhere in there?
I take it that “I am the way and the truth and the life.” Is unique to Jesus. Thanks for letting me prove that Christ said and did original things- I appreciate it.
See you next time.
OK, considering how utterly boring this has become, let’s try it this way.
If it’s not an “I am” statement, then how about you tell me what you think Krishna and Buddha are saying.
Over to you…
To John Zande:
You are asking me to break the rules you set forth: No theology, no interpretations, no opinions. Just the words said.
You implied that with all the things that Jesus said or did, there was nothing new, original, or useful. I provided a counter-example to your premise, you actually presented another. Thus, your question has been answered and my counter-example still remains a relevant counter-example under your rules.
But, if and when you do find the source of the original quote, let me know on the newest post (following your discovery) of The Comedy Sojourn- I will appease your boredom and won’t expect an answer on this post- plus, I am sure we’d all love to read about it!
Don’t take this as a “good bye”, but as a “see you later”.
Hmmm, Matthew, we are indeed discussing the claims, just not prosecuting the veracity of claims, or secondhand theological opinions attached to those claims… as you are already fully aware.
Nice attempt at a dodge, though.
So, you’re not too keen to actually face the words written, I see.
Understandable.
I can appreciate why you don’t want to, why you’ve done nothing but obfuscate in comment after comment.
But don’t worry. Your continued stonewalling, then and now, says all that needs to be said, doesn’t it.
Take care.
To John Zande:
I am glad that you understand the reason for my responses. The reason being that you asked me not to discuss theology. Discussing god claims is being theological. You also told me that my opinion didn’t matter, so therefore, I am not offerring it. My comments are a direct result of the rules you set.
I had already said that none of the quotes you offered had “I am the way and the truth and the life.” in them. That was discussing the words. Then you got bored and changed your approach.
But as I said. Anytime you want to offer a quote, feel free to share it on the most up-to-date post on The Comedy Sojourn. I know you are getting bored by your own rules, so I’ll let you move on to the newer posts. Much has happened during this conversation.
Thank you, I will take care. Take care of yourself as well. I hope to see you in the future posts! It has been a pleasure 🙂
Again, nice attempt at a dodge, Matthew.
Regretfully for you, discussing “god claims” is not being theological as we are simply taking the words as presented and assessing the originality of the claim, not prosecuting its veracity.
So, again, you not addressing the question put to you speaks volumes.
Indeed, it’s very much like why Donald Trump will not release his tax returns.
Just like Trumps obfuscation, your continued obfuscation says all that really needs to be said.
Every time you evade addressing the question, you are simply conceding the field.
Time, after time, after time.
That being said, I can completely understand why you keep evading it. In fact, I sympathise with your position. Being caught in a desperately deep corner of your own making can be tremendously embarrassing… Especially since you’ve spotlighted this corner you’re in so brilliantly.
Everyone is looking, Matthew. They can all see you there.
Hence the continued obfuscation, the continued evasion, the continued childish antics.
So, to repeat the challenge before you:
And to save you the bother of having to look it up, “Dhamma” (Drhma) has no exact English equivalent. It means many things, but in general, it means ‘right way of living’ and ‘path of righteousness’. You could also call it “cosmic law and order”, and “behaviour that makes life and universe possible”.
The root of the word is “dhri”, which means “the thing that regulates the course of change by not participating in change, but that principle which remains constant.”
You might want to compare that definition to Malachi 3:6, where Yhwh (Jesus) says, “I your Lord do not change.”
So, Matthew, when The Buddha said this (500 years before Jesus), what is he saying?
Over to, Matthew…
No, I really must ask again that this conversation be moved to the newest thread. Contrary to what was just suggested, everybody can NOT “see Matthew standing there” in that supposed corner. Everybody has long since moved on.
JZ clearly is on some type of power trip as a result of this “challenge,” even though he still hasn’t answered my question regarding why “originality” matters. (I still happen to agree with the famed historians and novel-writers, Lewis and Tolkien, that Jesus INTENTIONALLY incorporated elements from all the other world-religions, so people from all backgrounds would more easily recognize him. Here’s a good blog post. https://prodigalprof.com/christmas-2016/the-day-the-myths-came-true/) But, it’s not worth it to keep burying the comments here.
Copy and paste this, if you must.
Just bring it to where other people can see you say super creepy-old-man things like “Everyone is looking, Matthew!” Lol. At least on the new thread, there will be three or four people actually looking.
No.
The conversation is here.
Then, I’m afraid it looks like YOU’RE the one hiding in a corner, underneath 400+ comments.
Are you going to make a point sometime? No one else said, word-for-word, that they were The Way and the Truth and the Life. But you are okay with interpreting and reading between the lines, so you count the fact that Buddhists and Hindus talked about concepts like the Way to Truth long before Jesus rose from the dead.
So…WHAT? I’m tired of seeing notifications from a pointless conversation, frankly.
No one else said, word-for-word, that they were The Way and the Truth and the Life.
Really?
To repeat:
And to save you the bother of having to look it up, “Dhamma” (Drhma) has no exact English equivalent. It means many things, but in general, it means ‘right way of living’ and ‘path of righteousness’. You could also call it “cosmic law and order,” and “behaviour that makes life and universe possible.”
The root of the word is “dhri”, which means the thing that regulates the course of change by not participating in change, but that principle which remains constant.
You might want to compare that definition to Malachi 3:6, where Yhwh (Jesus) says, “I your Lord do not change.”
So, Amanda, when The Buddha said this (500 years before Jesus), what is he saying?
Over to you, Amanda…
He’s saying “One who sees the Dhamma sees me; one who sees me sees the Dhamma.”
That the word-for-word.
But, when you want to talk about definitions and contexts and other things, you can read between the lines and see that there are parallels. So–why do you care about the similarities?
Originality… The thing we’re talking about.
(*rolls eyes*)
Here’s a challenge for you.
Name one thing that YOU have said or done which is original.
Have I ever claimed to be the Creator of the Universe?
Have I ever claimed to be the Creator of the Universe and sought out crowds to speak to about me being the Creator of the Universe?
But don’t worry, you’ve already made your feelings on this matter perfectly clear, so I have no idea why you’re now butting in. You’re not bothered by the fact that the person whom you believe was the Creator of the Universe, the greatest person to have ever lived, came to earth, said he had something to say, and spent 290,000 hours talking to anyone whom he could get to listen to him, but in those 290,000 hours failed to actually say a single new, original, revolutionary, or even useful thing.
As you’ve said, that doesn’t register as strikingly odd to you, so good for you.
No, dolt.
The original thing is that Jesus was the myth COME TRUE. Those things that others claimed to do, He actually did. Those things that others claimed to be, He actually was. But you don’t want to talk about Theology.
You wanted Jesus to say something “new” like…. I don’t know…. ;laksndv;oina’;wie;jgl;lkasdnvuh, I guess. That would be pretty unique, huh?
I know your position. You’ve made it perfectly clear. You’re not bothered by the fact the Creator of the Universe came to earth, said he had something really, really, really important to say, gathered as many people as he could to listen to him, started talking, and didn’t stop talking (about all sorts of things) for 290,000 hours…
but in that entire time failed to say a single new, original, revolutionary, or even useful thing.
As I said, good for you.
You keep throwing the word “revolutionary” and “useful” in there.
Saying something new/original is very different from saying something revolutionary/useful.
Breaking your own rules again…
Revolutionary is something associated with ‘unique,’ ‘original,’ and ‘new.’
Useful, in terms of information that reduced actual suffering.
Things one would imagine the CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE would have an abundance of.
Evidently not…
But again, that doesn’t bother you, so why are you even concerned?
It does bother me when someone changes horses in the middle of the stream. Now you’re talking about “reducing actual suffering?”
Where in the world did that come from?
New and useful aren’t the same thing…
“Saying something new/original if very different from saying something revolutionary/useful.”
I’m repeating that, just in case you missed it. 😉
You were talking to Matthew about whether Jesus said something “new.” Because you assume that “new” is the most important thing for a truth-sayer to accomplish.
I have no idea why you assume that.
But, nonetheless, you’ve gone on and on and on (and on and on and on and on and on)…
and I don’t want to wait to see whether you make it all the way to 290,000 hours…
but on and on and on and on about how THE CREATOR OF THE WORLD OUGHT TO SAY SOMETHING ORIGINAL!!!!
Then, when asked “Why?” you answer something like, “No reason. It’s fine if you believe the Creator of the Universe didn’t say anything revolutionary or even useful.”
You really expect Matthew and I to be impressed with your comparative religion skills? You think I’m going to trust you to explain what Buddha “meant” and what Siddhartha “meant” and what the Jains “meant,” when you apparently don’t understand the difference between new and useful?
It is fine that you’re fine with the fact that your purported CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE didn’t say anything new, original, revolutionary, or even useful in the 290,000 hours he was talking after identifying himself as THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE.
It’s no skin off my back.
Hey, JZ, you didn’t actually answer my question about whether YOU have ever said something unique…
You dodged by suggesting only God should bear the burden of coming up with something new to meet YOUR expectations.
But we both know the answer. You haven’t said anything unique…. and I’d like for this completely useless conversation to stop. I don’t like talking to useless people.
Again…
No, and neither have you explained why the Creator of the Universe is only useful when he says something “new” as opposed to concentrating on “true.”
Did you bother reading the link I shared?
Why do you keep talking?
I get it.
I understand your position. You established it very early on in the thread, and for that I thank you.
You’re fine with the fact that your purported CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE didn’t say anything even vaguely new, or original, or revolutionary (or even pragmatically useful, as an aside) in the entire 290,000 hours he spent talking after announcing he was THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE.
Good. Good for you. I know your position, and I’m glad you’re satisfied with it.
Lol, that little “aside” is exactly why I keep talking, Dolt.
You can’t suggest that I’m okay with Jesus “not saying anything revolutionary or useful,” when you know perfectly well that’s not what I said.
It’s YOUR assumption that I won’t let unchallenged… that God needed to do something original, other than TO CREATE EVERYTHING, in order to impress you.
But, oops, now I’m talking theology. We’re only supposed to talk about the words! The words! (Well, plus reading between the lines on the use of the word “Dhamma.” But otherwise, JUST THE WORDS.)
Give me a break.
We all know that–if Jesus’ claims were TRUE–then literally every single thing he said and did was both unique and revolutionary. That’s why you set up the “challenge” the way you did. “Let’s just talk about claims! Let’s not establish whether they’re true!”
Go ahead, Wind. Tell us more about how unique means the same as useful.
I’m out.
Still talking?
Why?
You’re free to look up the definition of the word “Dhamma” (Drhma) for yourself.
As to the rest of your comment, how would you even suggest testing the veracity of a claim made by Krishna, or a claim made by Zoroaster, or a claim made by The Buddha, or a claim made by Jesus, or a claim made by Lao Tzu, Zhuangzi, or Mahavira?
This is not a game of “Which Religion is True?”
As I said to your father earlier, I’m not interested in litigating the claims, rather merely seeing if they were new or genuinely unique when compared to the words and works of earlier deities, sages, prophets, philosophers, playwrights, poets, etc.
That is to say, did the meme originate with Jesus, Yes or No?
Period.
There is no trick. It’s really quite straightforward.
I gave your father some examples, but here’s another one: The Golden Rule.
Most Christians think the idea is original and unique to Jesus, but was it?
No.
Far from it.
Far, far, far from it.
It’s a fine meme, a wonderful guide for action and behaviour, but it’s far from being original. Formally presented, the concept dates back to the Egyptian Middle Kingdom (c. 2040–1650 BCE) “Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you.” It also emerged in the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi (1780 BCE), as well as in the Mahabharata (8th Century BCE) “The knowing person is minded to treat all beings as himself,” in Homer’s Odyssey (6th century BCE), “I will be as careful for you as I will be for myself in the same need,” in 6th century BCE Taoism, “Regard your neighbour’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbour’s loss as your own loss,” in 5th century BCE Confucianism, “Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself,” in 4th century BCE Mohism, “For one would do for others as one would do for oneself,” and was articulated by the Greek, Pittacus (640–568 BCE), who said: “Do not do to your neighbour what you would take ill from him.”
But again, why are you even concerned?
We all know your position on this: you’re comfortable (satisfied) is conceding Jesus didn’t say a single new or original or unique thing.
I accept your position, and thank you for being so candid. It’s appreciated.
That being said, I don’t understand why, exactly, you then keep talking.
Don’t forget who’s house this is.
Talk.
Talk.
Talking. Talking, talking, talking.
Talk.
Sheesh, getting kind of presumptuous over there.
Talk talk talk.
Oops, that should have said “whose” house.
Talk talk talk.
Let me answer for JZZzzzzzzzzzzzz.
WHOOOOooooshhh!
Wow, I thought after all parties said “Take care.” that this ended. One last comment, since I will have answered John Zande’s question, plus, I am extremely busy.
Buddha isn’t saying “I am” he is saying “I became”. Krishna is saying that he is “the source”, not explicitly saying that he is “the way and the truth and the life”.
But, to be clear, this is the very last comment of mine on this post. I will hopefully see all of you later on future posts!
Thanks, Matthew. As you can see, JZ mostly wanted to talk about the Golden Rule or the Beatitudes. I think he was hoping you and I were like “most Christians” (or, at least the Christians HE has spoken to online) who assume Jesus said “teach a man to fish and he’ll eat for a lifetime,” and then feel embarrassed to learn that’s a Chinese proverb instead. There are folks who hear similarities among the religions and faint. So, I think JZ was hoping you’d have a meltdown like certain Christians did when the flat Earth was disproven…
But, unfortunately for JZ, his big copy-and-paste routine has as much relevance to my life as the shape of the Earth. It’s a fun fact to have–but the world keeps spinning regardless of whether we know why…
If anything, hearing the words of ancient teachers only STRENGTHENS my belief that Someone is at work, guiding all of humanity toward the Truth and writing the evidence in our hearts.
The newest post is a reblog of that Myth Came True article I shared with JZ. I guess my dad liked it. 🙂
Um Matthew, to play your game… Where does The Buddha “I became”?
You see, this is why I gave you the definition of “Dhamma.”
The Buddha (speaking as THE Buddha, an important distinction) is saying “I am the Dhamma:” the ‘right way of living,’ ‘path of righteousness,’ ‘cosmic law and order,’ ‘behaviour that makes life and universe possible,’ ‘the principle which remains constant.’
As for Krishna, you can’t get a clearer I AM statement, rendering your hand-wave truly, honestly, brilliantly hilarious.
Well done.
Finally someone on this blog made me laugh.
And Matthew, just a closing note, you seem to be deliberately ignoring the fact that in John 14 (the very passage you’re citing), Jesus says, very clearly and repeatedly, he’s not the “I Am” you seem to have invested so much into.
Talking!!!! Still talking!
Talking, talking, talking, talking, talking!
Talk.
Talk.
Yes, you are, which is strange, considering I already know your position on this matter:
You’re fine with the fact that your purported CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE didn’t say anything even vaguely new or original in the entire 290,000 hours he spent talking after announcing he was THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE.
I’m happy you’re satisfied with this.
Talking…. still talking… even though everyone has left, and we’re PERFECTLY CLEAR on your position as well…
Talk and talk and talk and talk.
Or, “whoooooooosh” as others may refer to the talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talking…..
talk.
talk.
talk.
For people who beat up the importance of critical thinking, they seem to be able to easily justify completely ignoring the thousands of years of history that religion has permeated. “Study ALL the evidence and then arrive at the logical conclusion!” They say. “Except for religion. Ignore that evidence, because regardless of the millions of lives it has effected, it’s a fictional concept.”
Somehow we’re the idiots because we studied all the evidence and went with a Creator. At least we explored all of the options.
Indeed.
“All” the evidence would necessarily include the testimony of billions of other human beings.
Testimony itself is not evidence of truth or you’d be allowing the same validity to Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and even Mormons. That’s a lot of people who all disagree with each other, yet would benefit from your kind definition of ‘evidence’ by testimony
Wrong.
The testimony of billions of people is certainly evidence of some transcendent being. Again, the specifics about that being need to be considered individually.
So, specifically speaking, you’d be OK with Muslims having as much or even more ‘evidence’ for their god, at least numbers wise, than Christians do for theirs? I doubt that very much
Much doubt is the basis for your entire worldview.
Specifically speaking, yes. Muslim faith is evidence for God just like Christian faith and Jewish faith. And it has nothing to do with my being ‘OK’ with that. It’s the way it is.
Again…the specifics about God are fleshed out in each religion. It is up to individuals to discover which religion has the best explanation of God.
Up to individuals to discover? For themselves? You sir are sounding more like a recovering know it all yourself.
By discover, would you be implying ‘determining’ for themselves what they ‘choose to believe’ is true, like you do the exodus and Moses as you described to JZ earlier in the thread?
That’s what everyone does.
We all ‘determine’ what we ‘choose to believe’.
I’ve never been a know it all. Always willing to listen to new ideas.
So would you see yourself as leaning to fideism? Knowledge is dependant on faith and personal revelation?
Revelation comes from multiple sources. Five senses, reason, logic, testimony of others are all viable means for attaining knowledge. This isn’t a new idea for you, is it?
None of those are without corrupt ability. Jeremiah even said (if there was such a bullfrog) “the heart of man is deceitful and unreliable” and our minds can be too easily manipulated and self deluded.
One thing you didn’t mention, why I can suspect, is actual evidence. Revelation is not evidence or Muhammed really was the successor to jesus
Right.
Right.
Right.
…can you think of any other corruptible sources?
See what a convo we can have without the insults?
Do you “choose” to believe in gravity, John?
Yes. And I sense the wind is about to blow so…
Do babies ‘choose’ not to believe in gravity?
You choose to believe in gravity.
That’s interesting…
Gravity isn’t an original claim though. So you can dismiss it.
(And great job ignoring my question. My windchime is tinkling…)
The testimony of billions who don’t agree is only evidence of billions of opinions that don’t agree. Evidence is evidence. Testimony is testimony and can be flawed, biased, and misled. Why do you think courts do not just rely on he said, she said? It’s not a reliable way to determine truth and testimony by itself is not evidence
Courts don’t rely on testimony?
You’re kidding, right?
(See how you’re rejecting even common sense statements to maintain your godless reality?)
Ten people testify they saw you rob a store. Some say you wore a hat. Some say you carried a gun. Some say you had a mustache. Their testimonies all AGREE that you’re the culprit.
Billions of testimonies that say “There is a God” are in agreement.
AGAIN…AGAIN… the specifics about God are determined by religion. The disagreements occur in the details.
Well john, I’m not saying there isn’t a god. I’m not atheist. But your particular and specific god? He definitely doesn’t exist. The Bible is all that testifies of That God, and it’s filled with holes, contradictions, inaccuracies and riddled with translation and transmission problems thru the centuries. It is quite simply man made myth. Any god it testifies of is by definition suspect and fraudulent.
Whether a billion Christians (who can’t even agree amongst themselves) ‘testifies’ to his reality or not
Sure! That’s your choice!
You can toss away whatever evidence you don’t like. Keep the evidence that appeals to you.
You’re determining what you want to believe!
‘What you want to believe’ that’s where you go beyond your ability to read minds and motivations.
I want to believe what is true, not what I want to believe. That is a difference. And regardless of how many times you say it, or how comfortable it makes you feel to believe it, not everyone believes what they believe because ‘they want to believe it.’ Some people care whether what they believe is actually True to reality.
I never said anything about the truth of your beliefs.
I said you were free to toss away the testimony of billions of believers. You can toss away the Bible too.
You claim you’re not an atheist. But you’re not a proponent of any major religion. That means you have constructed a religion unique to yourself. You have determined what you want to believe.
Not true. I guess I would say that I’m a work in progress after 34 years of ‘certainty’. I still believe there might be a god or gods, but I doubt we would ever be able to demonstrate their actual existence. At some point, it becomes an irrelevance to our daily lives. But I don’t believe what I want. I try to believe what is true, and adjust accordingly to reality.
And you think that makes you different from me?
I rather think we all are works in progress. Some just don’t know it yet, like I didn’t and like wally still doesn’t.
Me? What do I have to do with this?
Huh
Oh yeah…the fact that I am a stupid fundie novice acolyte has destroyed all claims as to the truth of Christianity
Got it
You as a fundamentalist Christian still think you know with certainty things that you don’t know at all except by faith. When we accept that we are all works in progress, we drop the notion that we can ‘know’ anything by faith, and start asking questions that we previously wouldn’t have. Knowledge by faith kills intellectual curiosity and real inquiry and stifles discovery of real knowledge. Have a great day brother wally
Hi Mike
So, do you have a hot key where you can just speed paste that comment in an instant? Seems I see it quite often. Many times regardless of what was actually said to you. Strange. Well, anyway, onward.
Mike, your almost omniscient knowledge of how every came to faith awes me. I apologize. You do believe in a god, and you are him.
Faith. You hurl that as if I will be insulted by it, when in fact I am honored you think that. In fact, my Lord has told me that, without it, it is impossible to please Him. It’s not empty faith, and you know it. We have both looked at the available evidence and simply made our choices with it.
“Knowledge by faith kills intellectual curiosity and real inquiry and stifles discovery of real knowledge.”
Problem there, preacher. That statement is false. Oops. Unless, of course you can prove that NO Christians have any interest in real inquiry or or are devoid of intellectual curiosity. So…lets’ see some proof for that rather broad CERTAIN statement. You know empirical studies, peer reviewed reports, that sort of thing. Oh, and the fact that you think we are all wrong isn’t proof, but merely your own faith based assertion.
As your friend says: ready, set, go
I have no cut and paste key. Just the pen of a ready writer lol
So… again, fideism. You heard of it?
Knowledge depends on faith and revelation. I already commented on that.
Faith is a critical part of consciousness. Without faith, we cannot move. You’re assertion that God is not knowable is a statement of faith.
The only people who aren’t ‘works in progress’ are dead. I believe that part of progressing is having my belief challenged.
What kind of God do you think possibly exists?
Sorry, that is where you’re wrong. Knowledge does not rely or depend on faith. Faith and trust are not synonymous. You sir seem to be fideist in your thinking. I’ll remember that.
As to what kind of God I think or believe might exist? Now brother John, his/her/its/their existence or non existence doesn’t depend on my ability to think, believe or have faith. They either don’t or do not. I doubt we would ever know one way or the other
To waste time conceptualizing God or gods is irrelevant to both their existence and our lives
Cool.
Is that not a faith statement?
Nope. It’s a statement of doubt.
You still want gonna insist that you’re not building your own religion?
Doubt is faith? Amazing Watson. I think you’re on to something. Seriously folks, I have no positive beliefs at this time. I’m building no ziggurats in my barren back yard
God is not knowable is a positive belief.
We are works in progress is a positive belief.
Contemplating God is a waste of time is a positive belief.
Whether or not you build a ziggurat, you’re building a religion, Watson.
Incorrect, sir. I cry foul… Where did that bird come from and what is this mess he left behind?
You want to explain what’s incorrect?
Saying that if there were a god or gods, what I doubt that we would be able to know it is not the same as stating categorically THAT God is unknowable. Understand the subtle difference there?
Ah. I do see.
Expressing doubt is not expressing faith or belief THAT something, something.
You get the picture, right?
There is no faith implied or expressed in doubting… At all
Gotcha.
Utter nonsense.
Faith is required to give your doubts validity. You have faith that your ‘statement of doubt’ is true.
In your eagerness to shed your ‘know it all’ status, you have become a ‘know nothing’.
Faith is required to give doubt validity? Now that is nonsense
There you go! Toss that away if you don’t like it.
You’re getting closer to that ziggurat all the time!
Now I must retire for the night. 4am comes quickly
Actually, 4am comes at exactly the same time in every 24 hour period. You understand?
I meant, that’s when I have to wake up for work. Yes, every 24 href period, except sat and sun
I see.
It’s difficult to communicate when one party refuses to acknowledge basic word definitions…
I fail to understand that if our minds can be too easily manipulated and self-deluded why atheism is the next logical step.
I don’t think he means ‘EVERYONE’s’ mind is easily manipulated. Heathen thought is perfectly clear and rational.
For the vast majority of human history, we believed the earth was flat.
Jesus believed the earth was flat.
Was he right to believe what all those generations before him believed?
Great question!
1000 years from now will people be talking about what you say, JZ?
Great question you won’t answer, right?
Same old John B Evasion Story.
I’ll answer it.
Nobody will be talking about you 1000 years from now. Jesus will still be in the center of cultural relevance.
How is Jesus culturally relevant today?
Can you name a single new or original thing he said or did?
Haha HaaaaHaaaa
Ha Hana Ha Ha Haaa!
…sniff…
Do you live on Earth?
And there’s the evasion…
Answser the question, John:
How is Jesus culturally relevant today?
Can you name a single new or original thing he said or did?
Do you believe your 100-billion neuron brain came about by unguided processes? Do you have evidence for that?
I’ll answer.
Yes. That’s what you believe.
No. You have no evidence. (Other than the religious text you call ‘Evolutionary History’.)
Good night, JZ.
“religious text you call ‘Evolutionary History’.”
And there it is.
Sorry, but I’m going out, as you are.
Perhaps I’ll see your answer tomorrow?
Maybe it’d be a good post?
Let’s see.
Well you’ve also got to take into account the passing of time; the longevity of a belief. Whether you like it or not, a human’s capacity for faith and belief is still evidence and it ought to be taken into account when thinking critically. It’s interesting to note the belief in a Creator has been around much longer than the idea of evolution, and is still just as strong today. The earth’s flatness, however, has been disproved without debate.
Also I would appreciate a citation of Jesus’ saying that the earth was flat.
You honestly think Christian faith today is the same as it was, say, in 800 CE?
You are aware, aren’t you, that there are 42,000 distinct flavours of your particlur religion… and none of them agree.
Whether you like it or not, a human’s capacity for faith and belief is still evidence and it ought to be taken into account when thinking critically.
No. Absolutely wrong.
Jasmine has apparently rejected your Trigger Warning up top, Dear Leader.
She doesn’t know that you alone define acceptable critical thought.
What punishment would you suggest?
Punishment? Reading everything you’ve written seems sufficient.
Is the world the same as it was then? Is science the same as it was then? Is atheism the same as it was then? How does is that question even useful?
And that statement is supposed to prove… what exactly? That truth isn’t knowable because a lot of people have differing views of it? Most people couldn’t agree on the colour of an orange if they were motivated enough, and somehow I’m supposed to agree with you over everything else? I’d say that the fact 42,000 sects all believe that there is a God is some pretty good proof of His existence without the rest of the evidence.
No. What would be proof is if the same religion/god emerged unsupervised twice anywhere on the planet. I’m sorry, but no religion has emerged twice. No single deity has been envisaged by two populations separated by time and/or geography, and not a solitary person in history has arrived independently at Mithraism, Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism, Scientology, or Judaism without it first being taught to them.
Apparently sacrifice, love, kindness, generosity, selflessness, and the importance of belief are no longer relevant in today’s society.
We could compare Bible sales worldwide to whatever ‘Evolutionary History’ text forms the basis for JZ’s faith and see which one seems to have more cultural relevancy…
Great concepts, but you seriously think Jesus was the first person to speak of such things?
Seriously?
And I presume that you went to college for that kind of logic, right john?
You presume this to be college level logic?
Thanks!
This post should be titled “there ain’t no evidence because there ain’t no evidence, but the god of the Bible is real anyways. Just believe”
It could also, just as circularly be titled “there ain’t no evidence because ain’t no evidence, but the pink fluffy unicorn exists anyways. Just believe.”
What a strange argument for someone who is charged with ‘giving an answer to any man for the hope that lies within’
Even worse than “I won’t give you an answer because you wouldn’t accept it anyways”
Thanks for this, Pastor Mike!
Really deep, introspective stuff here. Gonna take me several microseconds to contemplate it.
Got it wrong again, Brother. Not a pastor
Hell of a sermon anyway!
All the messages I gave and teaching I did was from the Bible.
Kinda like a pastor…
Or a Bible teacher, minister, missionary. Which I was, but not a vocational pastor
The important thing is that I was wrong.
I don’t think I put it so pointedly, but if that’s an apology, I’ll take it.
I was involved in a wedding last year in which the officiant was a Master of Divinity. He was in the Theology department of the bride’s university.
Anyway, during the rehearsal, the wedding planner was telling people where to stand… “Mom, you’re going to be here, and Dad will be there…”
That sort of thing.
And then the wedding planner made the mistake of saying, “And, Pastor, will you please–” when she was cut off by the definitely-not-a-pastor officiant.
He said, “I’m sorry, Madam, but I’m not a pastor! No, no, no, no! Just call me Jeff.” Or whatever his name was.
Truth be told, I’ve forgotten his name AND what he looks like. But I haven’t forgotten the look of surprise on the wedding planner’s face at being scolded over something so insignificant. And I haven’t forgotten the awkward moment of silence while everyone else in the room tried to figure out whether he was being serious.
… And I haven’t forgotten the way the “not pastor” seemed oblivious to the fact that he made a jackass of himself.
You didn’t happen to do a wedding in the Indianapolis area last July, did you, Pastor Mike?
I really wish you had some self awareness of how rude, and classless your attempted intelligence filled insults are.
I never said being a pastor was either a bad thing or one that I had to deny because it was somehow beneath me.
People who pastor congregations of believers rightly and with distinction and honor are to be esteemed and thanked for their efforts to care for and shepherd their people.
As a deconvert of christianity and a former minister for decades, I know what the life of a minister is and the difficulties that pastors go thru.
When I say, repeatedly after you and your father taunt and bully me with the title ‘pastor’ even after you’ve been corrected, that I am not and have never been a pastor, I do not denigrate the role. Its just one I’ve just never held.
And it’s you who look like a jackass when you wield it as an attempted insult to me. The title Pastor is neither one to insult others with, nor is it one I am insulted by.
Do try to move on to another attempted slur. That one doesn’t fit, and it make you look like the idiot you are trying to paint me as. -kia
It really is too bad I have to shame you into being a good Christian, mrsmcmommy or whoever you are. I’m not even sure you are a Christian from your behaviour on this blog and comments left on mine. Check your heart. I’m not even sure you’re a good person at all. Has it really come to this kind of behaviour for you? Did your father or mother raise you this way, to treat others this way? Amazing
Is this what you think being a Follower of jesus is?
Good to know my “attempted intelligence-filled insults” aren’t having any affect on you.
And a word of advice, Pastor Mike: If you don’t like the label, quit preaching.
Insults always have an effect. That of making the person hurling them look like an ass and a bully.
As far as Preaching… sorry, don’t do that anymore either. I do however still have the power of speech and the freedom to speak my mind, as do you. In that, we are on equal ground. I’d be careful with the mindset that wants others to be quiet just because they disagree with you. In politics, they call that Fascism. In religion, they call it cultic.
You misunderstand. I don’t want you to be quiet. I just want you to stop telling people to act like Jesus.
You don’t get to use him in your “speeches.”
That’s called a sermon.
Sorry, you don’t get to tell me what to say or not. And you dont get to define it either for me. That is as good as telling people to be quiet unless they follow your rules.
As far as telling people to act like Jesus? Isn’t that what you’re supposed to do? Get to it then.
Have a great day.
Just can’t help yourself, can you, Preacher?
And apparantly neither can you. Preacher is not an insult to me either. Was in Avocational ministry and preaching for 25 years. What would I call you? What is your story? How long have you believed? How long have you been in Church ministry? Have you been on mission? Have you served the homeless and inner city youth? Have you left home and family to serve others in another country for extended periods of time? What have you counted loss for the sake of the gospel?
Do you really think what you do on the Internet, insulting and bullying people is ministry? Is this what you started out as? Is this really how you saw what you would be doing, when you first started? Do you have any conscience left of the damage to people you are doing with these words you type?
Do you think Jesus would type the words you do or with the venom with which you gleefully type them out?
Check your heart. You are no more Christian than I am right now, and I was much more a Christian before than you appear to be on these blogs.
Search your heart. Check your actions. Examine your treatment of others and behaviour on these blog posts and comments you leave.
Would you want your children to speak to others this way?
Telling someone “You don’t get to tell me what to say,” and then telling them not to be insulting…and not to tell others to be quiet…and not to “define words” for other people…
All of that is self-defeating.
So–sorry–you don’t get to tell me what to say or not. And you don’t get to define “insulting” for me either, Pastor Mike.
But, I hope you have a great day as well! <3
Would you want your children to be like you on these blogs?
As a christian… you should know not to be insulting. But apparantly you don’t. Apparantly you have no idea what being a Christian actually is. Perhaps it’s you who are the deluded one. Thinking you are a Christian, but having none of the ‘fruits’ or evidence of actually being one. Think on that one for awhile.
Would I want my children to shock dead people? To shine light right in the eyes of sleeping people? To pour salt in their open wounds, in attempts to slow the infection?
Absolutely.
Here’s the thing, Pastor. (And I don’t know how you managed 25-years in ministry–including, as you told me elsewhere, time as a youth PASTOR–without knowing this.) But, since you want to turn this into a church service, buckle up. Here’s MY sermon:
Being a Christian is only tangentially related to how much I give to the poor, where I’ve gone to build houses, and how many years I’ve been doing those physical things.
I realize it’s hard to find Christians who will put it this bluntly, because they’re petrified of “making you” go to Hell, but here’s the cold water anyway. My job isn’t to make you feel good.
You think I’m going to let you march in here on your high horse and tell me how to act like Jesus? Think again. You gave up that job, remember?
But, if you’re ready to admit that God wrote the truth in your heart and that you’ve simply been tempted away by the power and adoration that comes with your new HEATHEN congregation, then we’ve made some progress.
—-
In Jesus’ name, Amen.
You’ve no idea what real ministry is. You’ve no idea what true christianity is. Youve no idea what real love and compassion for another human being is. You’ve no clue what being a Follower and disciple of jesus is. I feel sorry for you and your children.
Fabulous benediction, Pastor Mike!
Now all we need is an alter call.
I assume you’ll be standing up front where people can meet you to learn how they CAN be more like Jesus, right?
LOL!
Hi JB
Well…here I am, the token fundamentalist, evangelical, pretty much super conservative cave dwelling Christian here.
Um…not sure exactly why any theist, or even a for sure Christian would exactly have an issue here.
Seems we have Romans 1:20 in action to me.
Just my thoughts, as today I don’t have time to waste on your…friends?
Wally,
If you don’t have a problem with my incorporation of a pagan god into my understanding of Christianity, then you’re not the fundamentalist, evangelical, super conservative you claim to be.
Yeah..I pretty much am a fundie JB. I promise.
Perhaps I didn’t read as much as you intended with that post. The idea that God has revealed himself to every person is clear to me, and I thought what you wrote illustrated that very well.
If you meant more…I didn’t see it.
So..still safely in fundie land here
🙂
Hi wally, what john was trying to say is that if you as a fundamentalist have no problem with his morphing the Christian faith with illustrations and allusions to pagan gods, you just aren’t thinking it thru enough.
There is a problem, you just haven’t thought it thru enough to see it. Have a great day, Brother Wally.
Hey Mike,
I bet John can express his own thoughts quite nicely and doesn’t need help from you.
Hate to break it to you, but I suffered no major problem here with what was said.
Now, on the other hand, if YOU have a problem with what was written here, maybe you should put on big boy pants and articulate it to the blog author like grown man instead of a pouted up teenager.
I had no issue here. I stand by that.
But, thanks for your ongoing efforts to correct my flawed and shortsighted thinking. If not for your efforts I might remain forever trapped in my abyss of stupidity.
Now, run back home and cry to your friends how I mistreat you.
Hi wally. No, you don’t offend me. Your kind of cute when you try to think.
Good grief lol
Goodbye Mike
Go write a post about how you trounced me here
‘Don’t think more highly of yourself than you aught’ look it up fundy
It’s fundie
And I don’t consider it an insult
Back to the drawing board for you preacher
Sorry, I used to do all sorts of preaching, teaching and reaching for the Lord you still serve ‘with fear and trembling’, (side note: great book by kierkegaard. Pick it up at a Walmart near you) but alas, the Jesus of the nt is a myth. Now I just serve my wife.
Talk to me about your Christian knowledge and experience when you have more than your 8 or 9 years in the Faith. Till then, you’re just a novice acolyte
Got it preacher, thanks for your counsel.
Do you think you make your deity proud that you can be so petty and vindictive? You’re a shining example of the hypocrisy of your beliefs, Wally… showing the ‘love’ you really have to your neighbour. What a dick you are.
Dear Leader,
Can you outline for me (and Wally) how calling him ‘a dick’ is not hypocritical?
Because it’s true… not that you care (see the trigger warning).
Wally continues to follow your shining example calling KIA a name in a pejorative sense that KIA does not claim in the positive sense. Continuing to do so after being corrected makes him a dick.
Me pointing out what is the case is not hypocritical. You seem to think hypocrisy is synonymous with high moral character.,You defending a dick trying to divert the criticism back onto the observer is also being a dick. But you excel at that, which is why you rushed in to defend Wally using the same dickish tactic he likes to emulate.
Thank you, Dear Leader.
“Because it’s true.”
That certainly clears everything up.
That’s why included the next bit – the part where I explain WHY what I said was the case – the part you seem not to have read to make such an idiotic comment… and I included it so that my statement wasn’t like your claims that just state stuff that isn’t true because you feel like stating stuff as if it were and couldn’t care less about it’s truth value. That’s why I refer you back to the trigger warning that you think is amusing but is actually descriptive of what you and Amanda write.
The ‘next bit’ was more of your personal wisdom, Dear Leader. It’s fine. Really.
You grasp every nuance of ‘reality’. Only a fool would question your authority.
Maybe that explains why you do.
Rather like you have rushed in to defend your friend I’d say
Bear in mind it is your rather confused friend who one hand flaunts his Christian credentials and with the other mocks the very thing he says he is so imminently qualified in
I’d say some sarcasm is perfectly in order
Pastor Mike has deeper problems than that, Wally.
He can’t even articulate any beliefs whatsoever.
At least Tildeb is consistent. His beliefs are correct. Everyone who disagrees is deluded. I can work with that.
That’s actually quite true JB good point
You don;t need me to be an authority for you, JB; you should use your critical faculties to do that job rather than being a religious apologist/ Pavlovian automaton. Your drool is unbecoming.
When I cast aside my religion, Dear Leader, from whom shall I learn the truth?
I suggest – and it’s only a suggestion, of course – you start with respecting reality.
Please move to the new blog post. I want to make sure my readers get a dose of ‘reality’ to lift them from the mire of my delusional rants.
There’s the Wally we’ve all come to love: if an atheist has expertise in religious doctrine and dares to use it, s/he “FLAUNTS” it, but if a religious person does it, it magically becomes referral to a legitimate authority. Also, if an atheist criticizes some faith-based claim, they are ‘ignorant’ of scripture, but if a theist does it, it’s simply humbleness.
Yeah, the hypocrisy is over here Wally. (That’s sarcasm, by the way.)
Dear Leader,
From which religious doctrine did you pull the ‘dickhead’ label?
Not the transcendent kind, JB.
Good to know.
There’s a new post up and all the cool kids are going over there to talk and since you haven’t said anything that needs a response, I’m gonna leave too.
Tilden. Go to wal mart and buy a clue
Mike does far more than just criticize faith
Beyond that your opinion of either me or my faith don’t even bleep on my radar
I understand why you don’t want to address why being a dick is not a good advertisement about the quality of your Christian moral character, Wally. But your shameful display here – supported by JB, of course – is itself quite revealing. Keep up the Good Work.
Tildeb, it’s hard to debate this when the person you are offended on behalf of isn’t around. Perhaps if the preacher came back, we could discuss this? But other than that sarcasm, I really don’t get off on explaining to a third party why the actions of another party are bringing this sarcasm on them in the first place.
I suspect it doesn’t really matter though, as we all know that ultimately, it is my faith that make me, as you say, a dick. You are just using my perceived insult of Mike as your excuse.
So, just say it
Being a Christian by default makes me a dick.
No, being a Christian doesn’t make you a dick. You and JB and mrsmcmommy do that, Wally, and then try to hide behind your religion as if that excuses it. It doesn’t. Being a dick while witnessing for your god is a poor way to advertise why Christianity gives you a stronger moral platform non believers supposedly don’t have.
Gee thanks, Tildeb
Odd you you and crew can say and do whatever they want.
Weird
Peace
It’s not odd at all, Wally.
Tildeb and crew operate via their own standards of morality and ethics. Whatever they say is right, is right. Theists are ‘mentally unstable’ and ‘dangerous’ in their doctrine so you are deserving of any abuse Tildeb deems appropriate.
I believe you are correct JB.
Even though some might say Tildeb’s accusation towards me is not totally without merit LOL.
And those would be my friends!
Again, read the trigger warning. That answers this idiocy.
Right.
I get it.
Whatever you say is true because you said it.
Wally,
You are not alone. Fundamentalist, evangelical, and super conservative describe me quite well. But I am laboring to reclaim the word fundamentalist from its descent into stereotype.
Dave
2 Corinthians 10:5 (ESV) – We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ
Interesting Dave. I’d be up to hear you share some more thoughts on that.
Wally,
The term fundamentalist, according to Merriam Webster is:
1
a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching
b : the beliefs of this movement
c : adherence to such beliefs
There is a second definition that applies outside of Christianity, but since we are talking Christian fundamentalism, the above main definition (1a) is what I mean when I call myself a fundamentalist.
Too often, people define a fundamentalist as a person who is legalistic, adding rules of behavior to what Scripture says. They are pictured as self-righteous modern-day Pharisees, acting holier-than-thou and looking down their noses at anyone not as fundamentalist as they are. They usually assume if a person is a fundy, that they insist on a King James Only stance on Bible translations. They also think fundies are woodenly literal, taking figurative language in Scripture and mistaking it for actuality. Those who wrongly characterize fundamentalism, claim that fundies think the earth has actual pillars, since Job 9:6 mentions pillars, and that fundies believe God looks like a chicken, since Psalm 91:4 speaks of wings and feathers.
So I wish to reclaim the actual meaning of being a fundamentalist, if I can.
Dave
Psalm 19:7-8 (ESV) – The law of the Lord is perfect,
reviving the soul;
the testimony of the Lord is sure,
making wise the simple;
the precepts of the Lord are right,
rejoicing the heart;
the commandment of the Lord is pure,
enlightening the eyes;
Dave
Kind of like Jesus is a door right?
Thanks for expanding your thought and I do believe we sing from a similar sheet of music on this topic
…Jesus was Lo.
An interesting claim. Any particular reason then, that you can think of, to explain why Jesus didn’t know Moses wasn’t an historical charcater?
That’s quite a blunder for Lo, sorry, Yhwh, to make, wouldn’t you say?
Is there any particular reason you think that Lo HAD TO explain specifically to his listeners, “by the way, I’m using Moses as a morality tale here,” instead of speaking in terms they understood?
I use Sesame Street characters as examples with my kids all the time. “Remember what happened when Elmo lied?” or “Let’s make a good choice like Big Bird did!” Never have I stopped in the middle to say, “By the way, guys, Elmo and the Bird are just puppets.”
No, the Exodus is presented as the foundation narrative of the Jewish people.
As historical.
You can’t wiggle out of that.
Sorry.
What you mean to say is, “Please don’t wiggle out of that, because all Christians have to believe exactly what I say they do in order for me to win arguments with them.”
Show me any bible reference you think indicates Moses, capitivity, Exodus, and Conquest are cited as myth/fable.
Show me any reason why they need to be cited as myth/fable.
You’ve got archaeology and textual criticism to figure out whether it was real or fiction. Why does the Bible have to spell it out for you?
OK, so you believe the entire Pentateuch (from Genesis to Deuteronomy) is complete and total myth.
Fine.
Good.
You do realise then, don’t you, that your “revealed” religion is missing the “revelation”
Awkward.
First of all, I didn’t say I believe it’s a myth. If you’ll look at the conversation with my dad below, you’ll see my answer is: I don’t know either way.
Second of all, YOU’RE the one who thinks “revealed” has to mean the literal, inerrant words of the Bible are actual history.
I’ve learned many truths from fictional books. And I’ve also learned many truths from the “book of Nature” (so to speak).
If you didn’t keep trying to put truth in a box so you can stand on top if it, you wouldn’t look so silly.
Ah, so you don’t think it’s all myth… Just those bits that have been proven to be geopolitical fiction.
Got it.
Thanks.
Do you think I’ve forgotten the conversation we had about Harry Potter many moons ago?
How do you know which parts of Harry Potter are true?
Sure, the times it refers to London and other actual places… but also, the THEMES of bravery and justice? Which parts of Harry Potter are true, and which are fiction? Well, on one hand, it’s all fiction. But, when J.K. Rowling uses Albus Dumbledore to say, “It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our enemies, but just as much to stand up to our friends.” that’s just as true as if he were a real, live person.
…and that would be meaningful if anyone ever claimed Potter was actual history.
Nope.
You would still care deeply, and I wouldn’t give a rat’s ass. Truth is truth, regardless of the details that Atheists like you spend your entire lives obsessing over.
Ah, “details”… Like whether something is historical or fiction, myth or real.
Got it.
Thanks.
Yep, glad I could clear that up. (Except, you used the word “real” as if it’s the opposite of “myth,” which suggests maybe you’re not so clear after all.)
Fiction/myth is just as real as history, in all the ways that matter to humans.
Agreed. There can be marvellous wisdom revealed in fictional tales. Aesop’s Tales, even Through the Looking Glass are wonderful works with equally wonderful messages contained within.
Neither, though, claim to be historical.
I love all of those!
And what about The Princess Bride? (The book, not the movie.) That’s one of my favorites, too…
FYI: I’m not in complete agreement with you about this particular line of thinking.
I get what you’re saying but I’m not sure it’s necessary to concede the ‘pentateuch fiction’ narrative.
…that doesn’t mean I hate you. Understand?
I’ll try not to cry over it. 🙂
I’m going off what our mutual friend (the Doctorate in Biblical Archaeology) said…that it’s not black and white and that experts on both sides disagree.
Actual history or fiction? It’s a complicated thing to reach a conclusion about.
So…I ask myself…how much will it affect my belief in God if Moses and the Israelites were “narrative constructs” instead of real, live people?
And, at the end of the day, it doesn’t change a whole lot.
You are aware that ‘historical fiction’ wasn’t even a literary style until MUUUUCH later in history.
The ‘fictional pentateuch’ people are doing what people have always done. Construct a narrative around a negative. They haven’t found evidence for XYZ so XYZ aren’t real.
*shrugs*
I guess I’m too lazy to do the research.
It’s easier to let nincompoops like JZ outline their case and explain why it literally doesn’t make a lick of difference either way. 🙂
Whether it was literal history or fiction, JZ is still wrong.
Could you give me the name (and institution) of that “Doctorate in Biblical Archaeology” you’re referring to?
I’d like to contact him.
Lol. Absolutely not.
I don’t hate him enough to sic you on him.
Like most real intellectuals, he doesn’t have patience for the wannabes. That’s why you’re stuck with the soccer moms. 🙂
Absolutely not, huh
I see.
Makes me question whether this person exists, and if they do, in what capacity.
Anyway, it’s your choice. You should know, though, that I am in regular contact with many Israeli archaeologists, and know quite well how to address such people.
If you didn’t subtly suggest I was a liar, I would think I’m talking to a completely different JZ…
🙂
It’s a risk I’ll take.
Anyway, my husband wants me to watch an episode of “Wayward Pines” with him while the kids nap. I suspect it’s a show about Hell, but I’m still trying to figure it out. Weirdly, none of the characters have come right out and said it. 🙂
Anyway, see ya next time!
So both you and your father are running away?
Not showing a great deal of confidence in your belief systems, i’m afraid to say.
That’s because you’re not thinking, Amanda… you’re not thinking it through. If what JZ says is the case, then that has consequences on the veracity of the Jesus narrative. Those consequences then have further consequences on all the claims you make about the veracity of your religious beliefs. And if those claims are without merit, then your beliefs about the reality we share are in need of radical revision.
I know you don;t want to think too hard about any of this because you’re satisfied with your beliefs. The problem is, those beliefs then infect your children. And that is your responsibility and so it should be of greater concern than simply waving them away. What you are teaching your children is to believe in the power of magical non-critical thinking and such people make lousy citizens because they make lousy, irresponsible decisions and commit lousy, irresponsible actions for the worst of reasons (like indoctrinating children with their parent’s religious beliefs)… they feel their satisfaction justifies the merit of their actions and pay no attention to the responsibility they hold towards the welfare of others. That makes you a lousy, irresponsible person.
Dear Leader!
Post your trigger warning! I will elevate it to the very top of the article! Do it for the children!
Send me the ‘proper context’ and put an end my deceptions.
Trigger warning: the following posts contain no respect for what is true.
The header picture indicates JB contorting what’s true to suit his religious beliefs. No contortion is too extreme. Observe, however, the mental anguish exposed in this portrait when a commentator attempts to introduce some legitimate contrary view, so please avoid any use of respect, honesty, accuracy, or adult behaviour while visiting this site. The introduced dissonance might cause permanent damage.
Your personal opinion of my blog is now top of the article, Dear Leader.
Hope my mindless readers will fall in-line behind your infallible teaching.
Excellent. About time.
“If you believe Moses could be fictional…then it has consequences on other stuff…. and that other stuff has consequences on other stuff… and then…then….REALITY!”
Yeah, you’re right, Tildeb. I didn’t think my entire belief system was hanging on Moses. But, who am I to judge my own worldview?
If you say it’s a house of cards, so be it.
Also, since you’re so concerned for my children (whom you’ve never met and whose education you know nothing about), please tell me what I SHOULD teach them… Teach me some responsibility, Dear Leader. What’s a good parent to do? 🙂
Teach them to think critically and creatively. Demonstrate.
Because you are the product of religious indoctrination, your task here is made that much more difficult. But unlike you, I think your kids are worth it.
Hm…. that’s disappointingly vague, Dear Leader.
In fact, I daresay it’s downright ABSTRACT.
What about when they get old enough to start asking the questions I’ve asked you and JZ and Ark that none of you will answer? What if one of my kids asks, “Where do you think the Hawaiians got the idea of Lo?”
Where to you think the Hawaiians got the idea of Lo?
Oh, that’s easy…
MINDLESS EVOLUTION!!!!
Seriously…
Answer the question.
Tildeb answered the question the other day.
He said the Hawaiians were “…using the idea of ‘natures’ – what I call the old 2D model that includes cause and effect, to logically deduce a Prime or First Cause. That’s understandable. That’s what we see and encounter every day. But that’s not good science.”
The Hawaiians were doing what humans were built to do: use their minds to logically deduce.
And, unless my children were “educated” by Tildeb, and taught to distrust their everyday experience…and told that cause and effect is an “archaeic” idea, etc. etc. Then I believe they would eventually arrive at the same conclusion. My uneducated kids wouldn’t call their Deity Yahweh or Lo… but they would call Him something.
Just as humans for centuries have done.
But kids are all born atheists, are they not? Belief in God comes about as a result of superstitious indoctrination. Who was the first superstitious bigot? Any idea?
Well, we call them “Adam and Eve,” though I don’t know whether they walked the earth 10,000 years ago or millions of years ago.
Then Noah found God despite being surrounded by pagans…
And the same with Abram….
Each time, they failed to educate their children. (Or the children used their free will to ignore the lesson. Whatever.)
But, regardless, in every, single case of humans using their minds, they begin to produce a concept that looks and sounds very much like God.
— For all you heathen commenters:
THAT is how you answer questions.
She makes it look easy, doesn’t she?
Great education.
So, John, what’s your excuse for not answering my question?
Windbag,
You didn’t answer my question.
The one I just asked McMommy.
The one she just deftly answered.
Maybe she’s right. Maybe not.
The point is, she answered.
I gave you three shots at it but you just kept blowing like a useless, noisy wind.
You want to take a crack at it now or just keep blowing…?
You evaded my question by asking yours.
So, how about you just answer my question and stop your song and dance?
Whoooooooosh!
I’m gonna put up a windmill so I’ll at least get free electricity for putting up with your incessant noise…
OK, I’ll answer yours first, then you can answer mine.
Because, given our communal nature, and the success brought about by hierarchical systems, it was easy (inevitable) to imagine a removed “father” which answered all those questions a 100-billion neuron equipped brain capable of abstract thought was always going to ask; principally, where do we come from? Why are we here?
It’s why today, most “new” religions envisage wise aliens with remarkable technology as being responsible for, at least, humans. That “answer” fits the culture, just like a magical sky being fitted well in antiquity.
It’s really not complicated.
Now,
I look forward to finally reading your answer, John….
Okay! I agree that mankind has always required an answer to the question, “why are we here”? So your answer is ‘people make up the gods to answer that question’.
Fair enough.
Now, to your question:
Moses was a real person who actually existed. That’s why Jesus referred to him as such.
Yes, people look to authority figures, and that is where they often answer those “big” questions. It’s why we have conspiracy theories. It why today, since Kenneth Arnold’s famed 1947 spotting of “flying disks” over the Cascade Mountains, we have seen a flood of new religions proposing answers to the same questions, yet with different, more culturally appropriate players: Aliens.
Raëlism, the Cosmic Circle of Fellowship, Ground Crew Project, Armageddon Time Ark Base Operation, Planetary Activation Organisation, Ashtar Galactic Command, Chen Tao, Scientology, Star Light Fellowship, Unarius, Universe People, Guardian Activation International, and the Aetherius Society are just a few of the more extravagant post-Roswell religions. All of them giving the same answers Yahewhism offered primitive folk.
Your question answered.
So, let’s look at your answer to my question…
I see.
The overwhelming majority of Jewish rabbis, archaeologists, and bible scholars disagree with you.
But I’m sure you know better than all them.
Well, you haven’t really answered my question. All you did was give a lengthy explanation of how other people have answered it. You’ve offered no insight from your own deep well of knowledge. I answered your question to keep you from freaking out about my ’embarrased’ state of mind.
Oh, I didn’t answer it?
Really?
Shall I copy and paste what I wrote, or should I write it out more slowly this time as its clear you can’t read fast?
Raëlism, the Cosmic Circle of Fellowship, Ground Crew Project, Armageddon Time Ark Base Operation, Planetary Activation Organisation, Ashtar Galactic Command, Chen Tao, Scientology, Star Light Fellowship, Unarius, Universe People, Guardian Activation International, and the Aetherius Society… That, John, is your answer in a modern setting, with actual “examples.”
So, back to Moses.
Could you please detail what evidence you have which makes you “believe” Moses was an actual historical character.
Honestly, I’d like to see what you’re basing this belief of yours on.
Right.
You gave an expanded ‘all religion’ answer which too broad to be helpful. And no part of the answer represents your personal beliefs. It’s okay. I really don’t care. You’re just a noise.
I answered your question.
I choose to believe Moses existed.
Purely speculative, just like your worldview.
…please don’t make me repeat myself, Dolt.
You choose to believe.
Okay, so its based on nothing.
You have nothing.
Right.
Just like you!
Yeah, me and Jewish rabbis, bible scholars, archaeologists…
But its OK, John. You are describing “faith”: belief without evidence.
Just try not to cloud this “faith” with pretending to have it based in anything actually “real.”
My faith and your faith are on equal footing. Do I need to ask you another question to prove it or can we just agree (and save you the embarrassment of having to dodge again)?
Yes, I’m sure you’re right.
So, be sure to show me your evidence for a historical Moses when you get it, OK.
Until then, we’ll just say Jesus (Lo) blundered terribly in not knowing basic regional history.
You’re not getting it.
I don’t need to show you evidence when I already said I don’t have any.
I don’t need evidence to believe things.
That’s how my faith and your faith are alike.
Would you like to me to start listing the evidence against a historical Moses?
You really aren’t getting it.
You tired, useless windbag.
Evidence is a non-fiction in my belief. What possible good will it do to list it?
Have you noticed that it doesn’t matter what I say, you disagree with it?
The I would suggest you stop lying and this conversation can end.
I’m gonna walk you through this because I’m going to a luau tonight and you’re never going to figure this out by yourself.
This post is about the universal evidence for a creator God. As far back as we have historical records, mankind has known God exists. The idea transcends culture.
The particulars of various religions are inconsequential. They all point to some ‘higher power’ responsible for the creation of the universe. Only an idiot would believe that ALL religion throughout ALL history is wrong in totality.
You have chosen to believe there is no God. That belief is purely speculative. It is contrary to all evidence in history, sociology, philosophy and science.
And you’re hung up on Moses.
Whoosh.
No, your post merely marks another example of humans falling back on known cultural systems to explain that which they did not know.
Period.
It’s why we have UFO religions today.
Case closed.
No mystery, John.
And for the record, top set your lie straight.
Faith = belief WITHOUT evidence.
I have evidence. It’s the same evidence Jewish rabbis have and believe, bible scholars have and believe, and archaeologists have and believe. It’s the reason we all share the same rational belief.
It’s called, evidence-based reality.
It’s not faith.
Sorry, John, but your disability is not mine.
Do you believe a ‘100-billion neuron equipped brain capable of abstract thought ‘ came to exist without any intelligent guidance? If so, what evidence do you have to support that belief?
Let’s see your disability.
I have 3.5 billion years of evolutionary history to support that belief.
Care to see it laid out?
Perhaps you should just go and get drunk, John. Dance a little. You need it.
…nope. This time I gotta call you out, you rascal. That’s not an answer to the question. I’d know that even if I was drunk.
Okay, we start with single celled, carbon-based, autocatalytic organisms…
And John… Not even your daughter believes you.
Meditate on that.
She doesn’t!!!!
…I’m undone.
Feel free to support your claim for a historical Moses whenever you feel like it…
I’ll read what you present with great enthusiasm.
You are basing your “belief” on something, aren’t you?
Nope.
I just decided to believe in Moses.
Pure, unprovable speculation.
You and I are in the same boat here.
My boat floats. In it with me are the majority of Jewish rabbis, bible scholars, and archaeologists.
Yours?
Same as yours, JZ!
And we’re back to the Grade Three retorts.
I know you are but what am I?
What is JZ even talking about?
The question he asked about Jesus not knowing Moses was an historical character?
Does he think he’ll look less foolish having that conversation with you than he did having it with me?
As your father seems terrified of this question, can you answer it?
Uh…
Earth to JZ.
We had this talk already, not four hours ago.
#Dimentia
Yes, you skipped around it… myth/not myth/myth.
It was thoroughly enlightening.
I’m asking your father….
Hahaha, did you seriously forget?
I said, from what I understand from actual experts, it’s not black and white. There’s no consensus.
So, any old man on the internet who insists the matter is settled seems pretty suspicious to me.
“Actual experts” you can’t seem to name.
Very convincing…
Right.
Experts I can’t name because they’ve specifically asked not to be involved with conversations with Google Scholars.
They’ve got more credentials. I’ve got more patience.
But, if you want to take the Arkentaten Approach and ask the same question of literally EVERYONE you meet, even when they answered it literally hours earlier, go for it.
This is the Comedy Sojourn and we welcome your contribution.
Yes, I’m sure this “person”exists, Amanda.
Must be a leader in the field.
A leader? Like–what–priests are, in the Catholic church?
Nah, he’s just a nerd who liked Archaeology so much he got a PhD. It doesn’t really matter because he’s a Christian. So, you would toss out everything he said anyway. 😉
Anyway, it’s interesting that my dad is giving you different answers than me! He and I have never talked about this before… I guess he falls in the “historical” camp, while I lean more “fictional,” for now…
And STILL–just as I said–it ultimately doesn’t matter. Either way, you’re wrong.
From your materialist perspective, your brain is only telling you things like this matter, and that “the overwhelming majority of Archaelogists and Bible scholars” are good authority figures, because that’s what the human brain does. It looks for authority figures and tries to find something that matters.
Science, for you, does what Yahwehism did for the primitive folk, right?
Ph.D in archaeology. You said “biblical archaeology.”
Personally, I’m not even aware of such a distinction, as the field falls under the title of Near Eastern Archaeology.
And Amanda, just in case you (and your learned “friend”) didn’t know, in 1998, the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR), the primary American professional body for archaeologists working in the Middle East, changed the name of its magazine from Biblical Archaeologist to Near Eastern Archaeology simply because the bible had been determined to be (beyond all doubt) an entirely unreliable historical source to direct research into the early Jews, pre-Babylonian captivity.
Just so you (and your freiend) know….
Gah!
My life is over!
This information changes EVERYTHING!
You didn’t answer my question about whether “science” is for you what “Yahweh” was for primitive folks.
So, is he/she a Ph.D in “biblical archaeology,” as you said, or just “archaeology”?
Please answer this question.
Is science for me what Olódùmarè was for primitive people?
No, because it comes to the questions from a different angle, not starting with the conclusion, and being flexible so as to be proven wrong. That’s the genuis of science as method.
Amanda, is he/she a Ph.D in “biblical archaeology,” as you said, or just “archaeology”?
Don’t know for sure.
Don’t really care.
As I said, the fact that he’s a Christian disqualifies him from being one of your “authority figures” anyway.
Don’t care ???
Excuse me, but you claimed this person was a “DOCTORATE IN BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY.”
That was your claim.
You even went as far to say this person was some sort of “EXPERT”
Appears you might have been caught out in a lie here, Amanda.
That’s not good. You shouldn’t lie. It merely demonstrates just how weak your position is.
And i don’t care if he/she is a Christian, a Zoroastrian, or an avid Scrabble player. None of these things should affect their professional behaviour if they are a good scientist. Indeed, most of the first archaeologists who flooded into Israel and her environs in the early 20th Century were Christians, and it was their work that strated to dismantle the entire narrative as something historical. That certainly wasn’t their intention, it caused them enormous anxiety, but they pressed on.
This is the sort of thing Club likes to call “lying,” too, JZ.
Go ahead and run with it.
I promise. You–as always–are grasping at straws to find something damning in a simple statement:
I have a friend who is a PhD in (I think) Biblical Archaeology.
No one cares but you.
Kind of like no once cares but you whether Jesus said something “original.”
I think the most important thing would be to say something TRUE. But, since you think someone unaware of the difference between Archaeology and Biblical Archaeology on an internet Thread is a huge, dastardly lie, I can see why you may struggle to decide whether Jesus spoke “truth.”
It’s easier to challenge Christians to bring up something “new” he said…. even though the fact that he was speaking ancient wisdom is far more compelling to me.
Hang on, I’ll repeat this last part in the relevant thread, so you can’t claim I didn’t answer it.
For the record, it gives me no pleasure in calling you out for your lies. I’d prefer an honest dialogue based on trust.
You specifically said this friend of yours was a Ph.D in “Biblical Archaeology,” and used that as some sort of appeal to authority.
Now that’s changed to “maybe”…
Well, as I’ve already said, there is no such field as “Biblical Archaeology.”
So, either you’re lying, or your friend is lying to you.
But, my offer still stands. If you give me their name and the institution for whom they work, I’ll happily (politely) contact them and ask what they’re basing their belief on. I’m always open to hearing new things, so if there is somethig that they know, and I don’t, then its a win-win.
Ooooooh, I get it now! Thanks for clarifying.
This is all more long-winded baiting! You’re still dying to talk to him, so you are going to question my integrity to see if I’ll crack!
Haha!
If you keep this up, you’re going to replace Ark as my favorite God-denier.
Not dying at all to speak to him.
I doubt he even exists… and if he does, he’s an amateur in some theological school who did a one-semmester archaeology course as part of his bible studies.
In your mind, though, this has been conflated to an “expert” in the field.
Whatever helps you feel smart.
If anythign makes me “feel” smart, its knowing I don’t have to lie to make a point.
HAHAHAHAHA!
He’s kind of slow.
He thinks my question was a diversion when I asked it FIRST (right in the article itself)!
Just nod and smile.
His tired, old brain is brimming with antiquated ideas. If he embraces that truth, it will probably devastate him.
…they begin to produce a concept that looks and sounds very much like God….
At least you go the first part right, that PEOPLE PRODUCE A CONCEPT of god, but then pretend to know what a god looks and sounds like, falling back into mistaking the created object of a belief as if a real thing independent of the belief that created it.
People produce a concept of God exactly like you’ve produced a concept of “artistry” when you’re comforting the dying, right, Tildeb?
This comment is directed at your daughter. Did you mean to aim it to someone else?
No. It’s intended for her.
God knows, you won’t answer it!
Does He?
Because you don’t know how to think critically, you are struggling to teach it. Perfectly normal. So how do you learn? Well, it’s called an education. You need it.
A good start is to ask yourself why a question you have for someone is an important question. Not answer it. Explain why it’s important. This will help discipline your mind to be less credulous and more discerning to be able to recognize good answers and not, as you currently do, wave them away because you believe they don’t provide you with the answers you want.
One of the things I’ve always wondered is–what’s the difference between an “education” (which is good) and “indoctrination” (which is bad).
Seems to me: one is whatever Atheists do and the other is whatever Christians do.
But I guess I’ll just have to tell my kids to ask you…. or at least obtain a list (from you) of other people they are allowed to ask….
Education is what Tildeb has.
Indoctrination is everything that isn’t part of Tildeb’s education.
Education is what you have left when you’ve forgotten everything you’ve been taught.
Wow! And you claim you’re not a philosopher…
You have yet to successfully duplicate any claim I’ve made. Way to keep the streak going, JB!
See? There is zero critical thought in this comment. You ask a question, which is fine, but don;t for even a nanosecond ask yourself why this question is important. Because you don;t bother to do this, you do exactly what I accuse you doing: waving away anything that doesn’t fit the answer you want. That’s why you constantly rephrase what others say to say what YOU want it it to say… so that you can then think yourself clever criticizing it. You’re not. You’re dim and credulous.
If the question is important, then why haven’t you figured out why the difference matters?
Because you’re lazy, because you’ve been indoctrinated into thinking that your beliefs describe and define reality. They don’t… but you don’t care. And that’s reflected in how you line up a substituted answer in place of the one provided in order to attack anyone who doesn’t agree with you and your beliefs. Today that target is me. Tomorrow? Maybe one of your kids. And then we’ll start to see why your method is pernicious and actually harms real people in the real world… in this case your children… a harm you don’t care enough about inflicting BECAUSE you hold the uncritical acceptance of your religious beliefs to be more important. And that’s what I mean about you being a lousy, irresponsible person… because you “pay no attention to the responsibility (you) hold towards the welfare of others.”
You may think I’m full of shit, Amanda, but I’m not. I’m not because, ironically, you demonstrate I’m not wrong.
Yeah–certain questions are bad questions and certain ones are good.
Compile all of this knowledge into a book, Tildeb! People will gobble it up. 😉
Too bad you can’t and won’t. But then I would expect that from a lousy, irresponsible person.
I answered my Dad’s question up thread.
Feel free to scroll up and read it…then come back here and tell me what a terrible mother I am.
I used to think you were full of shit too. Then you said, “I’m not” and that was all I needed to hear. I’m convinced that you are the true source of all knowledge, Dear Leader.
I accidentally deleted your reply….
I’m kind of a klutz on this tablet.
It’s okay, I wrote a more complete one.
…great. Now I have to figure out another excuse for deleting that one…
*whump* *whump* *whump*
That’s the sound of JZ beating his solitary drum.
How do you suppose the Hawaiians came up with the idea of Lo? What was that prehistoric source of indoctrination?
Okay… Let me know when you want to actually address the question.
Or is it too awkward for you to face?
Whooooooooooosh
I’ll take that mean:
“Far too awkward for me to face…”
Take it however you want. You always do.
I asked for your speculative opinion about the origins of Lo and you won’t respond. You’re nothing but a useless noise.
As I said:
Let me know when you want to actually address the question put to you.
Keep telling yourself that.
Make it your mantra.
“My questions are too awkward for them.”
“My questions are too awkward for them.”
Repeat it enough and you’ll start believing it. That will help perpetuate the delusion that you are something other than a useless noise.
Last word goes to you. Another chance to demonstrate your nimble argumentation skills.
Where do you think the Hawaiians got the idea for the Creator god, ‘Lo’?
Well, John, you could always just answer the question, couldn’t you….
Because this is a truth-free blog, you should include a trigger warning so that all your posts and comments can be read in their proper context.
You can do that, Tildeb. Go ahead and supply the first comment from now on:
“Attention, readers! There is nothing worth reading on this blog! Trust ME! It doesn’t align with reality at all! –signed, your Dear Truth-Seeking Leader”
Some people need you to tell them what’s true and what’s not.
Great idea!
Write up the trigger warning and I’ll post it into the article. Really!
You are the logical one to define ‘proper context’, Dear Leader.
hahaha! We were literally writing a version of the same comment at the same time.
Full disclosure to the readers: JB texted me before this post was published and said, “We may get some kickback–even from other Theists.”
I’m not sure where the disagreement could be. But don’t be shy, Theists! If you’ve got a problem with anything John wrote here, make your case!
Seriously, I would LOVE to have a spirited debate with someone who has Logic in their heart, for a change.