Coronavirus Brought Back the Messiah
I've heard that at debates between Christian and atheists the atheist debater often asks the Christian, "Tell us what the messiah will look like and how we will know absolutely for certain it is the messiah and not an impostor." The Christian has said the faith teaches the return as an absolute truth but is unable to describe in anything but vague Medieval language how we will know the "messiah."
An Israeli official announced the messiah would return by Passover and cure the coronavirus. Passover came and went, no messiah. But, there is still hope. The messiah showed up somewhere else and people have actually talked to him.
The link is to a Christian talk show host who warns us neither the Jewish messiah nor the Muslim are the "real" messiahs. They are impostors, he warns. He goes on to say we must wait for the real one. Like those who defend Christianity in debates, he cannot tell us how we are to differentiate between the fake and real Christian messiahs.
The talk show host does not mention a view which apparently is popular in some circles, that President Trump is the messiah. If Trump were to claim that forcefully Christians would be obligated to believe him. They believed it when Jesus supposedly made the same claim. What basis do they have to deny what someone claims about him/herself?
We can bet that Jews, Christians and probably Muslims would disagree among themselves about any claim of divine status. If people within the faiths disagree what chance is there those outside the faiths would pay any attention?
We have had something close to the "great return." Two hundred years ago this year both God and Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith in a grove of trees near Manchester, New York. For some reason God appears to people, like he did with Jesus, in remote areas where no one else can see him.
Nevertheless, I predict millions of people will be taken in by the return as they have been by the Joseph Smith story.
Jon; re. "the great return". After the non-event, it was called "The great disapointment". If the prophet is proven false, he is a false prophet. There are warnings to be aware of such people. There have been many, both in the past, and currently. Harold Camping is one such, who went down in shame, and died shortly later. Wacko Texas is another. The Jehovah's Witnesses are another group that have forecasted several end time events that have proven false, yet they keep up prophesies, albiet not so date specific as in the past. The Jw's, Mormons and Adventists came out of the same mileau, with strong Masonic roots.
ReplyDeleteNot surprisingly, literally all such groups have earthly benefits contained in their eschatology.
Helper "If the prophet is proven false, he is a false prophet."
DeleteWhat about the prophets in the Old Testament? Were they false prophets? Certainly there is disagreement as to whether what they prophesied came to be or not.
There were certainly false prophets and non false prophets, as today.
Deletehelper "There were certainly false prophets..."
ReplyDeleteI was referring to the prophets who claimed this great figure was to come to free the Jews. Jesus supposedly showed up. But the Bible tells us there were Jews who said this was not the great figure prophesied. Now, Ehrman has written a book explaining what the OT described is not what the Jesus figured turned out to be at all. He was supposed to lead the Jews to freedom from the Romans, not die. Isn't this false prophesy?
Jon; re. false prophets, and misguided worldly expectations.
Deletere. Ehrman's book; what the OT described is not what the Jesus figure turned out to be at all. He was supposed to lead the Jews to freedom from the Romans, not die. Isn't this false prophesy"? False / failed interpretation. Yes the Jews wanted someone to free the Jews. They didn't get what they wanted, and they were / and continue to be pissed.
"My kingdom is not of this world". I can almost hear them saying (in Hebrew); "It's my messiah, and I want him now". (To do what I want with the Romans)".
Ehrman sounds like the Jewish nationalists of the day waaay back then.
helper--I just ordered Ehrman's book. I've only heard him explain his case on his blog so I don't want to overstate what I know of his argument.
DeleteBut, isn't it true Christians use prophesies from the Old Testament as their "proof" Jesus was the prophesied one? I remember being told that as a college student at the Wesley Center (Methodist of course). It was that if one was skeptical about the whole God/Jesus thing he/she can see the existence of the deity through fulfilled prophesies of the Old Testament.
Jon; "Jesus was the prophesied one." To do what? Save their ass from Roman rule, expand their zionist state, or what? See OT prophecies about Jesus fulfilled. Take your pick. Try 44 prophecies of J C fulfilled. Includes OT sources.
Deletehelper "Try 44 prophecies of J C fulfilled."
ReplyDeleteI did that. Like many skeptics, I see the stories of the NT written by men who had the OT stories sitting in front of them. Or, they knew to OT stories from passed down by oral tradition. The NT says in places, "as prophesied" and goes on to tell the tale. They could have just told the tale but needed "prophesy" to make it creditable. It's like the tale in Matthew about graves opening up and the skeletons walking into town. The story needed the phrase, "were seen by many" to make it sound like it was not made up. Didn't help. Or the tale of Paul talking to the dead Jesus, others saw and heard it. Sure.
I figured you'd say that. Just giving you a chance. Never the less, the OT is still the OT, which of course predates the NT. . I need no convincing, and no amount of convincing will satisfy you.
DeleteAnd now you are into "Coronavirus brought back the Messiah". Isn't that a little of making the past based on the current? Very much like you do with the 44 prophesies. Only the Bible has multiple authors and periods, while you have only the corona with to make a story.
helper "I figured you would say that...the OT is still the OT..predates the NT."
DeleteJust another illustration of how believers can overlook flaws in reasoning that are self evident to the rest of us.
Jon; On top of that, I have not seen any OT prophecy, or predictions that Jesus was the intended political solution, beyond wishful thinking of the rulers and the masses. There was no prediction in the OT of a large army with him riding a white horse with silver bridle, and gold kruper with diamonds attached. Sword in one hand and shield in the other fending off the Romans. That would have been more along the line desired by the expecting and wishful Jews. yet that did not happen. The NT story then becomes much more plausible than the horse whisperer charging the Romans and kicking them out.
DeleteJon @ 6;39; I do know what you call; "overlooked flaws in reasoning:" Not overlooked as much as your "overlooked" continuity over centuries with multiple authors, yet continuity carried forward, even without the aid and perspecuity of the NT.
Deletehelper "Not overlooked as much as you 'overlooked' continuity over centuries with multiple authors.." Selecting from many writers those who conform, or editing to obtain conformity, was a good option in assembling the Bible. From the 44 prophesies are "someone will betray him" and other events that had been in human stories since day one.
ReplyDeleteYour confidence that you can select which parts of an ancient book are accurate reflection of what happened is matched by our former poster "Henry". He once wrote, "I don't take the crazy stuff literally." Apparently he and you have "gifts" of intellectual ability to discern that the resurrection actually happened and that the God no one has ever seen exists somewhere.
It reminds me of the 'gift' President W. Bush had. He said he really did not need to spend much effort verifying what people told him because has was able to see in their eyes whether they were truthful or not. Your self confidence that you know which parts of the Bible to take literally and which not are like President Bush's "weapons of mass destruction" which never existed.
Now, now.....I leave for a little bit, and as soon as I turn my back, I am mischaracterized.
DeleteHenry--Let that be a lesson to you. :) You need to be checking in here daily.
DeleteHere is one "prophesy." Matthew wrote that Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea. Why there? Because that was predicted by the prophet Micah. So are we to believe Micah knew that 1,000 some years after he wrote that it would actually happen--that there actually was a birth of Jesus in Bethlehem of Judea?? Or should we put on our thinking hats and conclude Micah was writing about something in his world at that time and that whomever "Matthew" was was just trying to read into the OT something to make his our ideas seem more important than they actually were. I prefer we don the thinking hat and read it in the same light we would read any contemporary political or religious propaganda.
ReplyDeleteJon; Your thinking hat is askew. Keep looking for any excuse not to believe. You will re-inforce your reserve. In the meantime, the minutia of your argument confuses the over all bigger picture. How would the story of Tom Sawyer have gone if he hadn't gotten lost in the cave with Becky Thatcher. Would he have wound up with Catfish John instead of Jim? The fence may not have been painted, and Huck would have wound up in Angola. Worry worry.
Deletehelper "Keep looking for any excuse not to believe."
ReplyDeleteThat is exactly what I will do with the Bible and any other piece of political or religious propaganda.
I'm going to give you a passing grade on one of the earlier posts. You read critically, with considerable healthy skepticism what the Jews supposedly said about their coming hero. You pointed out they wanted to hero with certain characteristics to help them out of their circumstances under the Romans. There was not some message there for 2,000 some years later but it was written for their circumstances at that time in history.
Now, if you could only apply that same skepticism to parts of the Bible or groups within the Bible that you like and admire we could get someplace. That is, what was put in the mouth of Jesus or his entourage that furthered the self interest of those who wrote that material?
Re. "...that you like and admire". Unknown to you, and unlike you, I'm impartial to all the above. Let me assure you I have tons of non-Biblical studies related to the very topics you question.
ReplyDeleteRe. Ehrman. We all know where he came from. That explains much. Much, Most of what he presents is not new, but he presents it in a sensational "Look what I just found" All topics geared to a new crowd of poorly formed post moderns thirsting for that sensational twist. (endemic to his former branch of Christianity. (I use "former branch" as I don't believe his form of agnosticism is compatible with his former aliances.) Some of which is actually quite thin.
You may not know there was more than one Bethlehem. (beth= house-Elohem=God. Translated; House of God. There was a house for the insane in London by the name of Bethlehem. The dialect of the day in that area pronounced it (phonetically)"Bedl-hem"= hence bedlem= wild noisy confusion. Some of which I hear today.
helper "Ehrman...Most of what he presents is not new..."
DeleteI agree with that. I picked up a book from 1952 in my wife's collection of books from sociology and found some of the same material. Ehrman agrees with that as well. On his blog he hosts other scholars with opposing points of view. What he does that is a little unusual is to write two kinds of books and articles. One is for the usual academic world of journals and scholarly books, the other for the general public. Of course, the latter do not use the academic vocabulary. It is this latter, books for the general public, the makes some in scholarship angry.
We had a similar thing in economics, John Kenneth Galbraith. He was a Harvard economist but wrote books for the general public. I recall being at an economics conference once where there was an entire section devoted to papers about his books articles, etc. Every professor pointed out his flaws, over simplification, etc. Afterwards I thought, "Yes, but he is so influential an entire session was devoted to him. No one mentioned that." Today there are one or two contemporary versions of Galbraith.
So, it is your theory that Ehrman's appeal is to a new crowd of post moderns thirsty for a sensational twist. I think it is more accurate to see his popularity as resulting from the overstating and over promises of the faith that are coming back to bite it in the rear.
However, "the overstating and over promises of the faith" primarily comes from the brands he has left. For others, he has little sway.
DeleteIf he has to "dumb down" his books for his followers doesn't speak well for them.
You once criticized me for using "big words". Well, one "big word" can replace an entire paragraph. If one is interested in the topic, learn the "big words." You can only dumb down so much. If not, read Dick and Jane. or buy a dictionary.
Jon; Have you gone to a Christian book store? I have, mostly out of curiosity. First of all, there is literally no material there from my denomination, and others of the more "responsible" nature. Even very little Catholic material. while perusing the shelves and displays, I noticed a common thread. "how to do it, ' and "how I did it". I overheard a couple ladies in the next isle. One said (I paraphrase), I've read so much of this, I'm getting tired of it. can you suggest anything?" They may be the targeted people by Ehrman. Always looking for the sensational; / next thrill, never satisfied. What will happen when the novelty wears off? And it will. With those personalities guaranteed.
Deletehelper--I have not been in a Christian book store for years, there are few of them left I have heard. I visit a Barnes and Noble often and sometimes scan the many shelves in the section labeled "Religion." I agree one could summarize most of the titles as "How I Lived Through my Personal Crisis and Found Jesus."
DeleteI disagree that Ehrman (and others in critical reading of the Bible) is a fad--though none of us know the future. This starts with the fact the public is faced with more advertising than ever. Widespread computer presence made it cheaper than ever and it is in our faces. Children face it more than we did.
The public's reaction is to be more skeptical of everything they see and hear. From my grandchildren school projects and visiting their classes I can see this skepticism being taught in public schools. To me critical reading/hearing is not a fad but permanent cultural trait here to stay for generations. So, both adults and children resist advertising messages all week long then go to church on Sunday and hear more advertising. We should not be surprised some eventually bump into critical reading of the Bible and think, "Yeah, that makes sense."
The many shelves of religious books in Barnes & Noble and even the readership of this little blog tells me interest in religion remains high. It's just that the interest has moved some from believing it to poking holes in it.
I don't think "fad" is a correct term either. A fad would be something that has a relatively fast turn over. These things usually take much longer, yet change still happens. However, those sensational seekers will still seek the sensational, and will tire of it in time. How long I don't know.
Deletehelper--"However these sensational seekers will still see the sensational, and will tire of it in time."
DeleteI don't understand your continued focus on "sensational seekers." I don't see any sensational seeking in it. When ordinary Germans figured out after WWII they had been influenced wrongly about the Jews I doubt many found it to be sensational. They simply perceived information differently--that Hilter was not their patriotic savior and the Jews were not their enemy. I see the move toward critical reading of the Bible as something like that. The Germans have never returned to a Hitler or perception the Jews are their enemy. Europe slowly but steadily has turned majority not Christian, I can envision the U.S. doing the same. Religious views of humans has never stopped changing. Why would you think that now they will forever cling to the version of Christianity you think is so correct?
Consider the personality. You can't change personality, but personality types can be tempered. So yes, the sensational minded trend to the sensational. If you don't like sensational, try excitable.
Deletere. Hitler; Yet, leading up to the height of Hitler's reign, "sensational" was a good description. Have you not seen the parades, with marching, chanting, flags, torches? Sensational. After his fall, sensational changed to defeated regret. Don't forget; all along, there were those who didn't go along, but were liquidated. Yes sensational fits.
Newly discovered atheism will not satisfy everyone. There will be those that go to other supernatural movements. Atheism is much too clinical for some, but introduce power and authority to the mix, as per human nature, enter "sensational".
There will be Christianity, even if it isn't sensational. Consider the rabbit and the turtle.
Jon; If you want "sensational", look up the Azuza street movement. Pentecostalism, Holy rollers, faith healers, Prayer tower Tulsa Oklahoma, Your forementioned Adventists. End of times, Christian Zionism. snakes, etc. The list is endless. And they continue.
Deletehelper--" If you want sensationalism..Azuza, Pentecostalism, Holy rollers, ...snakes..."
ReplyDeleteWait a minute. Sensationalism is about emotions, playing with them. Pentecostalism, snakes and such are all about that. But are you are telling me your denomination, Lutheran Missouri Synod, does not engage in playing to peoples emotions and vulnerabilities? Are the words "God loves you" ever uttered? Is there the promise of heaven so one does not have to fear death? How about "Jesus forgives your sins?"
The entire premise of Christianity is a play on peoples' emotions. I agree there are different styles and some are more flamboyant than others but the strategy is the same.
My view is that a critical reading of the Bible is less of a "sensation" than "God loves you." Yes, titles of books and blogs are written like newspaper headlines to attract readers. But, at its core is an intellectual exercise that has little emotion attached to it. Certainly it is less sensational than "you can go to heaven if you believe."
Go to a pentecostal tent meeting with snakes, then come and see us. We'll make room.
DeleteThat you don't believe in the forgiveness of sin by faith in The Christ, is just as emotional, as by your constant refrain and strategy.
Bye.
Jon,
ReplyDeleteWow! Thank you and little helper for that lengthly informative exchange. The messiah remains — Lost in a desert, Still earthbound, A visible god, No one found.
We're not looking. There are "Big words" for that, but I refrain.
Delete