| Original Message |
Vince (Login MoxiFox)
Von Klumpen
Posted Jul 4, 2009 2:28 PM
As I see it ....
Is that Christians will NOT EVER recognize or entertain the obvious clues about the Gospels' Jesus Christ stories.
You can present the evidence and virtually rub their faces into it and they'll simply go "dead" on you with internal revulsion and denial. Later, they carry on as if they never ever encountered anything counter to their beliefs.
We know for a fact and without any guessing or speculation that ...
- the accounts of each Gospel are VERY different. Matthew has Jesus born during the time of Herod the Great and depends on his existence and participation in order to work in the 3 wise men tale and Herod's slaughter of the innocents ...with Mary, Joseph and baby Jesus needing to go to Egypt to fulfill OTestament prophecy. Luke has Jesus born 10+ years later, completely eliminating any need to work Herod or his son into the story and thus, totally circumventing the 3 wise men or Herod's involvement. The same is true of these 2 Gospels' accounts of Jesus resurrection and instructions for going to Galilee (Matt.) or staying in Jerusalem (Luke). These obvious contradictions exist between these two Gospel accounts and yet BOTH of them prolifically QUOTE words of people involved in their stories. This is utterly impossible in a real life scenario: if the authors know intricate details of what happened, who was involved and quote their exact statements, they also HAVE to know the setting in which the event took place and not disagree by 10 or more years.
- We know that there is no secular historical material evidence that supports the Gospels' Jesus Christ. This too, is literally impossible. If a real Jesus Christ had lived, around whom such a plethora of strange and miraculous occurrences had rotated, there is no question that it would have been noticed and noted by other writers of the time.
- We know that none of the epistles or even the book of Revelation show ANY familiarity whatsoever with the Gospel stories of Jesus Christ. They appeal exclusively to OTestament material and rely on the "more sure" words of "prophecy" for supporting arguments concerning Jesus Christ. Even the book of Acts -while starting OUT with a continuation of Luke's Gospel- then diverges into the story of Peter standing up and stating that Jesus was killed by Jews and hung on a tree .... and then relates the story of Stephen the deacon being stoned for his faith. Stephen -in his extremely lengthy discourse- never once mentions the Gospels' Jesus Christ but speaks exclusively on OTestament matters. It's quite evident that he isn't being stoned for believing in a Gospel Jesus but for something else.
- We know that the church fathers never cited any Gospel material reference for about 150 years (150 AD) ....... and then suddenly they began to and quickly it became the standard practice. We know that the Gospel of Luke (and the book of Acts) were written for or addressed to a "Theophilus" and we know that the first prominent Theophilus in Christian history was a bishop of Antioch circa 160 AD. We also know that the writer of these two works specifically stated that he was writing down his accounts on the basis of what they "most certainly BELIEVED" and that he was doing it so that Theophilus could be assured of it too. Thus, we know that Luke wasn't relating his stories from personal experience but rather, was COMPILING his account from third party source(s).
- We KNOW that the first 3 Gospels use identical wording in MANY many places and yet .... the accounts they relate from those identical intros ... then veer off into completely different versions or pieces of stories about Jesus' activities. This is totally impossible if any of these writers HAD been eye-witnesses to the events.
- It is therefore absolutely evident that the Gospel accounts were recompiled from other sources and frequently from the same source material. Not a ONE of them was an eye-witness account from any of these 4 writers. The writers tailored their own versions to reflect their own beliefs and maybe to support the already existing beliefs of their respective audiences. (Different churches, perhaps?)
- We KNOW that none of the epistles (with the exception of Hebrews) ever spoke of Jesus Christ's RETURNING .... but always only of his APPEARING. In fact, in 2 Peter, we read of believers becoming disillusioned with waiting for his appearance and beginning to turn away. In the small John epistles as well, we read, "every spirit that confesses NOT that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God." Here too, we witness signs of disillusionment over the failure of Jesus Christ to show up materially as a live person and turning away from the movement.
Clearly then, with ALL of the above facts at our disposal, it should become absolutely clear that the Gospels were written in response to a need for some kind of "proof" that Jesus Christ HAD actually showed up already (and everyone had just missed recognizing his arrival). The Christian churches had a real problem on their hands because their expectancy and their predictions were NOT coming to pass and so they needed something to make it seem as though it actually had already happened. I mean, the evidence is overwhelming. It's a "preponderance of evidence" and not just a few little isolated problems here and there that might find some unique solution (as Christian apologists constantly attempt to do with each item as it's brought up).
Once it's firmly established in one's mind that the Gospels were constructed in response to such a need, the next question is: Did they just make it up then?
No, they didn't just make it up because the first 3 Gospels shared the same source material in so many instances. Thus, it was a case of copying from some older source material for the "skeleton" and then each individual writer 'fleshing' out his own story version according to his own beliefs. Thus, the "source man" or the 'seed man' for these stories could and would have existed quite some time BEFORE the events of the epistles were written.
So-o .... if they commonly focused on the SAME individual whom the source material described and quoted ... THIS INDIVIDUAL was quite obviously NOT someone who had previously been recognized as being a Messiah. That means, this individual didn't see HIMSELF as being the messiah of the Christian-belief world. Thus, this person's quotes would have been "conditioned" to reflect Christian belief by the Gospel writers ... but... weren't, in fact, intended for such support by the person making those statements in the first place ...(which were later quoted in the 3 synoptic Gospels).
The "seed man" then (around whom the synoptic Gospels were built) did NOT necessarily say everything "correctly" according to Christian belief ABOUT Jesus Christ the Messiah ... because he wasn't aware of such a need. This seed man evidently was focused on becoming a king of the Jews! His methods may have been rather unique and unorthodox (and fitting in with Christian methods and principles -like "loving" enemies and turning the other cheek etc.), but he also made a couple of other statements that happened to slip into the original text which ....don't ... fit the proper image of such a benevolent universal savior figure! He frequently spoke of dividing wheat from chaff ....... sheep from goats ...... and BURNING or punishing the useless stuff! (This is where Christians get their concept of hell in the after-life). He advised his followers to sell their clothes and get swords. (Luke 22:36). He alluded to what would occur AFTER he seized power in Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
And so ............ if Christians would ONLY come to grips with the evidence and finally ADMIT that the Gospels' Jesus Christ was a construction based on an individual who never had a CLUE that HE would become the Christian icon ........ the Christian faith might have some real good, useful potential!
If Christians could SEE that the TRUE Gospel lies in the Epistles and is based on FAITH and HOPE of a connection with God through spiritual means alone and on a cosmic Christ figure ........ and does NOT, EVER support violence or punishment as a means to promote or motivate this belief and that the belief is entirely voluntary (with no punishment meted out for questioning or rejecting it) ................ Christianity might become something entirely useful.
As it sits now, there is just too much potential for abuse ...and promoting this religious belief -as it is- is NOT a good thing to do.
-Vince |
|
|