What Is God Made From?

[jjohnjil]

Any other atheists got any comments on what has just been said there. Does it make no odds to you whether the Second World War happened or the invasion of Iraq or the Battle of Hastings or the fall of Communism?


These things are an interest to most of us, in order to learn lessons, but if we read that Mussolini was cut down three days after being hanged from a lamp post and was then seen eating and drinking with a number of people, we'd take it that the reporter had been drinking a little too much himself.

Unless you're name's Alan, of course!

Or unless it all fitted with what he had predicted beforehand and his body had disappeared and he was seen on a dozen or so occasions by individuals and groups, sometimes eating with them and he was the sort of person God, if he exists, might raise from the dead to vindicate his message and it fitted with Isaiah 53 written hundreds of years ago and so on and so forth.

So if the report said he had predicted it beforehand and the report went on to name all the individuals that had seen and ate with him (not around now, of course, to question them) you'd believe it.  I thought so.

[Alien]

...
I'm saying we don't even know if he existed. There are no non Christian sources for his existence. Very strange considering that this was God's most important message to mankind. You would have thought it would have had a mega impact as God declared it with all his power.

"We don't even know if he existed"? So you are a conspiracy theory man then.

We do have Tacitus who wrote of him, probably Suetonius too. Don't forget Pliny the Younger writing of him or Josephus.

So why do you think we have no non-Christian sources for his existence? We don't know where they got their information from; it might have been Christians, but what sources would you expect which would tell us about an itinerant Jewish preacher who you were either for (and became a Christian, some of whom wrote about him) or were against him (and, if in your power, had him crucified and wanted the whole thing to cease)?

[Alien]

Any other atheists got any comments on what has just been said there. Does it make no odds to you whether the Second World War happened or the invasion of Iraq or the Battle of Hastings or the fall of Communism?


These things are an interest to most of us, in order to learn lessons, but if we read that Mussolini was cut down three days after being hanged from a lamp post and was then seen eating and drinking with a number of people, we'd take it that the reporter had been drinking a little too much himself.

Unless you're name's Alan, of course!

Or unless it all fitted with what he had predicted beforehand and his body had disappeared and he was seen on a dozen or so occasions by individuals and groups, sometimes eating with them and he was the sort of person God, if he exists, might raise from the dead to vindicate his message and it fitted with Isaiah 53 written hundreds of years ago and so on and so forth.

So if the report said he had predicted it beforehand and the report went on to name all the individuals that had seen and ate with him (not around now, of course, to question them) you'd believe it.  I thought so.

You are missing out important stuff here? Why? It was Isaiah writing hundreds of years before and Matthew writing independently of Mark writing independently of Luke writing independently of John writing independently of Paul who wrote about his resurrection.

[cyberman]

Ah, Floo reaches her intellectual zenith!   

Which, fortunately for her, is considerably higher than yours.

Low-quality jibe there;  but then, there's no Shaker to prime you.

Are you claiming that your jibe was somehow high quality?

Does it look like he's claiming that?

>facepalm<

I do wish you'd learn to read, jeremyp!

[jjohnjil]

Any other atheists got any comments on what has just been said there. Does it make no odds to you whether the Second World War happened or the invasion of Iraq or the Battle of Hastings or the fall of Communism?


These things are an interest to most of us, in order to learn lessons, but if we read that Mussolini was cut down three days after being hanged from a lamp post and was then seen eating and drinking with a number of people, we'd take it that the reporter had been drinking a little too much himself.

Unless you're name's Alan, of course!

Or unless it all fitted with what he had predicted beforehand and his body had disappeared and he was seen on a dozen or so occasions by individuals and groups, sometimes eating with them and he was the sort of person God, if he exists, might raise from the dead to vindicate his message and it fitted with Isaiah 53 written hundreds of years ago and so on and so forth.

So if the report said he had predicted it beforehand and the report went on to name all the individuals that had seen and ate with him (not around now, of course, to question them) you'd believe it.  I thought so.

You are missing out important stuff here? Why? It was Isaiah writing hundreds of years before and Matthew writing independently of Mark writing independently of Luke writing independently of John writing independently of Paul who wrote about his resurrection.

How on earth can you claim that they were all written independently of each other!  Were they written at the same time?  Are you sure they never read anything that had been written before they wrote their accounts?  Are you certain that whoever compiled all the bible stories didn't have a hand in it?  How do know all the editing over the centuries hasn't managed to make them all reconcile with each other in those predictions?

To blandly tell me that it all happened in the way a 2000 year old book says it happened is a bit much for someone who is always going on about atheists asserting things!   

As for Isaiah's prediction, do you not think it's possible that they made Christ fit the prediction and not the other way around!

[Alien]

Any other atheists got any comments on what has just been said there. Does it make no odds to you whether the Second World War happened or the invasion of Iraq or the Battle of Hastings or the fall of Communism?


These things are an interest to most of us, in order to learn lessons, but if we read that Mussolini was cut down three days after being hanged from a lamp post and was then seen eating and drinking with a number of people, we'd take it that the reporter had been drinking a little too much himself.

Unless you're name's Alan, of course!

Or unless it all fitted with what he had predicted beforehand and his body had disappeared and he was seen on a dozen or so occasions by individuals and groups, sometimes eating with them and he was the sort of person God, if he exists, might raise from the dead to vindicate his message and it fitted with Isaiah 53 written hundreds of years ago and so on and so forth.

So if the report said he had predicted it beforehand and the report went on to name all the individuals that had seen and ate with him (not around now, of course, to question them) you'd believe it.  I thought so.

You are missing out important stuff here? Why? It was Isaiah writing hundreds of years before and Matthew writing independently of Mark writing independently of Luke writing independently of John writing independently of Paul who wrote about his resurrection.

How on earth can you claim that they were all written independently of each other!  Were they written at the same time?

No. It is generally thought amongst scholars that Mark was written first, then Matthew or Luke (probably Matthew) and lastly John. Paul very likely wrote 1 Corinthians 15 before any of them.

Are you sure they never read anything that had been written before they wrote their accounts?

No, not at all. I am not saying that. It is very likely that Matthew and Luke had read Mark and Luke may have read Matthew, but the resurrection accounts seem to be independent of each other. Have a read of them. It's part of the reason why people like JeremyP claim they are incompatible with each other.

  Are you certain that whoever compiled all the bible stories didn't have a hand in it?

A hand in what?

How do know all the editing over the centuries hasn't managed to make them all reconcile with each other in those predictions?

Because we are confident we can get back to the original text. Even Bart Ehrman says, "... the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament". Essential Christian beliefs certainly include the crucifixion and resurrection.

To blandly tell me that it all happened in the way a 2000 year old book says it happened is a bit much for someone who is always going on about atheists asserting things!   

Blandly? Why is it "a bit much"?

As for Isaiah's prediction, do you not think it's possible that they made Christ fit the prediction and not the other way around!

What? Managed to raise him from the dead just to fit Isaiah 53?

[Alien]

...

To blandly tell me that it all happened in the way a 2000 year old book says it happened is a bit much for someone who is always going on about atheists asserting things!   

Books. Plural.

[Nearly Sane]

Any other atheists got any comments on what has just been said there. Does it make no odds to you whether the Second World War happened or the invasion of Iraq or the Battle of Hastings or the fall of Communism?


These things are an interest to most of us, in order to learn lessons, but if we read that Mussolini was cut down three days after being hanged from a lamp post and was then seen eating and drinking with a number of people, we'd take it that the reporter had been drinking a little too much himself.

Unless you're name's Alan, of course!

Or unless it all fitted with what he had predicted beforehand and his body had disappeared and he was seen on a dozen or so occasions by individuals and groups, sometimes eating with them and he was the sort of person God, if he exists, might raise from the dead to vindicate his message and it fitted with Isaiah 53 written hundreds of years ago and so on and so forth.

So if the report said he had predicted it beforehand and the report went on to name all the individuals that had seen and ate with him (not around now, of course, to question them) you'd believe it.  I thought so.

You are missing out important stuff here? Why? It was Isaiah writing hundreds of years before and Matthew writing independently of Mark writing independently of Luke writing independently of John writing independently of Paul who wrote about his resurrection.

How on earth can you claim that they were all written independently of each other!  Were they written at the same time?

No. It is generally thought amongst scholars that Mark was written first, then Matthew or Luke (probably Matthew) and lastly John. Paul very likely wrote 1 Corinthians 15 before any of them.

Are you sure they never read anything that had been written before they wrote their accounts?

No, not at all. I am not saying that. It is very likely that Matthew and Luke had read Mark and Luke may have read Matthew, but the resurrection accounts seem to be independent of each other. Have a read of them. It's part of the reason why people like JeremyP claim they are incompatible with each other.

  Are you certain that whoever compiled all the bible stories didn't have a hand in it?

A hand in what?

How do know all the editing over the centuries hasn't managed to make them all reconcile with each other in those predictions?

Because we are confident we can get back to the original text. Even Bart Ehrman says, "... the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament". Essential Christian beliefs certainly include the crucifixion and resurrection.

To blandly tell me that it all happened in the way a 2000 year old book says it happened is a bit much for someone who is always going on about atheists asserting things!   

Blandly? Why is it "a bit much"?

As for Isaiah's prediction, do you not think it's possible that they made Christ fit the prediction and not the other way around!

What? Managed to raise him from the dead just to fit Isaiah 53?

Are you being disingenuous here in misunderstanding the point that you can 'adapt' things to fit predictions (that's leaving aside you presenting claims as facts again in your habitual lie)

[Alien]

...

As for Isaiah's prediction, do you not think it's possible that they made Christ fit the prediction and not the other way around!

What? Managed to raise him from the dead just to fit Isaiah 53?

Are you being disingenuous here in misunderstanding the point that you can 'adapt' things to fit predictions (that's leaving aside you presenting claims as facts again in your habitual lie)

Adapt things as in manage to raise Jesus from the dead or do you mean that the Isaiah text was adapted (despite us having an copy from before Jesus' time)? What are you saying might have been "adapted"?

[Gordon]

...

As for Isaiah's prediction, do you not think it's possible that they made Christ fit the prediction and not the other way around!

What? Managed to raise him from the dead just to fit Isaiah 53?

Are you being disingenuous here in misunderstanding the point that you can 'adapt' things to fit predictions (that's leaving aside you presenting claims as facts again in your habitual lie)

Adapt things as in manage to raise Jesus from the dead or do you mean that the Isaiah text was adapted (despite us having an copy from before Jesus' time)? What are you saying might have been "adapted"?

Alan

You aren't, I hope, dismissing the possibility that the NT stuff about Jesus was written so as to make it appear that 'prophecies' were 'fulfilled' - after all, propagandists on a mission can be quite devious you know! 

[floo]

...

As for Isaiah's prediction, do you not think it's possible that they made Christ fit the prediction and not the other way around!

What? Managed to raise him from the dead just to fit Isaiah 53?

Are you being disingenuous here in misunderstanding the point that you can 'adapt' things to fit predictions (that's leaving aside you presenting claims as facts again in your habitual lie)

Adapt things as in manage to raise Jesus from the dead or do you mean that the Isaiah text was adapted (despite us having an copy from before Jesus' time)? What are you saying might have been "adapted"?

Alan

You aren't, I hope, dismissing the possibility that the NT stuff about Jesus was written so as to make it appear that 'prophecies' were 'fulfilled' - after all, propagandists on a mission can be quite devious you know!

That would seem like the most obvious scenario, especially as the vast majority of Jews didn't, and don't, recognise Jesus as their promised 'messiah'.

[Dicky Underpants]

...

As for Isaiah's prediction, do you not think it's possible that they made Christ fit the prediction and not the other way around!

What? Managed to raise him from the dead just to fit Isaiah 53?

Are you being disingenuous here in misunderstanding the point that you can 'adapt' things to fit predictions (that's leaving aside you presenting claims as facts again in your habitual lie)

Adapt things as in manage to raise Jesus from the dead or do you mean that the Isaiah text was adapted (despite us having an copy from before Jesus' time)? What are you saying might have been "adapted"?

Well, the Jews still think the Suffering Servant refers to Israel (or a remnant of Israel) since "My Servant" is the way Israel is referred to throughout Isaiah. As for the NT's use of this chapter, in one of BA's favourite words, it's all a form of Midrash, conjured up by earnest evangelists who were deliberately looking for some OT prophecies which might predict the unfortunate end of their hero, whose sad demise they had not expected. The Isaiah prophecy says nothing about a bodily resurrection of a man, but more likely the promise of the rebirth of a people after great suffering.

[Alien]

...

As for Isaiah's prediction, do you not think it's possible that they made Christ fit the prediction and not the other way around!

What? Managed to raise him from the dead just to fit Isaiah 53?

Are you being disingenuous here in misunderstanding the point that you can 'adapt' things to fit predictions (that's leaving aside you presenting claims as facts again in your habitual lie)

Adapt things as in manage to raise Jesus from the dead or do you mean that the Isaiah text was adapted (despite us having an copy from before Jesus' time)? What are you saying might have been "adapted"?

Alan

You aren't, I hope, dismissing the possibility that the NT stuff about Jesus was written so as to make it appear that 'prophecies' were 'fulfilled' - after all, propagandists on a mission can be quite devious you know!

What? That they pretended that Jesus had died and was alive again? If so, then yes, because it does not fit in with what happened, i.e. individuals and groups believing they saw Jesus alive and well, thank you very much, on about a dozen occasions afterwards, that the tomb was empty and that they Christian church started up then.

Remember we need a coherent explanation for all that happened, not just bits of it.

[Alien]

...

As for Isaiah's prediction, do you not think it's possible that they made Christ fit the prediction and not the other way around!

What? Managed to raise him from the dead just to fit Isaiah 53?

Are you being disingenuous here in misunderstanding the point that you can 'adapt' things to fit predictions (that's leaving aside you presenting claims as facts again in your habitual lie)

Adapt things as in manage to raise Jesus from the dead or do you mean that the Isaiah text was adapted (despite us having an copy from before Jesus' time)? What are you saying might have been "adapted"?

Alan

You aren't, I hope, dismissing the possibility that the NT stuff about Jesus was written so as to make it appear that 'prophecies' were 'fulfilled' - after all, propagandists on a mission can be quite devious you know!

That would seem like the most obvious scenario, especially as the vast majority of Jews didn't, and don't, recognise Jesus as their promised 'messiah'.

Argumentum ad populum etc.

[Alien]

...

As for Isaiah's prediction, do you not think it's possible that they made Christ fit the prediction and not the other way around!

What? Managed to raise him from the dead just to fit Isaiah 53?

Are you being disingenuous here in misunderstanding the point that you can 'adapt' things to fit predictions (that's leaving aside you presenting claims as facts again in your habitual lie)

Adapt things as in manage to raise Jesus from the dead or do you mean that the Isaiah text was adapted (despite us having an copy from before Jesus' time)? What are you saying might have been "adapted"?

Well, the Jews still think the Suffering Servant refers to Israel (or a remnant of Israel) since "My Servant" is the way Israel is referred to throughout Isaiah.

Argument ad populum? Remember that lots of Jews (percentage unknown) did follow Jesus, but when Jews become Christians they usually get assimilated into what is basically a Gentile church, though is not always the case now.

As for the NT's use of this chapter, in one of BA's favourite words, it's all a form of Midrash,

Why do you think this is Midrash? On what basis have you come to this conclusion? What are your sources?

conjured up by earnest evangelists who were deliberately looking for some OT prophecies which might predict the unfortunate end of their hero, whose sad demise they had not expected. The Isaiah prophecy says nothing about a bodily resurrection of a man, but more likely the promise of the rebirth of a people after great suffering.

You may find some of the points at http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-suffering-servant-and-isaiah-53-a-conversation-with-darrell-bock worth looking at, including where he shows Isaiah 53 cannot refer to the people of Israel, e.g. how can the people of Israel be cut off from the people of Israel (53: and how could the nation die (53:11)?

[Nearly Sane]

...

As for Isaiah's prediction, do you not think it's possible that they made Christ fit the prediction and not the other way around!

What? Managed to raise him from the dead just to fit Isaiah 53?

Are you being disingenuous here in misunderstanding the point that you can 'adapt' things to fit predictions (that's leaving aside you presenting claims as facts again in your habitual lie)

Adapt things as in manage to raise Jesus from the dead or do you mean that the Isaiah text was adapted (despite us having an copy from before Jesus' time)? What are you saying might have been "adapted"?

Neither of the parts of the false dichotomy, you have presented here, are a sensible interpretation of adaptation? Are you being deliberately disingenuous or does English and History really work that differently in your world? I struggle with the second as a possibility since you must surely have read enough challenges not Isaiah as being fulfilled (apart from it not really reading as a prediction) to understand what 'adapt' would mean?

Perhaps I am wrong and you miss that additions to anything ok by that happened May be by a creation to tie in with a reading of Isaiah. On which btw claiming that the gospel accounts are independent of Isaiah is not even wrong. You really should stop casually abusing terms such as independent.

[Gordon]

...

As for Isaiah's prediction, do you not think it's possible that they made Christ fit the prediction and not the other way around!

What? Managed to raise him from the dead just to fit Isaiah 53?

Are you being disingenuous here in misunderstanding the point that you can 'adapt' things to fit predictions (that's leaving aside you presenting claims as facts again in your habitual lie)

Adapt things as in manage to raise Jesus from the dead or do you mean that the Isaiah text was adapted (despite us having an copy from before Jesus' time)? What are you saying might have been "adapted"?

Alan

You aren't, I hope, dismissing the possibility that the NT stuff about Jesus was written so as to make it appear that 'prophecies' were 'fulfilled' - after all, propagandists on a mission can be quite devious you know!

What? That they pretended that Jesus had died and was alive again? If so, then yes, because it does not fit in with what happened, i.e. individuals and groups believing they saw Jesus alive and well, thank you very much, on about a dozen occasions afterwards, that the tomb was empty and that they Christian church started up then.

Remember we need a coherent explanation for all that happened, not just bits of it.

That the whole story in fictional propaganda is a perfectly coherent explanation where both exaggerating and adding fictitious claims for effect are surely par for the course: so, all this stuff you keep citing about so and so seeing Jesus later would be trivially easy to add and and also fit with the desired portrayal of Jesus for future consumption.

I'm struggling why you are sticking limpet-like to these NT claims as if they were facts: and they can't be considered as being likely facts, and especially give the supernatural elements involved, until the risk of propaganda has been properly addressed.       

[Alien]

...

As for Isaiah's prediction, do you not think it's possible that they made Christ fit the prediction and not the other way around!

What? Managed to raise him from the dead just to fit Isaiah 53?

Are you being disingenuous here in misunderstanding the point that you can 'adapt' things to fit predictions (that's leaving aside you presenting claims as facts again in your habitual lie)

Adapt things as in manage to raise Jesus from the dead or do you mean that the Isaiah text was adapted (despite us having an copy from before Jesus' time)? What are you saying might have been "adapted"?

Neither of the parts of the false dichotomy, you have presented here, are a sensible interpretation of adaptation? Are you being deliberately disingenuous or does English and History really work that differently in your world? I struggle with the second as a possibility since you must surely have read enough challenges not Isaiah as being fulfilled (apart from it not really reading as a prediction) to understand what 'adapt' would mean?

Perhaps I am wrong and you miss that additions to anything ok by that happened May be by a creation to tie in with a reading of Isaiah. On which btw claiming that the gospel accounts are independent of Isaiah is not even wrong. You really should stop casually abusing terms such as independent.

Since I am struggling to understand what you mean between the predictive text errors and your insults, perhaps you would be kind enough to explain clearly in English what you mean having checked that predictive text has not screwed up your text before sending it.

[Alien]

...

That the whole story in fictional propaganda is a perfectly coherent explanation where both exaggerating and adding fictitious claims for effect are surely par for the course: so, all this stuff you keep citing about so and so seeing Jesus later would be trivially easy to add and and also fit with the desired portrayal of Jesus for future consumption.

I'm struggling why you are sticking limpet-like to these NT claims as if they were facts: and they can't be considered as being likely facts, and especially give the supernatural elements involved, until the risk of propaganda has been properly addressed.     

So are you really of the opinion that the Christian church was founded on propaganda which said that Jesus had died when he hadn't, that he was seen on about a dozen occasions alive and well afterwards, that the tomb (if he had died) was not really empty and that people then endured persecution and sometimes death to spread this propaganda. What would have been their motive? How did they manage to convince everyone?

[jeremyp]

Ah, Floo reaches her intellectual zenith!   

Which, fortunately for her, is considerably higher than yours.

Low-quality jibe there;  but then, there's no Shaker to prime you.

Are you claiming that your jibe was somehow high quality?

No, I'm not. You are just looking for an argument.

Is that the five minutes or the full half hour?

[jeremyp]

Or unless it all fitted with what he had predicted beforehand

You mean what he is said to have predicted beforehand in stories that were written after the event.

and his body had disappeared and he was seen on a dozen or so occasions by individuals and groups, sometimes eating with them and he was the sort of person God

... according to some stories.

if he exists, might raise from the dead to vindicate his message and it fitted with Isaiah 53 written hundreds of years ago and so on and so forth.

According to some stories that use a retrospective interpretation.

[jeremyp]

So independent witnesses (at least 5, we count only the writers)

This is a lie.

Documents are not independent if they all rely on the same source.  At least three of the four gospels are interdependent and all four are written long enough after the fact that we can't be sure that they don't all have the same source (of unknown providence) for the crucifixion and resurrection. 

but at least a dozen if we count the people who claimed to have seen Jesus)

You mean the people who are claimed to have seen Jesus.  We really only have Paul's word for it, and apart from one or two instances, he is very vague about who these people were.

[Gordon]

...

That the whole story in fictional propaganda is a perfectly coherent explanation where both exaggerating and adding fictitious claims for effect are surely par for the course: so, all this stuff you keep citing about so and so seeing Jesus later would be trivially easy to add and and also fit with the desired portrayal of Jesus for future consumption.

I'm struggling why you are sticking limpet-like to these NT claims as if they were facts: and they can't be considered as being likely facts, and especially give the supernatural elements involved, until the risk of propaganda has been properly addressed.     

So are you really of the opinion that the Christian church was founded on propaganda which said that Jesus had died when he hadn't, that he was seen on about a dozen occasions alive and well afterwards, that the tomb (if he had died) was not really empty and that people then endured persecution and sometimes death to spread this propaganda. What would have been their motive? How did they manage to convince everyone?

That the whole story is fictional propaganda is a perfectly coherent explanation where both exaggerating and adding fictitious claims for effect are surely par for the course: so, all this stuff you keep citing about so and so seeing Jesus later would be trivially easy to add and and also fit with the desired portrayal of Jesus for future consumption. Credulous people, in times when religiosity was the norm, would be easily convinced (just as easily as today). 

I'm struggling with why you are sticking limpet-like to these NT claims as if they were facts: and they can't be considered as being likely facts, and especially given the supernatural elements involved, until the risk of propaganda has been properly addressed. That it is in part, or in total, propaganda is a clear risk.

[Alien]

Or unless it all fitted with what he had predicted beforehand

You mean what he is said to have predicted beforehand in stories that were written after the event.

Yes, so the question is whether they are correct in their reporting.

and his body had disappeared and he was seen on a dozen or so occasions by individuals and groups, sometimes eating with them and he was the sort of person God

... according to some stories.

Yes, so the question is whether they are correct in their reporting.

if he exists, might raise from the dead to vindicate his message and it fitted with Isaiah 53 written hundreds of years ago and so on and so forth.

According to some stories that use a retrospective interpretation.

Yes, so the question is whether they are correct in their interpretation.

[Alien]

So independent witnesses (at least 5, we count only the writers)

This is a lie.

No, it isn't. For it to be a lie it would need to be a false statement and intentionally so.

Documents are not independent if they all rely on the same source.  At least three of the four gospels are interdependent

If you read what I have been saying, I have readily accepted that the general view of relevant scholars is that Mark came first and Matthew and Luke had access to it. I am not arguing anything to the contrary. What I am saying is that the crucifixion and resurrection accounts are independent. Heck, you yourself argue that the accounts are incompatible!

and all four are written long enough after the fact that we can't be sure that they don't all have the same source (of unknown providence) for the crucifixion and resurrection.

So what would this unknown source be Q²?

but at least a dozen if we count the people who claimed to have seen Jesus)

You mean the people who are claimed to have seen Jesus.

Yes, so the question is did those people actually claim to have seen Jesus?

  We really only have Paul's word for it, and apart from one or two instances, he is very vague about who these people were.

No, we don't. We also have Matthew, Mark (ish), Luke and John's word for it. There are accounts of the resurrection in the gospels, you know.