Do Christians worship a suicide victim?

[madog]

Whether the Jesus character was illiterate or not the story tellers chose parlor tricks and a suicidal extravaganza to Communicate the "God" characters message ... If "God" wanted his message clearly recorded he would have used his son to record his message not those that were already sinful in his eyes. [1]

The actual message, if it were true would have taken a page .... There was no need for the New Testament, as sects could have made up their own stories then interpreted them to suit their own agenda ... Oh wait they did that anyway    [2]

We are here now discussing a fictitional characters message dreamed up from those flawed story tellers, [3] I dispute you have any verifiable Historical evidence  : [4] 

1) Would he now? Interesting take given #3

2) Indeed they did. Can you name one of those sects and the community today that is historically continuous with it?

3) Yup, here we are. If we are discussing that message "as-it-was-dreamed-up", then it can't also be said to have been inadequately communicated over 2000 years. So like I said HERE, your beef is with the message, not its mode of transmission.

4) Do I have verifiable historical evidence that demonstrates that Jesus is the Son of God, rose from the dead, and that his death reconciles us to God? No. 

Is there verifiable historical evidence regarding a continuously traceable teaching-about-Jesus extending from the Apostles to the present day within a particular community which is also historically continuous with the the community of the Apostles? Yes.

1) whats your point?

2) not particularly interested, they all wrote separate from the character that was supposed to be entrusted in delivering the "message" ... When I send an important message I don't entrust it to those that may  change the message for their own ends ...

3) I have a beef with the mode of transmission of the "message" because it leads me to believe it was made up ... that doesn't mean I can't have a beef with the "message"  as promoted by you ... are you playing games?

4) ... so you can't verify anything of consequence so your "faith" makes do with a tenuous historical line of story-telling ( you describe as teaching) .... Sorry but that's just not good enough for me ...

I suppose faith is the Jack in the pack .... pull it out and it covers everything you can't back with proper evidence 

[Ignorant]

1) whats your point? [1]

2) not particularly interested, [2] they all wrote separate from the character that was supposed to be entrusted in delivering the "message" [3] ... When I send an important message I don't entrust it to those that may  change the message for their own ends ... [4]

3) I have a beef with the mode of transmission of the "message" because it leads me to believe it was made up [5] ... that doesn't mean I can't have a beef with the "message"  as promoted by you ... are you playing games? [6]

4) ... so you can't verify anything of consequence [7] so your "faith" makes do with a tenuous historical line of story-telling ( you describe as teaching) [8] .... Sorry but that's just not good enough for me ... [9]

I suppose faith is the Jack in the pack .... pull it out and it covers everything you can't back with proper evidence  : [10] 

1) When you talk to someone in person, do you expect everything they say to have a point? Does commentary exist where you come from? Do people every communicate in a non-argumentative form? My "point" is exactly what I said. Given your comment marked by my #3, I found your comments marked by my #1 to be interesting.

2) Not many people are interested in historical research. Fair enough.

3) And yet, there was one community which could claim something these other people couldn't: apostolic succession. Sure, different gnostic sects would write their own gospels. How could you tell who was gnostic and who was not? Well, who was their bishop? Who was bishop before him? Before him? If you eventually end up at an apostle or a bishop established by an apostle, then you have found the answer.

4) Of course you wouldn't. Can you demonstrate or identify in the historical texts a change in the message, much less a change made to suit individual ends?

5) Oh I see. Because the centuries have passed down different versions of the message, at times contradictory, you see no rational way to identify the authentic one if it exists at all. Practically, therefore, there is no authentic message. You conclude that it was all made up. Fair enough. How do you account for all of those aspects of the message that were consistently passed through the ages well enough that you could form the intelligible post which began this thread?

6) Well that is just the thing. You don't seem to have a beef with the message I proposed. You seem merely to challenge me on the point that the message I proposed is the one historically attributable to the first Christians. There is the message itself (which I offered as an interpretation of the events surrounding Christ's death which clearly do not coincide with suicide, but rather voluntary sacrifice for the good of others) and then there is the question as to whether or not that message was the same which the apostles taught. It is simple distinction.

7) I can't, in principle, verify the truth of the data of revelation by scientific means (e.g. I can't verify that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by scientific methods). I can, in principle, verify that the apostles taught that data as revelation by scientific means. I can, in principle, verify that the Catholic Church (hierarchy, religious, and lay faithful included) is historically continuous with the original community of the those same apostles and first Christians. I can, in principle, verify that the Catholic Church teaches the same data as revelation as the apostles taught as revelation. That has consequences for me. If it doesn't for you, fair enough.

8) No. My faith makes do with the God who effectively communicates through that tenuous line of story telling which (given the history of other human institutions) is strikingly efficient at preserving a simple message with complex implications through a course of highly voltatile 2000 years and countless idiots who didn't care about the message who somehow ended up in charge.

9) Fair enough.

10) Well sure, if you want to ignore the distinction I've made between the sorts of information I find true by faith (e.g. God is Father, Son and Spirit; Jesus is God and Man united in a single person; Jesus's passion and death and resurrection do bring about my reconciliation with God and do promise eternal life, etc.) and the sorts of information I find true due to historical science (e.g. the Apostles taught that God is Father, Son and Spirit; the Apostles taught that Jesus is God and Man united in a single person; the Apostles taught that Jesus's passion and death and resurrection do bring about my reconciliation etc.), then ya straw man my contribution as one that retreats and pulls the faith card.

Because Christ didn't write anything down, the only record of his message which has any hope of historical reliability would be found in the message of the Apostles. The message of the apostles can be historically identified (and for Catholics, that message is identifiable with Catholic teaching). If the Apostles' message authentically coincides and represents the message of Christ, then it IS the message of Christ. There is no way, in principle, to demonstrate this authenticity through historical science. You either believe the Apostles or you don't, and if you believe them, you either believe Christ or you don't. So either:

a) You find that the apostle's message can't be historically identified

b) If you find that it can, then you find that message can't be held to be that of Christ's

c) if you find that it can, then you find that message to be one of suicide by proxy, and unworthy of belief. <= This is what I thought the original post was about.

[madog]

1) whats your point? [1]

2) not particularly interested, [2] they all wrote separate from the character that was supposed to be entrusted in delivering the "message" [3] ... When I send an important message I don't entrust it to those that may  change the message for their own ends ... [4]

3) I have a beef with the mode of transmission of the "message" because it leads me to believe it was made up [5] ... that doesn't mean I can't have a beef with the "message"  as promoted by you ... are you playing games? [6]

4) ... so you can't verify anything of consequence [7] so your "faith" makes do with a tenuous historical line of story-telling ( you describe as teaching) [8] .... Sorry but that's just not good enough for me ... [9]

I suppose faith is the Jack in the pack .... pull it out and it covers everything you can't back with proper evidence  : [10] 

1) When you talk to someone in person, do you expect everything they say to have a point? Does commentary exist where you come from? Do people every communicate in a non-argumentative form? My "point" is exactly what I said. Given your comment marked by my #3, I found your comments marked by my #1 to be interesting.

2) Not many people are interested in historical research. Fair enough.

3) And yet, there was one community which could claim something these other people couldn't: apostolic succession. Sure, different gnostic sects would write their own gospels. How could you tell who was gnostic and who was not? Well, who was their bishop? Who was bishop before him? Before him? If you eventually end up at an apostle or a bishop established by an apostle, then you have found the answer.

4) Of course you wouldn't. Can you demonstrate or identify in the historical texts a change in the message, much less a change made to suit individual ends?

5) Oh I see. Because the centuries have passed down different versions of the message, at times contradictory, you see no rational way to identify the authentic one if it exists at all. Practically, therefore, there is no authentic message. You conclude that it was all made up. Fair enough. How do you account for all of those aspects of the message that were consistently passed through the ages well enough that you could form the intelligible post which began this thread?

6) Well that is just the thing. You don't seem to have a beef with the message I proposed. You seem merely to challenge me on the point that the message I proposed is the one historically attributable to the first Christians. There is the message itself (which I offered as an interpretation of the events surrounding Christ's death which clearly do not coincide with suicide, but rather voluntary sacrifice for the good of others) and then there is the question as to whether or not that message was the same which the apostles taught. It is simple distinction.

7) I can't, in principle, verify the truth of the data of revelation by scientific means (e.g. I can't verify that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by scientific methods). I can, in principle, verify that the apostles taught that data as revelation by scientific means. I can, in principle, verify that the Catholic Church (hierarchy, religious, and lay faithful included) is historically continuous with the original community of the those same apostles and first Christians. I can, in principle, verify that the Catholic Church teaches the same data as revelation as the apostles taught as revelation. That has consequences for me. If it doesn't for you, fair enough.

8) No. My faith makes do with the God who effectively communicates through that tenuous line of story telling which (given the history of other human institutions) is strikingly efficient at preserving a simple message with complex implications through a course of highly voltatile 2000 years and countless idiots who didn't care about the message who somehow ended up in charge.

9) Fair enough.

10) Well sure, if you want to ignore the distinction I've made between the sorts of information I find true by faith (e.g. God is Father, Son and Spirit; Jesus is God and Man united in a single person; Jesus's passion and death and resurrection do bring about my reconciliation with God and do promise eternal life, etc.) and the sorts of information I find true due to historical science (e.g. the Apostles taught that God is Father, Son and Spirit; the Apostles taught that Jesus is God and Man united in a single person; the Apostles taught that Jesus's passion and death and resurrection do bring about my reconciliation etc.), then ya straw man my contribution as one that retreats and pulls the faith card.

Because Christ didn't write anything down, the only record of his message which has any hope of historical reliability would be found in the message of the Apostles. The message of the apostles can be historically identified (and for Catholics, that message is identifiable with Catholic teaching). If the Apostles' message authentically coincides and represents the message of Christ, then it IS the message of Christ. There is no way, in principle, to demonstrate this authenticity through historical science. You either believe the Apostles or you don't, and if you believe them, you either believe Christ or you don't. So either:

a) You find that the apostle's message can't be historically identified

b) If you find that it can, then you find that message can't be held to be that of Christ's

c) if you find that it can, then you find that message to be one of suicide by proxy, and unworthy of belief. <= This is what I thought the original post was about.

1) sorry didn't catch the sarcasm, wasn't looking for it ... I took it as now as in the present day ....

2)  If "God" or "Jesus" recorded nothing, there is nothing other than historical hearsay as regards a "message" ...

3) see  (2) above ...

4) I can't personally show any changes from the original story tellers .... as you can't show anything recorded from the apparent messenger ... You trust hearsay because of the Joker in the pack "faith", that doesn't impress me ... 

My "faith" that man would write to further his own ends has as much weight as your "faith" that those writing someone else's message would do so without any agenda ... the difference is my opinion does not try to invoke a supernatural master .... 

5) Back to games ... I don't think there is an authentic message .... There was certainly nothing recorded by the alleged messenger ....

By the way I can discuss someones fictional message without believing in the credibility of the message ... stop being silly 

6) see (5) above ....

7) Basically you can verify that some people told a story and everything following the story telling .... Sort of like building a city on sand ....

8) Yes you need faith to believe a God and his son would leave the recording of their message to semi-illiterate tribesmen that would pass on their stories to churches that would enslave humanity with their own agendas .... 

9) ....

10) Yes I consider that whoever wrote the story went one step further than sacrificing a goat .... but a goat has no choice, the character they invented did, so they inadvertently created a suicide victim ...

[Thomas Kelly252525]

You may think I have posted something similar before and I thought to post the comparison again to clear this up.

You may compare what Jesus Christ did to a situation where it is stupid to fight back and that there must be someone murdered and there is a choice of who will be murdered.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

You may think I have posted something similar before and I thought to post the comparison again to clear this up.

You may compare what Jesus Christ did to a situation where it is stupid to fight back and that there must be someone murdered and there is a choice of who will be murdered.

Posting something more than once doesn't make it true, or even sensible.

You're contending that God had Jesus murdered because someone had to be murdered. Why did anyone have to be murdered at all?

Boru

[Homeless Nutter]

You may think I have posted something similar before and I thought to post the comparison again to clear this up.

It was bullsh*t then and it's bullsh*t now.

You may compare what Jesus Christ did to a situation where it is stupid to fight back and that there must be someone murdered and there is a choice of who will be murdered.

Where is your proof, that what Jesus Christ did is at all comparable with a situation where it is stupid to fight back and that there must be someone murdered and there is a choice of who will be murdered?

Seems like you just asserted something with no evidence. Burden of proof and junk...

[Ignorant]

1) sorry didn't catch the sarcasm, wasn't looking for it ... I took it as now as in the present day ....

2)  If "God" or "Jesus" recorded nothing, there is nothing other than historical hearsay as regards a "message" ... [1]

3) see  (2) above ... [2]

4) I can't personally show any changes from the original story tellers .... as you can't show anything recorded from the apparent messenger ... You trust hearsay because of the Joker in the pack "faith", that doesn't impress me ...  [3]

My "faith" that man would write to further his own ends has as much weight as your "faith" that those writing someone else's message would do so without any agenda ... the difference is my opinion does not try to invoke a supernatural master .... [4]

5) Back to games ... I don't think there is an authentic message .... There was certainly nothing recorded by the alleged messenger .... [5]

By the way I can discuss someones fictional message without believing in the credibility of the message ... stop being silly   [6]

6) see (5) above ....

7) Basically you can verify that some people told a story and everything following the story telling .... Sort of like building a city on sand ....

8) Yes you need faith to believe a God and his son would leave the recording of their message to semi-illiterate tribesmen that would pass on their stories to churches that would enslave humanity with their own agendas .... 

9) ....

10) Yes I consider that whoever wrote the story went one step further than sacrificing a goat .... but a goat has no choice, the character they invented did, so they inadvertently created a suicide victim ...

1) OR, there is an Apostolic message about God and Jesus. That much is not hearsay, that is historically verifiable, and does not require faith.

2) Any message which claims to be Christian is an implicit and simultaneous claim that it is apostolic. You can fail to be convinced that this apostolic message actually communicates the authentic message of Christ, but the evidence cannot lead to the rejection that the message is apostolic. Why does this matter in our discussion? Because my original comments were given in the context of the apostolic message alone:

"The narrative, instead, tells us that he lays down his own life . . . He chose this way to communicate something to us about ourselves and about God." -Me HERE

Why would you think I would force an atheist to accept that the Gospel message is authentically Christ's and therefore God's? There is a narrative about Christ's message passed down from the Apostles. Faith tells you it's Christ's message. History tells you it's the Apostles' message. Either way, the common denominator is the text of the New Testament and the transmission of the message over time. I am not trying to demonstrate to you that it is Christ's message, I was originally trying to offer an interpretation of the historical message about Christ which does not conclude that Jesus was a suicide. Even if the apostles made it up, your interpretation of the details of the message cannot account for the whole message.

3) I never imagined it would. I also never imagined that faith would be such a surprising aspect of a discussion about Christianity. I also never imagined that a critical examination of the account-as-provided-by-the-apostolic-community (invented or not) would be so dismissive of any interpretation which takes the point of view of that apostolic community into account. Even if they made it up, literary criticism of the texts, within the framework of the authors' own invented reality, cannot (in my view) rationally conclude that they inadvertently composed a tale of vicarious suicide. To do so is irrational (at least if your goal is to understand something), and your other posts clearly show that you are better than that.

4) Both of which are irrelevant when attempting a [purely rational] interpretive conclusion about a text. Whatever man's ends may have been in inventing a tale, ignoring that man's invented frame of reference for telling the story seldom leads to adequate conclusions.

5) That is fine, as I've said several times. But to deny that there is a message at all, or to deny that such a message has its own internal frame of reference won't lead you to a rational understanding of the object of your inquiry.

6) Of course you can. And if you have ever discussed fictional messages with people who are well versed in them, I am sure you have found that those who understand the inner workings of that fiction are typically those who can offer fruitful discussion about it. Criticisms from those outside-the-know of a particular fiction are usually received as highly inadequate by those who are in the know. You won't find many serious scholars (atheist or theist) who conclude the same thing that you do about the Gospel narrative.

[madog]

1) sorry didn't catch the sarcasm, wasn't looking for it ... I took it as now as in the present day ....

2)  If "God" or "Jesus" recorded nothing, there is nothing other than historical hearsay as regards a "message" ... [1]

3) see  (2) above ... [2]

4) I can't personally show any changes from the original story tellers .... as you can't show anything recorded from the apparent messenger ... You trust hearsay because of the Joker in the pack "faith", that doesn't impress me ...  [3]

My "faith" that man would write to further his own ends has as much weight as your "faith" that those writing someone else's message would do so without any agenda ... the difference is my opinion does not try to invoke a supernatural master .... [4]

5) Back to games ... I don't think there is an authentic message .... There was certainly nothing recorded by the alleged messenger .... [5]

By the way I can discuss someones fictional message without believing in the credibility of the message ... stop being silly   [6]

6) see (5) above ....

7) Basically you can verify that some people told a story and everything following the story telling .... Sort of like building a city on sand ....

8) Yes you need faith to believe a God and his son would leave the recording of their message to semi-illiterate tribesmen that would pass on their stories to churches that would enslave humanity with their own agendas .... 

9) ....

10) Yes I consider that whoever wrote the story went one step further than sacrificing a goat .... but a goat has no choice, the character they invented did, so they inadvertently created a suicide victim ...

1) OR, there is an Apostolic message about God and Jesus. That much is not hearsay, that is historically verifiable, and does not require faith.

2) Any message which claims to be Christian is an implicit and simultaneous claim that it is apostolic. You can fail to be convinced that this apostolic message actually communicates the authentic message of Christ, but the evidence cannot lead to the rejection that the message is apostolic. Why does this matter in our discussion? Because my original comments were given in the context of the apostolic message alone:

"The narrative, instead, tells us that he lays down his own life . . . He chose this way to communicate something to us about ourselves and about God." -Me HERE

Why would you think I would force an atheist to accept that the Gospel message is authentically Christ's and therefore God's? There is a narrative about Christ's message passed down from the Apostles. Faith tells you it's Christ's message. History tells you it's the Apostles' message. Either way, the common denominator is the text of the New Testament and the transmission of the message over time. I am not trying to demonstrate to you that it is Christ's message, I was originally trying to offer an interpretation of the historical message about Christ which does not conclude that Jesus was a suicide. Even if the apostles made it up, your interpretation of the details of the message cannot account for the whole message.

3) I never imagined it would. I also never imagined that faith would be such a surprising aspect of a discussion about Christianity. I also never imagined that a critical examination of the account-as-provided-by-the-apostolic-community (invented or not) would be so dismissive of any interpretation which takes the point of view of that apostolic community into account. Even if they made it up, literary criticism of the texts, within the framework of the authors' own invented reality, cannot (in my view) rationally conclude that they inadvertently composed a tale of vicarious suicide. To do so is irrational (at least if your goal is to understand something), and your other posts clearly show that you are better than that.

4) Both of which are irrelevant when attempting an interpretive conclusion about a text. Whatever man's ends may have been in inventing a tale, ignoring that man's invented frame of reference for telling the story seldom leads to adequate conclusions.

5) That is fine, as I've said several times. But to deny that there is a message at all, or to deny that such a message has its own internal frame of reference won't lead you to a rational understanding of the object of your inquiry.

6) Of course you can. And if you have ever discussed fictional messages with people who are well versed in them, I am sure you have found that those who understand the inner workings of that fiction are typically those who can offer fruitful discussion about it. Criticisms from those outside-the-know of a particular fiction are usually received as highly inadequate by those who are in the know. You won't find many serious scholars (atheist or theist) who conclude the same thing that you do about the Gospel narrative.

1) When you pass on someone else's message and that message can't be verified its hearsay ... 

2) That they are apostles is their claim and again can't be verified other than with further hearsay .... 

Laying down his own life purposefully is suicide ...  

3) You are trying to use apostles to prove "Jesus the son of God", without a "Jesus" there are no apostles 


So basically all your evidence and faith for the most extraordinary claims imaginable are based on some Fishermen claiming to have been disciples of the son of God decades after his apparent Crucifixion .....

4)  I am not trying to interpret text as it didn't come from the alleged messenger .... you keep trying to make me go forward in time and work back ....

5) I don't deny fishermen wrote stories, set decades after the main character died, that propelled them into scriptures as apostles, all that tells me is they made themselves pretty important with their claims of being the disciples of the son of God. Yes that would further their own ends ...

6) Very few theists or atheists agree on anything so nothing new there ....

[Thomas Kelly252525]

You may think I have posted something similar before and I thought to post the comparison again to clear this up.

It was bullsh*t then and it's bullsh*t now.

You may compare what Jesus Christ did to a situation where it is stupid to fight back and that there must be someone murdered and there is a choice of who will be murdered.

Where is your proof, that what Jesus Christ did is at all comparable with a situation where it is stupid to fight back and that there must be someone murdered and there is a choice of who will be murdered?

Seems like you just asserted something with no evidence. Burden of proof and junk...

Homeless Nutter,

My proof is partly in The Bible and in the rest of all that exists.

If you think it's not, then you may want to try to prove that it's not.

If you continue like this, I may choose not to answer you, if I think it's not to our advantage.

[Homeless Nutter]

Homeless Nutter,

My proof is partly in The Bible and in the rest of all that exists.[...]

Well, Thomas Kelly252525,

Where's the proof, that the bible has anything to do with it? Burden of proof, kiddo...

If you think it's not, then you may want to try to prove that it's not.

My proof is partly in "Moby Dick" and partly in the fact, that you don't appear to be very smart. So - burden of proof is still on you. (lol - you suck at this)

If you continue like this[...]

What? You mean - if I continue to prove you wrong, make you look like an ass and undermine your belief in fairy tales? Sure - you may think it's best to run away, son, if you're not up to the challenge. But what will Jeezles think of you?