Does the Bible make God stupid and insecure?

[David Mo]

I find this thread quite useless. In a debate between agnostics and atheists about the god of the Bible there will hardly be a debate. We all agree.

To introduce a little disagreement —therefore debate— I recommend reading an intelligent and educated believer: Rudolf Bultmann: Jesus and the World. Specifically the introduction.
You can use this ling among others:
https://www.religion-online.org/book/jesus-and-the-word/

To give an idea I copy a paragraph:

Therefore, when I speak of the teaching or thought of Jesus, I base the discussion on no underlying conception of a universally valid system of thought which through this study can be made enlightening to all. Rather the ideas are understood in the light of the concrete situation of a man living in time; as his interpretation of his own existence in the midst of change, uncertainty, decision; as the expression of a possibility of comprehending this life; as the effort to gain clear insight into the contingencies and necessities of his own existence. When we encounter the words of Jesus in history, we do not judge them by a philosophical system with reference to their rational validity; they meet us with the question of how we are to interpret our own existence. That we be ourselves deeply disturbed by the problem of our own life is therefore the indispensable condition of our inquiry. Then the examination of history will lead not to the enrichment of timeless wisdom, but to an encounter with history which itself is an event in time. This is dialogue with history.​

 

[psionl0]

Why bother to make sense of the bible? By cherry picking the right passages, you can make God appear however you want him to appear.

For example, I can find passages that suggest that God didn't create humans but created gods who will ultimately be equal with him. That would make expectations a lot higher.

 

[HansMustermann]

I find this thread quite useless. In a debate between agnostics and atheists about the god of the Bible there will hardly be a debate. We all agree.

To introduce a little disagreement —therefore debate— I recommend reading an intelligent and educated believer: Rudolf Bultmann: Jesus and the World. Specifically the introduction.
You can use this ling among others:
https://www.religion-online.org/book/jesus-and-the-word/

To give an idea I copy a paragraph:

Therefore, when I speak of the teaching or thought of Jesus, I base the discussion on no underlying conception of a universally valid system of thought which through this study can be made enlightening to all. Rather the ideas are understood in the light of the concrete situation of a man living in time; as his interpretation of his own existence in the midst of change, uncertainty, decision; as the expression of a possibility of comprehending this life; as the effort to gain clear insight into the contingencies and necessities of his own existence. When we encounter the words of Jesus in history, we do not judge them by a philosophical system with reference to their rational validity; they meet us with the question of how we are to interpret our own existence. That we be ourselves deeply disturbed by the problem of our own life is therefore the indispensable condition of our inquiry. Then the examination of history will lead not to the enrichment of timeless wisdom, but to an encounter with history which itself is an event in time. This is dialogue with history.​

Well, the problem with making sense of the words of Jesus in light of his life is: which Jesus? Even scholars who support a historical Jesus, like Bart Ehrman, each of them cherrypicks a different Jesus. Because he's really that much of a composite of ideas from different people who changed the myths or the gospel manuscripts as fit their own views.

As Bart Ehrman himself puts it about the work of another scholar, and I'm quoting very loosely from memory: 'He concluded that only about 30% of the sayings attributed from Jesus are actually from Jesus, and the rest are interpolation. And I agree with that. I would disagree with which 30% of them those are, but that's a different issue.'

But actually it's not a different issue. It is THE problem. Everyone can cherrypick their own 30%, give or take a few percent, which is relatively self-consistent enough to have possibly been from the same guy. But so can someone else, and get a totally different guy. In fact, you can get polar opposites.

So for a start WHICH sayings of Jesus are you trying to make sense of, in light of his life?

Second, WHICH life of Jesus? We know virtually nothing about him. Even the thin slice into his ministry we get from the Gospels -- never mind that there is no indication that any of those even had access to any witnesses -- is only disparated episodes at best. And they're episodes where the author just sets up the stage for Jesus to deliver some canned wisdom and then skip to the next such episode, so we don't actually get to know much about how he lived between those episodes. People like to do their internal fanfic where they imagine what kind of guy Jesus would be, and how he'd do this or that, but the truth is, even taking the gospels as, well, gospel, you don't actually get much data.

But the problems only begin. Even those little episodes are AT BEST heavily redacted.

For a start the inclusio and chiasm structures in the text (a.k.a., "markan sandwiches") don't happen like that in a real person's life. At the very least, that stuff has been chronologically rearranged to fit that structure.

And actually that should come as very little surprise to anyone who's even read all four gospels, because John places the clearing of the temple at the beginning of it all, while Mark (and the other two who copied from Mark) has it at the end. So one of the version has got the chronology wrong.

Then you have the problem that even most of those episodes most definitely didn't happen like that, or possibly not at all. People act basically unlike real people, to allow the author to make a point. E.g., the apostles forget that they've seen the same miracle like two pages ago. E.g., the pharisees are stumped by Jesus saying some dumb stuff, just because the author said so, when in reality someone schooled in theology would have had no problem with it. E.g., Jesus's solution to a problem is flat out idiotic, and only works because obviously the author doesn't know anything about the area.

As a trivial example of the latter, take the whole "give Caesar what is Caesar's" idiotic episode. Actually at the time the WHOLE objection to those coins was that they have the Emperor's face on them, which for the Jews was forbidden as idolatry. So Jesus solving it by going some version, "well, it has the Emperor's face on it, so it's ok" is the COMPLETELY wrong way to defuse that, and wouldn't have worked.

And that's one of the milder ones, actually.

So WHICH sayings of Jesus are you trying to fit into WHAT life of Jesus?

It's basically the kind of dumbest possible idea that only makes sense to those who have no idea what that even involves.

 

[psionl0]

As a trivial example of the latter, take the whole "give Caesar what is Caesar's" idiotic episode. Actually at the time the WHOLE objection to those coins was that they have the Emperor's face on them, which for the Jews was forbidden as idolatry. So Jesus solving it by going some version, "well, it has the Emperor's face on it, so it's ok" is the COMPLETELY wrong way to defuse that, and wouldn't have worked.

Just as a matter of curiosity, how should the "render unto Caesar" argument have been rebutted?

 

[acbytesla]

You say that as though those aren't powerful motivators.

Yes they are. That's why they are used.

 

[HansMustermann]

Just as a matter of curiosity, how should the "render unto Caesar" argument have been rebutted?

I'm not sure it could, to be honest. But pointing out that it does have the Emperor's face on it, when that was the actual objection to it, well, you can probably see how it wouldn't really calm anyone down.

 

[acbytesla]

Well, the problem with making sense of the words of Jesus in light of his life is: which Jesus? Even scholars who support a historical Jesus, like Bart Ehrman, each of them cherrypicks a different Jesus. Because he's really that much of a composite of ideas from different people who changed the myths or the gospel manuscripts as fit their own views.

As Bart Ehrman himself puts it about the work of another scholar, and I'm quoting very loosely from memory: "He concluded that only about 30% of the sayings attributed from Jesus are actually from Jesus, and the rest are interpolation. And I agree with that. I would disagree with which 30% of them those are, but that's a different issue.'

...

So WHICH sayings of Jesus are you trying to fit into WHAT life of Jesus?

I'd like to ask how any scholar can attribute a percentage? The Gospels were written 30 plus years after Jesus was crucified. They are not eyewitness testimonies. And we don't have a clue who wrote them despite the church giving them names. The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) were all copied from Mark or another source document. And their are NO contemporary confirmations.

While I don't agree with the mythicist position. I do believe there probably was a Jesus. But the idea that people could accurately write the words that were said a year earlier let alone thirty years before hardly seems credible.

 

[psionl0]

I'm not sure it could, to be honest. But pointing out that it does have the Emperor's face on it, when that was the actual objection to it, well, you can probably see how it wouldn't really calm anyone down.

The question was "is it lawful to pay taxes?" and didn't mention the coins used. If Jesus was pointing out that the coins had graven images on them then that would have bolstered his answer.

 

[HansMustermann]

Well, you have to also read Josephus to see why the graven image was a problem. Pilate had to even take down some shields dedicated to the emperor BECAUSE they had the face on them, and caused the locals to go nearly into revolt. And the same happened about the standards for his cohorts, for the same reason.

So pointing out that the coins have the image on them would most definitely have been the wrong thing to point out. Even IF the mob had a different issue with those coins, pointing out the graven image would most definitely just add even more fuel to the fire.

But, yes, whatever idiot wrote that gospel, obviously had no idea of the local issues, and that would seem like the right kind of answer. That's the nature of the beast when making up BS that happens in another country, in a different culture.


Edit: it should also be noted that

1. The coins in use at the time in the region and used by the Romans to collect taxes did NOT in fact have the Emperor's face on them. They were the Tyrian shekels, which actually bore the even more offensive to the locals image of a Phoenician GOD, and an inscription proclaiming Tyre to be a holy city.

You know, if you want an extra reason why the whole episode is just made up BS, by someone who'd never even been to Judaea. G.Mark, who is thought to have lived in Rome, yeah, had no clue that the coins he makes a story up about were not, in fact, the same kind of coins as what he saw in use in Rome.

2. One of the first things the religious rebels did in the revolt against Rome was to mint coins WITHOUT a face on them. So, you know, it doesn't seem like pointing out there's a face on the coins would have made it better.

 

[psionl0]

Well, you have to also read Josephus to see why the graven image was a problem. Pilate had to even take down some shields dedicated to the emperor BECAUSE they had the face on them, and caused the locals to go nearly into revolt. And the same happened about the standards for his cohorts, for the same reason.

It seems like you are substituting a different question to the one that was put to Jesus.

They couldn't use coins with graven images at the temples but there is no evidence that they refused to accept those coins in other business dealings. If that had been the case then there would have been no need for money changers at the temples.

Nobody was asking Jesus if it was lawful to use coins with graven images. It probably wasn't an issue. Instead, they appeared to want to make this a first commandment issue. Had Jesus simply said that it was lawful to pay taxes to a Roman emperor (they considered themselves gods in those days) then he could have been accused of violating the first commandment. (Had he said "no" then he could have been accused of inciting rebellion).

By reminding them that they were using coins with graven images, he avoided that trap.

 

[Humots]

It seems like you are substituting a different question to the one that was put to Jesus.

They couldn't use coins with graven images at the temples but there is no evidence that they refused to accept those coins in other business dealings. If that had been the case then there would have been no need for money changers at the temples.

Nobody was asking Jesus if it was lawful to use coins with graven images. It probably wasn't an issue. Instead, they appeared to want to make this a first commandment issue. Had Jesus simply said that it was lawful to pay taxes to a Roman emperor (they considered themselves gods in those days) then he could have been accused of violating the first commandment. (Had he said "no" then he could have been accused of inciting rebellion).
that trap.

I heard this argument given before, in a Catholic sermon.

By reminding them that they were using coins with graven images, he avoided that trap.

How, exactly?

Was he telling them that they shouldn't be using those coins in the first place?

Or that as long as the coins with Caesar's image were only used for dealing with Caesar, it was all right?

That would fit with "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's".

It would also fit with with ""If one of you has a child or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull it out?"

 

[Delvo]

The answer to the OP is yes, of course, but it's more interesting to see what light history & archeology can shed on how it got that way.

Closely related languages belong to peoples that were recently one people, and only split recently, so they also have closely related cultures in other ways too, including their gods. For example, look at the names of the days, and you can see the names of some old English gods, which the English had in common with the Norse (with slightly different spellings) because those gods date back to when the English and the Norse were one people with one language and one pantheon (Proto-Germanic). So, you can learn about the earlier stages of a culture and its religion by looking at its nearest counterparts and predecessors.

Hebrew is not just a Semitic language (a category which also includes Arabic and Akkadian), but a Northwest Semitic language (which excludes Arabic and Akkadian, but still includes Aramaic, Phoenician, Syriac, Ugaritic, and Canaanite). And we have writings and artifacts from various towns around that area from the era when the Bible got its start and even slightly before. Along with the extremely similar languages/dialects (they could very well have been mutually intelligible back then), they also name the Northwest Semitic gods, two of which are El and Yahweh, the two most common names for "God" in the Pentateuch.

If they're just names of one god in the Bible, how do we know they were two separate gods? Because their names aren't just mentioned in a list; we're given specifics about who they are and what they do. El lives in the north; Yahweh lives in the south. El's home is a mansion on a mountain; Yahweh's is a tent. (In the Northwest Semitic world at the time, some southern tribes still lived as nomads, so this one is an example of the gods being characterized according to the natures of the tribes that favored them; Abraham is also described as living in a tent in Genesis.) When the gods gather at the royal court or "divine council", El is in control, and Yahweh is among the followers. For example, El tells them all which gods will be assigned to which places on Earth or groups of people living there, and Yahweh gets assigned to a southern tent-dwelling tribe.

From reading through Genesis and the first parts of Exodus (up to the first appearance of manna; I just haven't gotten to the rest yet) with that context in mind, it's amazing how neatly most of that earliest stuff fits together as the story of how Yahweh goes about following his orders from El to get that tribe to make him their chief god.

 

[acbytesla]

The answer to the OP is yes, of course, but it's more interesting to see what light history & archeology can shed on how it got that way.

Closely related languages belong to peoples that were recently one people, and only split recently, so they also have closely related cultures in other ways too, including their gods. For example, look at the names of the days, and you can see the names of some old English gods, which the English had in common with the Norse (with slightly different spellings) because those gods date back to when the English and the Norse were one people with one language and one pantheon (Proto-Germanic). So, you can learn about the earlier stages of a culture and its religion by looking at its nearest counterparts and predecessors.

Hebrew is not just a Semitic language (a category which also includes Arabic and Akkadian), but a Northwest Semitic language (which excludes Arabic and Akkadian, but still includes Aramaic, Phoenician, Syriac, Ugaritic, and Canaanite). And we have writings and artifacts from various towns around that area from the era when the Bible got its start and even slightly before. Along with the extremely similar languages/dialects (they could very well have been mutually intelligible back then), they also name the Northwest Semitic gods, two of which are El and Yahweh, the two most common names for "God" in the Pentateuch.

If they're just names of one god in the Bible, how do we know they were two separate gods? Because their names aren't just mentioned in a list; we're given specifics about who they are and what they do. El lives in the north; Yahweh lives in the south. El's home is a mansion on a mountain; Yahweh's is a tent. (In the Northwest Semitic world at the time, some southern tribes still lived as nomads, so this one is an example of the gods being characterized according to the natures of the tribes that favored them; Abraham is also described as living in a tent in Genesis.) When the gods gather at the royal court or "divine council", El is in control, and Yahweh is among the followers. For example, El tells them all which gods will be assigned to which places on Earth or groups of people living there, and Yahweh gets assigned to a southern tent-dwelling tribe.

From reading through Genesis and the first parts of Exodus (up to the first appearance of manna; I just haven't gotten to the rest yet) with that context in mind, it's amazing how neatly most of that earliest stuff fits together as the story of how Yahweh goes about following his orders from El to get that tribe to make him their chief god.

I think I read somewhere that Yahweh means "jealous". If anything could tell one that this god was man made it is that. Why would a being as powerful as this being is portrayed be jealous? Jealousy is not a sign of strength but of Weakness. Why would we believe a mature powerful being have one of man's weakest traits?

It's like Trump is their god.

 

[Senex]

God is omnipotent, he can do whatever he wants.

Oh yeah. If he's so omnipotent can he write a post so full of contradiction that he himself can't make it sound logical?

 

[acbytesla]

Oh yeah. If he's so omnipotent can he write a post so full of contradiction that he himself can't make it sound logical?

 

[psionl0]

How, exactly?

How would I know? I don't know if the story was recorded accurately or if it even happened at all.

My point was that if you are going to criticize the authors of the gospels then you need to criticize them on the words they wrote and not a different set of words entirely.

 

[David Mo]

Well, the problem with making sense of the words of Jesus in light of his life is: which Jesus? (...)

So for a start WHICH sayings of Jesus are you trying to make sense of, in light of his life?

Second, WHICH life of Jesus? (...)

As far as I know Bultmann has no much interest in the historical Jesus. He narrows him to a few sayings and facts. He focuses on Paul and the fourth gospel. He builds his Christianity on spiritualism. I think the clue is here: "When we encounter the words of Jesus in history, we do not judge them by a philosophical system with reference to their rational validity; they meet us with the question of how we are to interpret our own existence". This existential Christianity makes the orthodox Christians nervous. I would say that all the bluff of the Historical Jesus is an attempt to override Bultmann and Schweitzer at all costs.

 

[HansMustermann]

So we're back to: we must derail into whatever red herring you brought up, because it's a quote from some famous guy?

 

[David Mo]

So we're back to: we must derail into whatever red herring you brought up, because it's a quote from some famous guy?

One of the most typical fallacies in these forums is to consider that any quotation from an important author is worthless because it is an authoritative argument. In any university they would be amazed at this nonsense.

Along with the mention of Bultmann I have included a quote and a reference to a book where you can easily expand your knowledge and argue conveniently. Yes, you can (I suppose).

 

[HansMustermann]

One of the most typical fallacies in these forums is to consider that any quotation from an important author is worthless because it is an authoritative argument. In any university they would be amazed at this nonsense.

Strawman. What I said it's a red herring, not that it's an argument from authority. Address what was actually said, or don't. But dumb strawmen aren't it.

Along with the mention of Bultmann I have included a quote and a reference to a book where you can easily expand your knowledge and argue conveniently. Yes, you can (I suppose).

So, more of your usual bluster and flailing for why one should pursue a complete red herring? It still has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, no matter how educative it is or who wrote it.