The New Testament as a guide for living for atheists

[James Brown]

Jesus and his apologists could give Obi-Wan Kenobi logic lessons.

"Whaddya mean, 'from a certain point of view?'!!"

 

[steve_bank]

Were are watching Learner spin theology and interpretation out of the sparse words in the gospels before our very eyes.

 

[Learner]

Were are watching Learner spin theology and interpretation out of the sparse words in the gospels before our very eyes.

Sparse words lol. Yes indeed, sparse words and what interpretations we have had from posters. Mine is more of interest to you of course.

 

[Learner]

Jesus and his apologists could give Obi-Wan Kenobi logic lessons.

"Whaddya mean, 'from a certain point of view?'!!"

I understand the view of the non-Jesus apologist in the discussion. The view of desperation... from the dark side .

 

[steve_bank]

Were are watching Learner spin theology and interpretation out of the sparse words in the gospels before our very eyes.

Sparse words lol. Yes indeed, sparse words and what interpretations we have had from posters. Mine is more of interest to you of course.

Yes very sparse. A few sound bites as we would say today from someone called Jesus.

Compared to say Buddhism or even Islam Jesus left no structured theology, and why would he. From the story he was a wondering Jewish rabbi/prophet preaching to the Jews the OT, the Jewish prophets, and Mosaic Law.

As Jewish prophets appear to have been depicted in the OT, Jesus would not have been anything new in Jewish culture. Aside from the supernatural son of god narrative.

As I see it in the geopolitics of the day he would have been telling his fellow Jews to get their act together or face destruction, by Rome. It was not about the end of the world at large, it was about Israel as a state. Insurrection was in the air in Israel.

What you have as Christianity comes largely form the long history of the RCC, which is as has been pointed out is a mix of various pagan influences. Rituals.

As I lie to say, if yiu want to be a follower of Jesus live in accorcnce with Jewish rules, like keeping kosher.

Nothing fundamentally wrong with that, but if you want to follow in the footsteps of Jesus they are Jewish footsteps.

There is certainly irony in that anti semetic Christians are themselves followers of ab ancient Jew.

 

[DBT]

Jesus and his apologists could give Obi-Wan Kenobi logic lessons.

"Whaddya mean, 'from a certain point of view?'!!"

I understand the view of the non-Jesus apologist in the discussion. The view of desperation... from the dark side .

Here are descriptions of the event;

“For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds.

And here is the time frame for that event;

Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“ (Matthew 16: 27, 28)

And here:

“Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then He will send forth the angels, and will gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of heaven. Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. Even so, you too, when you see these things happening, recognize that He is near, right at the door.

And when is this to happen?

Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place…“ (Mark 13:26-30)

Who is to see this happen?

And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.

And when is this to happen?

''Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.“ (Matthew 24: 25-34)

 

[Rhea]

As I've said before, you seem to have no idea how literature was transmitted in that time and place. The entire Talmud was entirely oral for centuries before and after the time of the composition of the New Testament, yet no one hesitates to quote Hillel.

I can understand why you'd dodge my post.
Again.

I don't claim to know, for sure, if there even was a Jesus of Nazareth. I think it most plausible that He did exist. But confidently asserting that "He said...", with so little corroboration, looks entirely like self indulgent arrogance to me.
Tom

Here is Constantin Brunner on the reliability of the New Testament:

It is astounding enough that people such as these were able to hand on such words. They were homines sine litteris et idiotae (Acts 4:13), ignorant and limited ammé haaretz; this is how I see them, in spite of the critics; they were genuinely inadequate and lacking in understanding. Genius did not descend upon them, nor was it parcelled out among them. Yet, because of their involvement and their memory—and memory, at that time and under those conditions, had an entirely different role, use and power (cf. p. 177)—these so imperfect people were able to repeat these words so perfectly that thought and its expression are never in conflict, that the magnificent content is not diminished nor the cutting edge dulled. Thus they repeated the spoken words which have had an incomparably greater effect than all the other written words of the world taken together, and which have shaped mankind's history more powerfully than the elemental forces of nature. With very few exceptions, these words are the words of Christ; and as far as the words of Christ are concerned, the evangelists are as entirely reliable as they are in regard to their portrayal of Christ's character, which is inseparable from these words. All this must have been possible; these ammé haaretz must have handed it all down—otherwise it would not be there. Soon, of course, the principal words, sayings and parables were written down by those who could write, but who were evidently no more gifted intellectually than those who carried out the oral transmission. For the books are not called the Gospel of Matthew, of Mark, etc., but the Gospel according to Matthew, according to Mark, κατα Ματθαιον, Μαρκον etc. (which could imply that the title was added later by others, but with the purpose of showing that Matthew, Mark, etc., were the original authors). These chief sayings of Christ (λογια κυριακα) which were first to be written down formed a nucleus around which elements of genuine tradition, along with additions, crystallized, forming what we now have as the New Testament, a whole branch of the Jewish literature in the time. Compared with the rabbinic literature in which practically all the sap had gone into the leaves, this branch of am haaretz literature was heavy with luscious fruits. So we must not always be criticizing these men for the inadequacy of their transmission; rather, we should be astonished and praise them for so faithfully having kept these words in their purity. What critic or expert among us—quite apart from the fact that he would have neither the taste, the sense of truth, nor (least of all) the will for such a task—which of our experts would be able to reproduce such spoken words in all their greatness?! These fishermen, tax-collectors, sinners and harlots, however, were not as limited as our experts, and thus they deserve the greater glory which they enjoy in the world. They had not been fattened up on an erudite diet, they lacked the limitation imposed by specialization; unlike the experts, they had no self-erected fence in front of their eyes to obstruct their vision.

Attempts by the reactionary curmudgeons to cast doubt on the reliability of the New Testament in order to somehow vitiate its power is nothing but vanity.

What an astonishing quote.

He says (I assume this is a he), that they are all dumb as rocks but “repeated the words perfectly.”

And you don’t think to even ask, “now how in the name of reason does he know that?” There’s no recording of the first one, he has NO CLUE WHATSOEVER that anyone repeated anythign perfectly.

You believe that claim? But, why? On what basis? Not evidence, surely.


Then he goes on to say, it must have been handed down otherwise it would not be there.

And you don’t think to ask, “were there no story tellers of that time? No embellishers? No fabricators?” Does every book that claims a diaogue get the same treatment of uncritical belief? The story of Gilgamesh must be true in all it’s forms? The story of the trickster coyote and blood clot boy are true as well?


This is such a fanboy passage it’s comical.

 

[No Robots]

As I've said before, you seem to have no idea how literature was transmitted in that time and place. The entire Talmud was entirely oral for centuries before and after the time of the composition of the New Testament, yet no one hesitates to quote Hillel.

I can understand why you'd dodge my post.
Again.

I don't claim to know, for sure, if there even was a Jesus of Nazareth. I think it most plausible that He did exist. But confidently asserting that "He said...", with so little corroboration, looks entirely like self indulgent arrogance to me.
Tom

Here is Constantin Brunner on the reliability of the New Testament:

It is astounding enough that people such as these were able to hand on such words. They were homines sine litteris et idiotae (Acts 4:13), ignorant and limited ammé haaretz; this is how I see them, in spite of the critics; they were genuinely inadequate and lacking in understanding. Genius did not descend upon them, nor was it parcelled out among them. Yet, because of their involvement and their memory—and memory, at that time and under those conditions, had an entirely different role, use and power (cf. p. 177)—these so imperfect people were able to repeat these words so perfectly that thought and its expression are never in conflict, that the magnificent content is not diminished nor the cutting edge dulled. Thus they repeated the spoken words which have had an incomparably greater effect than all the other written words of the world taken together, and which have shaped mankind's history more powerfully than the elemental forces of nature. With very few exceptions, these words are the words of Christ; and as far as the words of Christ are concerned, the evangelists are as entirely reliable as they are in regard to their portrayal of Christ's character, which is inseparable from these words. All this must have been possible; these ammé haaretz must have handed it all down—otherwise it would not be there. Soon, of course, the principal words, sayings and parables were written down by those who could write, but who were evidently no more gifted intellectually than those who carried out the oral transmission. For the books are not called the Gospel of Matthew, of Mark, etc., but the Gospel according to Matthew, according to Mark, κατα Ματθαιον, Μαρκον etc. (which could imply that the title was added later by others, but with the purpose of showing that Matthew, Mark, etc., were the original authors). These chief sayings of Christ (λογια κυριακα) which were first to be written down formed a nucleus around which elements of genuine tradition, along with additions, crystallized, forming what we now have as the New Testament, a whole branch of the Jewish literature in the time. Compared with the rabbinic literature in which practically all the sap had gone into the leaves, this branch of am haaretz literature was heavy with luscious fruits. So we must not always be criticizing these men for the inadequacy of their transmission; rather, we should be astonished and praise them for so faithfully having kept these words in their purity. What critic or expert among us—quite apart from the fact that he would have neither the taste, the sense of truth, nor (least of all) the will for such a task—which of our experts would be able to reproduce such spoken words in all their greatness?! These fishermen, tax-collectors, sinners and harlots, however, were not as limited as our experts, and thus they deserve the greater glory which they enjoy in the world. They had not been fattened up on an erudite diet, they lacked the limitation imposed by specialization; unlike the experts, they had no self-erected fence in front of their eyes to obstruct their vision.

Attempts by the reactionary curmudgeons to cast doubt on the reliability of the New Testament in order to somehow vitiate its power is nothing but vanity.

What an astonishing quote.

He says (I assume this is a he), that they are all dumb as rocks but “repeated the words perfectly.”

And you don’t think to even ask, “now how in the name of reason does he know that?” There’s no recording of the first one, he has NO CLUE WHATSOEVER that anyone repeated anythign perfectly.

You believe that claim? But, why? On what basis? Not evidence, surely.


Then he goes on to say, it must have been handed down otherwise it would not be there.

And you don’t think to ask, “were there no story tellers of that time? No embellishers? No fabricators?” Does every book that claims a diaogue get the same treatment of uncritical belief? The story of Gilgamesh must be true in all it’s forms? The story of the trickster coyote and blood clot boy are true as well?


This is such a fanboy passage it’s comical.

Brunner knows what it meant to live in that time and place, the importance of memory and faithful recital.

What is comical is that the reactionary curmudgeons still think that chucking dust into the eyes of those who can read and understand the New Testament will somehow stop them from using Christ's words to transform life on this planet.

 

[No Robots]

Atheist reactionaries hoped to bury the Bible, but the Bible instead has buried them, just as it has always buried its opponents. Radical atheism embraces the Bible and deploys its power to propel the Earth into a golden age.

 

[steve_bank]

Weak attempt at turning the table. Some would like to bury the holy bable.

For those like me we want the babble out of out faces and out of our lives. We do not want it taught in schools.

Christians who oppose abortion claim it is what god wants. Don't see that in the holy bable. In fact I believe the ancient Hebrews allowed abortion up to a certain point.

The fact is Christians have always needed an enemy to focus on. Atheists are a convienemodern foil. Lacking an enemy historically Christians turn on each other.

The words pf Jesus? How about pray meditae in povate, don't wear your faith on your sleeve as hypocrites fo.

I wish Christians would take these words to heart.

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.
6
But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
7
And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.
8
Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

 

[No Robots]

Weak? How weak is it to pretend to fight Christianity by pretending that the Bible has no truth, no power? In the New World Order, schools will teach only the Bible. Everything else will be left to parents and employers.

 

[TomC]

Atheist reactionaries hoped to bury the Bible, but the Bible instead has buried them, just as it has always buried its opponents. Radical atheism embraces the Bible and deploys its power to propel the Earth into a golden age.

Who are these "atheist reactionaries" you refer to? The Popes? King James? Queen Isabella? Creflo Dollar? Trump?

Secularism(which is not atheistic) brought us Secular Humanism. It's a vast improvement over the morals and ethics of The Bible.
Tom

 

[No Robots]

Who are these "atheist reactionaries" you refer to? The Popes? King James? Queen Isabella? Creflo Dollar? Trump?

All the atheists, like you, who try to dismiss the truth and power of the Bible. New atheism has become the ultimate reactionary sect.

Secularism(which is not atheistic) brought us Secular Humanism. It's a vast improvement over the morals and ethics of The Bible.
Tom

Exactly, not atheist. Humanism is Bible-based. Reactionary atheism wants a humanism divorced from the Bible. What they create is a neo-conservative hellscape.

 

[steve_bank]

I am not fighting Christianity in te sme of Chryoanity as an enemy to be defeted.

I oppose religion when it infringes on my right to free of religion of to be free of religious coersion in any form.

Christianity labels atheists as inherently immoral, even satanic.

It is Christianity that is obsessed with convincing others of their faith, and presume a god given mandate to convert others.

As I said, practice whet Jesus says. Pray in private and don't wear your foth on your sleeve for show...right?

 

[TomC]

All the atheists, like you, who try to dismiss the truth and power of the Bible.

I'm not an atheist.
I've said so many times. It's on my screen thingy. "Agnostic deist".

What I don't believe in is religion. I believe that there is far more to reality than humans know about, or can know about. Religious organizations and mystics don't. I do have a ton of evidence on that assertion.

What I find ridiculous is people like you claiming to know more about reality than I do, while dodging simple questions.

I believe in Jesus. It's you and your compadres I find appalling.
Tom

 

[No Robots]

I believe in Jesus.

How is that possible when you deny that the Bible authentically records anything he said or did? Hypocrisy.

 

[TomC]

I believe in Jesus.

How is that possible when you deny that the Bible authentically records anything he said or did? Hypocrisy.

No it isn't hypocrisy.
I also believe in Santa Claus.

I believe Jesus is an anthropomorphized version of some beautiful stuff, given the time and place He lived and died.

But yeah, I believe in Jesus more than most Christian people around here do. It's people like you and the christianists I don't believe in.
Tom

 

[James Brown]

I'm not sure why I should read the New Testament for wisdom, when I'm told that oral transmission is so superior. What a pity that people stopped orally transmitting their religious ideas and instead wrote everything down. Major step backwards, no?

Perhaps that's why this New World Order Judaism has failed to accomplish anything in two millennia, because they stopped reciting at each other and just started reading.

Oh well, I guess that's that.

 

[No Robots]

I also believe in Santa Claus.

I believe Jesus is an anthropomorphized version of some beautiful stuff, given the time and place He lived and died.

But yeah, I believe in Jesus more than most Christian people around here do. It's people like you and the christianists I don't believe in.
Tom

Well, you can tell all that to the militia when it comes by handing out pink stars. Good luck.

 

[No Robots]

I'm not sure why I should read the New Testament for wisdom, when I'm told that oral transmission is so superior. What a pity that people stopped orally transmitting their religious ideas and instead wrote everything down. Major step backwards, no?

Perhaps that's why this New World Order Judaism has failed to accomplish anything in two millennia, because they stopped reciting at each other and just started reading.

Oh well, I guess that's that.

How very racist, making fun of oral culture. Good times in the alt-right today.