The Case For Christ - A defence of Lee Strobel's 1998 apologetic book

[Atheos]

You mean because they were written in Koine Greek?

Most of the New Testament books were originally written in Koine Greek but the Septuagint (Old Testament) was a Koine Greek translation of older Hebrew and Aramaic texts.

It is likely that the Christ myth is a syncretic mixture of Judaism with Greek (and Roman) elements. Having Jesus turn water into wine makes little sense in a religion that generally frowns on consumption of wine. But having Jesus demonstrate his power over an area typically thought of as the domain of Bacchus/Dionysius causes it to make perfect sense. The followers of Jesus did not want Jesus to have to play second fiddle to any of the commonly-accepted gods of the day.

Justin Martyr makes a note of the many similarities of the Christ myth with Greek and Roman myths, and even theorizes that demons foresaw what Jesus was going to do (by reading the scriptures) and purposefully inspired developers of Greek and Roman myths to write about similar stories about their gods to detract from the significance of what Jesus did.

 

[Ruth Harris]

Having Jesus turn water into wine makes little sense in a religion that generally frowns on consumption of wine.

Not true. Wine was widely used in Judaism, both as a regular beverage and as part of their rituals. This verse is only one example.

Ruth

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Having Jesus turn water into wine makes little sense in a religion that generally frowns on consumption of wine.

Not true. Wine was widely used in Judaism, both as a regular beverage and as part of their rituals. This verse is only one example.

Ruth

Actually, that example is about tithing and drinking the wine in a tithing/ceremonial sense. The verse in context:

Deuteronomy 14:22 Be sure to set aside a tenth of all that your fields produce each year. 23 Eat the tithe of your grain, new wine and olive oil, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks in the presence of the Lord your God at the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name, so that you may learn to revere the Lord your God always. 24 But if that place is too distant and you have been blessed by the Lord your God and cannot carry your tithe (because the place where the Lord will choose to put his Name is so far away), 25 then exchange your tithe for silver, and take the silver with you and go to the place the Lord your God will choose. 26 Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the Lord your God and rejoice.

 

[Ruth Harris]

Actually, that example is about tithing and drinking the wine in a tithing/ceremonial sense. The verse in context:

Deuteronomy 14:22 Be sure to set aside a tenth of all that your fields produce each year. 23 Eat the tithe of your grain, new wine and olive oil, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks in the presence of the Lord your God at the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name, so that you may learn to revere the Lord your God always. 24 But if that place is too distant and you have been blessed by the Lord your God and cannot carry your tithe (because the place where the Lord will choose to put his Name is so far away), 25 then exchange your tithe for silver, and take the silver with you and go to the place the Lord your God will choose. 26 Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the Lord your God and rejoice.

Which is why I included ritual use of wine in my post. This verse provides an example of regular beverage use as part of one of David's psalms of praise to God. There are numerous verses which make it clear that wine use was not considered forbidden or a bad thing to ancient Jews. Drunkenness was condemned; typical wine consumption was not.

Ruth

 

[Atheos]

I disagree with this because of the context in which John 3 presents this miracle. It's as part of a wedding celebration and clearly the guests have been drinking long enough to have run out of wine. The "governor" also states after the miracle wine appears (which he doesn't know about the miracle part) that ordinarily they serve the best wine first and then after the guests have well drunk (implying that they're inebriated enough not to know the difference) out comes the poorer quality wine. He notes that this wine is of superior quality than the wine they've run out of.

One can spin this all they want to, but by the time this miracle was needed they were way past the "little wine for the stomach's sake" point. The miracle makes sense as a late addition by Christians wanting to one-up their home town hero-god since Bacchus / Dionysus was commonly accepted as the god of wine. It does not make sense that it would have been overlooked by the synoptic writers if it was truly the first miracle Jesus wrought, and it stands in stark contrast to most of the miracles performed by Jesus. Like walking on storm-tossed water demonstrated power over the sea (Poseidon's domain) but otherwise served no noble purpose, this miracle simply demonstrates that "My god is better than your god."

 

[Ruth Harris]

You are talking about two different things here. Jesus was a Jew and held the typical Jewish beliefs regarding wine consumption - and they were not "a religion that generally frowns on consumption of wine". And "well drunk" does not necessarily mean "drunken". Most wine drinkers will tell you that after a certain point, the palate cannot easily differentiate between good and poor wine, well before the point of being intoxicated. The entire point of this story about the miracle at Cana was that the wine created by Jesus was so spectacularly good that even those who had been drinking enough to affect the palate could tell it was good.

Now if you want to talk about the Christian view of wine consumption, that is an entirely different story.

Ruth

 

[funinspace]

Wine is even one of the very few things about the purported heaven that will be part of the package deal.

 

[Atheos]

I never said that Jews typically frowned on wine consumption, but it would appear that Christians did. It was Christians who wrote the gospel narratives and "John" was written so late in the process that oral traditions are far more likely to have borne a strong influence on the stories.

You're arguing this as if there was a stenographer taking notes at this Jewish wedding. There wasn't.

I seriously doubt that any of this happened. The gospels are themselves in contradiction about whether it did. GMark claims that "immediately" after being baptized by John the Baptist Jesus was driven into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil and was there for 40 days. GJohn says that 3 days after being baptized by JtB Jesus was at this alleged wedding in Cana. They could both be wrong but they can't both be right.

Christians were very much controlling the narrative by the time GJohn was composed.

 

[Ruth Harris]

You originally stated that "the Christ myth is a syncretic mixture of Judaism with Greek (and Roman) elements". I understood you to be saying that the following statements were also applicable to these elements, since Christianity was not an element at that point in time since it did not yet exist. My apologies if I misunderstood what you were saying.

But you are still incorrect as far as wine consumption is concerned in early Christianity. The new belief was heavily based on standard Judaic beliefs, held many of the same precepts, and followers called themselves a member of "The Way" but still considered themselves Jewish instead of thinking they were an entirely new religion. It was not until centuries later that some Christians took the view that abstention was the only correct position, long after the Bible as it exists today was completed. This was not a commonly held view until the Protestant based religions pushed prohibitionist stances in the 19th century.

Ruth

 

[Atheos]

I didn't mean to move the goalposts but I suppose I did. That was not my intention. I believe the Christ myth is the product of syncretic mixing of Judaism and Greek/Roman elements. It is also possible that there are historical components to the myth/legend but it is difficult to know this with any degree of certainty.

I would agree that had GJohn been composed before Christianity had been evolving for nearly a century the influence of Judaism would have been a much more binding element in its composition. But Christianity was (and remains) a moving target, evolving rapidly. It would be a short-sighted analysis indeed were one to ignore the developing doctrines and context of existing (competing) mythology as the scriptures that would eventually form its canon were being formed. Many gospels did not make the cut.

Also, I do not agree with your impression that Christianity was on-the-whole tolerant of drinking wine. I don't care to get into a drawn-out debate about this since it would be a massive derail of this thread. I'll only point out Romans 14:21 which indicates that some Christians were so sensitive to the issue of wine consumption that the writer suggests avoiding it altogether to avoid causing them to stumble. I do readily admit that the bible is completely unclear on this subject. Very similar to what one might garner from its teachings about human trafficking.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I disagree with this because of the context in which John 3 presents this miracle. It's as part of a wedding celebration and clearly the guests have been drinking long enough to have run out of wine. The "governor" also states after the miracle wine appears (which he doesn't know about the miracle part) that ordinarily they serve the best wine first and then after the guests have well drunk (implying that they're inebriated enough not to know the difference) out comes the poorer quality wine. He notes that this wine is of superior quality than the wine they've run out of.

One can spin this all they want to, but by the time this miracle was needed they were way past the "little wine for the stomach's sake" point. The miracle makes sense as a late addition by Christians wanting to one-up their home town hero-god since Bacchus / Dionysus was commonly accepted as the god of wine. It does not make sense that it would have been overlooked by the synoptic writers if it was truly the first miracle Jesus wrought, and it stands in stark contrast to most of the miracles performed by Jesus. Like walking on storm-tossed water demonstrated power over the sea (Poseidon's domain) but otherwise served no noble purpose, this miracle simply demonstrates that "My god is better than your god."

That is very revealing. Thank-you for the education.

 

[steve_bank]

Yje son of god uses his powers to make wine at a party. Of all the things he could do. Is this another side of Jesus as the social butterfly?

 

[Learner]

Possibly Jesus was merely following a happy good will tradition:


Psalms 104:15.


“And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart.”

 

[Horatio Parker]

Classically, wine represents spirit.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Classically, wine represents spirit.

But biblically, 'spirit' is breath. Spirit enters the body with first breath.
If you breathe in intoxicating spirits, you choke and die.
And the spirit leaves your body. Exceot for the lethal stuff that's kinda stuvvk there, now.

 

[ruby sparks]

Imo, whether the ‘wine story’ in the NT is true, based on something but exaggerated, or is a later fiction, tells us virtually nothing, in any case, about whether Jesus existed or not.

 

[Learner]

Jesus must have healed a few ailments at that wedding.

The study, published in the journal of agricultural and food chemistry, found that the compounds found in wine kill 99.9% of dental bacteria and germs that cause sore throats – so if you’re coming down with a cold, a medicinal tipple could actually help ward it off. ‘Several studies suggest that moderate wine consumption has beneficial effects on human health,’ wrote the study authors. ‘The antioxidant and antiradical properties, particularly of red wine, attributed mainly to a high polyphenol content, appear to protect against the risk of coronary heart disease and cancer.

(Apologies off topic)

 

[skepticalbip]

Yje son of god uses his powers to make wine at a party. Of all the things he could do. Is this another side of Jesus as the social butterfly?

Apparently so. To bring it up to date, Jesus would be like the guy that brings the extra keg for the frat party.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Imo, whether the ‘wine story’ in the NT is true, based on something but exaggerated, or is a later fiction, tells us virtually nothing, in any case, about whether Jesus existed or not.

The gospel protagonist's miracle-making snippets are all over the place, no particular theme or modus operandi. That tells me "fiction," even aside from the fact that such feats are impossible and that the tales are all written in third-person omniscient.

 

[ruby sparks]

Imo, whether the ‘wine story’ in the NT is true, based on something but exaggerated, or is a later fiction, tells us virtually nothing, in any case, about whether Jesus existed or not.

The gospel protagonist's miracle-making snippets are all over the place, no particular theme or modus operandi. That tells me "fiction," even aside from the fact that such feats are impossible and that the tales are all written in third-person omniscient.

It can 'tell you' anything you think it does. It just doesn't help to clear anything up in any objective way.

Maybe he existed, maybe he didn't. No one can tell which. In the end, there's no reliable way to tell the difference between stories that were made up about a Jesus who existed and stories that were made up about a Jesus who didn't.

I say that after having spent far, far too much time looking into it and reading about it and discussing it on the internet.

And I have changed my own opinion on the likelihoods either way a few times.

For the record, I'm currently sitting at 'more likely existed than not'.