[Serious] The Story

[John 6IX Breezy]

Because only a lunatic would be angry at us for performing according to specs.

Well this is why I wanted to know what everyone thought the overarching story was, or what the point of the story was. Based on the one I learned he's not angry at us for performing or not performing according to specs. We're something like collateral, innocent bystanders that got pulled into the bigger warfare through deception.

[Angrboda]

How do you know this?

You mean, how do I know they are attempting to communicate a vision or divine experience? Usually because that is how many chapters are introduced:

• "In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple" (ESV, Isaiah 6:1).
  

• "In the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar a vision appeared to me, Daniel, after that which appeared to me at the first" (ESV, Daniel 8:1)
  

It's suspected that the book of Daniel, while pretending to recount visions of future events is actually written after the events for rhetorical reasons. It was a common exercise in rhetoric in ancient schools to attempt to write or speak in the style of a great author or orator. Many of Paul's epistles are thought to be forgeries. It was also rather common for groups of people, schools, to write as if they were a legendary author (Laozi comes to mind). It is a common literary device to write from a first-person perspective even when no such first-person perspective existed. Given all the millions of religious accounts of visions and the mere fact that only a few or none of them can be true, the first-hand accounts of most of them are not true. And we know that various other motives than telling the truth are strong in writing pertaining to religious topics. The book of Deuteronomy is likely not what it appears to be given its miraculous "discovery" in an ancient temple after the fact.

Given the ubiquity of artful but false narratives in this genre, why do you think a naive reading of these statements is most likely to be true?

[Jehanne]

they're wondering why he couldn't or didn't create beings perfectly fit for their purpose.

I guess the obvious question is: what is the purpose of human beings? What would it be like for us to be fit for this purpose? 

How do you know we are not perfectly fit for our purpose?

Human beings have no purpose, at least on a cosmic scale.

[Angrboda]

I guess the obvious question is: what is the purpose of human beings? What would it be like for us to be fit for this purpose? 

How do you know we are not perfectly fit for our purpose?

Human beings have no purpose, at least on a cosmic scale.

Teleology is a lot like existence, it seems to need a final cause. For example, perhaps God had an intention or goal in creating man, but if God himself doesn't have an ideal or desired purpose, then God's creations are ultimately without purpose. Due to God's aseity, that God is not dependent on anything but himself, all of God's preferences, intentions, and so on are arbitrary and no different from mere random choices. So God choosing to create man a specific way is also ultimately no different than a random choice.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, I mean..if we're talking about gods, instead of the production of a story - it's a pretty safe bet that whatever's going on down here is exactly the kind of kink the mad king is into. The problem of evil disappears in a flash because evil isn't a problem, it's a satisfaction solution - for the mad king.

If we're talking about the production of a narrative, though, gods are dissatisfied with what's going on down here because the authoring people were dissatisfied. To prove the validity of their dissatisfaction they imagine what their gods would have said about x, if their gods ever spoke. That's not a bad strategy for altering the opinions and behaviors of people who collectively believe in such a god - it's also not much different than asking what your deceased and sainted granny would think. For alot of us, the second appeal might have even more force. The OT and NT purport to contain both, conveniently. The opinions of a god, and those that came before you.

[John 6IX Breezy]

It's suspected that the book of Daniel, while pretending to recount visions of future events is actually written after the events for rhetorical reasons.  It was a common exercise in rhetoric on ancient schools to attempt to write or speak in the style of a great author or orator.  Many of Paul's epistles are thought to be forgeries.  It was also rather common for groups of people, schools, to write as if they were a legendary author (Laozi comes to mind).  It is a common literary device to write from a first-person perspective even when no such first-person perspective existed.  Given all the millions of religious accounts of visions and the mere fact that only a few or none of them can be true, the first-hand accounts of most of them are not true.  And we know that various other motives than telling the truth are strong in writing pertaining to religious topics.  The book of Deuteronomy is likely not what it appears to be given its miraculous "discovery" in an ancient temple after the fact.

Given the ubiquity of artful but false narratives in this genre, why do you think a naive reading of these statements is most likely to be true?

I prefer conservative interpretations as a starting point. So, my initial objection to your response was going to be something like occam's razor—there's no need to multiply authors unnecessarily, with each author more mysterious than the last. However, you mentioned something that I think is the important part of your argument: You said it was a common literary device to write from a first-person perspective, even when no such perspective existed. 

My guess is you have something like Plato's Republic in mind (I'm not familiar with Laozi). So, I would like to know what you had in mind, or what is it that you're comparing it to?

[The Grand Nudger]

That daniel is an a-historical character used to describe a real conflict is a conservative interpretation. It could just be considered full on fiction, like so much of the rest of the ot and nt. The notion that daniel was such a character actually predates christianity itself.

There's no need to even leave the abrahamic lit to see other examples of this. Think more in terms of all the books narrated by a moses (up to and including a narration of his own death and the events after) in the first person. Moses is also considered to be a legendary or mythical figure..but regardless of what you think about that you can probably accept that the author or orator describing the events after his death, in the first person, was taking some narrative liberties in order to make theologically important points. I'd liken it more to the tortoise and the hare than anything else, if we're going outside of abrahamic lit.. in all of it's derivations. It's not consequential to the message that neither can speak and that, therefore, we do not have the tortoise or the hares actual words - just as it's not consequential to the religions of abrahamism that there were ever a historical moses or daniel to speak, let alone say those words you find in the books. All are completely satisfied with moses/daniel-like-figures....of which, and particularly by the faithful..there were seen to have been many.

Christians would famously come to see jesus in just such a way, and, like the orators and narrators before them, would place in the mouth of this character what is very likely to be their own thoughts on some matter x. Que the sermons.

[John 6IX Breezy]

I'm not finding evidence of that in the literature. At best I'm coming across a debate over a 600 BC vs 200 AD composition that's rather speculative and inconclusive.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think this may be the point where a reflexive impulse to protect the articles of your faith makes any further discussion of the matter between us unproductive. Let's agree to disagree - but in that light I can pose my earlier question again.

Given that -I- see a rich and deep text full of content wholly outside of whatever your religious beliefs about it may be - as well as understanding that and how your religious beliefs came to be so critically derived from it, can you see why I would wonder whether, in flatly rejecting such content's existence, you miss alot of the story..as I see it, at least?

Take the fall as another example - that story I enjoy so much. A literalist must believe that it's not at all the brilliant piece of lit I think it is. It's just a report about two people and a dragon and one seriously unlucky piece of fruit.

[Vicki Q]

OK, a rather overlong answer to the persecution question, now I can focus on such a tangent.

Firstly, what is persecution? There is high level persecution in which an emperor declares that Xians are bad and there are prizes for the people who kill the most Xians. There is no evidence of that before Nero. There is medium level persecution such as a minor riot. The sort of thing that uses pitchforks and torches. Then there is low level, such as a couple of drunks doing dental work on a Xian with their boots. There is overwhelming evidence for those two.

In C1 Mediterranean society, unlike C21 Western, religion was not a private matter in it's own box. It was intimately bundled with your culture, race, community and nation. To change religion was to insult all of those.

To a Jew, you denied the uniqueness of the Jews, declared Torah redundant and denied the need to make Israel independent. To a Roman, declaring Jesus to be Christ (=King) was to declare that Caesar wasn't, which was sedition and treason. To an urban Greek, the town god protected the local town from harm, so when someone comes along and says to stop worshipping the god (and stop buying his merch) it badly upsets people.

So Xians were angering pretty much every society in which they operated, and a convert to Xianity got the reaction it would get today in, say North Korea, Iran or  Kyrgyzstan.

Nothing high level or organised, but a constant stream of vilification and violence.

What is the evidence for this low/medium persecution in the earliest church?
Stephen barely gets his head around Jesus when someone bashes it in. Saul organises persecution (and he knew what would happen to him when he converted). Herod executes James. A riot in Ephesus. Etc and a full long list in Acts is here: Acts bit (Book of Acts). Paul writes to Thessalonica to comfort them in their persecution (1 Thess 2). Paul writes to Phillippi to comfort them in their persecution (Phil 1). Paul writes to Rome to comfort them in their persecution (Rom 5 and 8). Einstein, James Dean, Brooklyn's got a winning team (Joel). Jesus tells the disciples to expect suffering (Makes no sense if there weren't any; Luke 21, Matt 5 etc). Paul getting hurt (1 Cor 4 etc) Martyrs in Revelation (2,6,20)

And then there's 2 Corinthians.
Paul's legitimacy has been challenged by the Torah-bashers. The Corinthians have asked for a CV listing all his achievements so they can do a relaunch of his ministry as a fine, noble figure.

Paul's reply is a masterpiece of dark comedy.

He starts by talking about what a Xian hero looks like i.e. Jesus. He points out that Jesus got beaten up, spat on and killed. That the Corinthians have it the wrong way around- if you want to be a Xian hero, expect to suffer like Jesus. He then writes the following.

(If you genuinely, really, actually don't think Xians were persecuted, please please read this passage slowly enough to understand it.)

Funny man

In other words, he says, if you want a CV to glorify me, I'll pull down my pants and it's written in the terrible scars on my arse.

(US=ass. I paraphrase a bit. There's a corona muralis reference in v33)

There is more evidence, but we already have multiple sources in multiple forms (History, letters, music, biography, comedy...). Historically it's an earthquake creating slam dunk of certainty that the earliest Xians were persecuted.