h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

yeah, I said I reject biblical infallibility already. what are you talkin about?

What am I talking about??
You said you reject Biblical infallibility, but then you use the King James version of the Bible to argue against the concept of the (three) wise men/kings from the East as being Magi (Zoroastrians).

My argument, what I am talking about, is that one version of the translated Bible (in this particular instance the KJV) doesn't necessarily provide the true translated meaning of the original texts.

"My argument, what I am talking about, is that one version of the translated Bible (in this particular instance the KJV) doesn't necessarily provide the true translated meaning of the original texts."
Yeah, well you kind of just demonstrated there that you are, in fact, making an argument, not asking honest open-ended and thought-provoking questions. But that's fine I don't have a problem with that.

I would certainly agree with the above statement of yours. The KJV is just a translation I happen to be somewhat farmiliar with because it has become somewhat of a standard among Protestants. Not a very good standard, as I would be the first to admit, but it is at least a standard and it does at least give a general idea of what the original texts say, though there are many areas where, as you say, it is no doubt inaccruate or inspecific to a degree.

What I'm wondering is where you have the idea that they are Magi from. I know that is the "traditional" idea, but I don't know where it came from except that it smells Catholic ... (meaning if I had to guess I'd say it was catholic, I don't mean to imply that catholics smell )
Nerd42

An argument instead of "honest, open, thought-provoking questions"??? What a pile of b******!!!! You obviously DO have a problem with that. What an utterly useless, antagonistic thing to say. And yes, my retort to your question was an argument, because, as I have shown, you completely contradicted yourself.

Anyway, my "idea" that they are Magi has come from my reading around the history of Christianity - in both non-Christian and Christian orientated literature. I wasn't aware that this was a particularly Catholic viewpoint, just the viewpoint of most Biblical scholars.

"Anyway, my "idea" that they are Magi has come from my reading around the history of Christianity - in both non-Christian and Christian orientated literature. I wasn't aware that this was a particularly Catholic viewpoint, just the viewpoint of most Biblical scholars."
OK, well I'm not most Biblical scholars, and there are no points of major/fundamental Christian doctrine I'm aware of that hinge on whether the men from the East were Magi, so I don't see your point. I don't have a problem with responding to arguments about Christianity, but I just pointed out that that is, in fact, what your comments are - they are not "questions" - just so everyon's clear on that point.

"5. I think Judas gets a bad deal."
I don't think so. Judas made a decision. This is a rehash of the "Great Puppet-Master in the Sky" argument I've been in before.

"6. I find Jesus call of "My God, why have you forsaken me?" interesting. If Jesus were truly of one and the same substance as God, even if he's incarnate as a man, why would he feel that God had forsaken him, knowing that that was his destiny and that he would be resurrected? I find this calls into question the whole principle of the Trinity. The Passion in Gethsemane also questions this. Why would a true God incarnate fear his impending death and suffering?"
Actually, I think this reaffirms the concept of the Trinity. As I undersatnd it, in the garden of gethsemonae, the Father and the Holy Spirit left Christ so He could fulfill His mission, and then they were reunited after His death. Or at least that's the basic idea, if a somewhat crude way of putting it.

"7. I also have doubts about whether Jesus did actually die on the cross."
*sigh*
If God can take a man's soul when he feels perfetly allright from a sudden a heart attack, He could certainly put an early end to Christ's suffering when His mission was complete.
Nerd42

I've just tried to post a reply to this already, but I got a "server too busy message" when I pressed the post button and I lost everything, so apologies if this is duplicated. Apologies also if my response is somewhat irate!

The 3 kings/wise men/magi issue. It seems I can't win on this point, because the argument is going around in circles. In my initial post, I called them Kings/Wise men, because "that's what the Bible calls them." Somebody then corrected me (quite rightly, although I already knew the thing that they wrote) that they were Zoroastrian Magi. I don't care if they were Magi, Zoroastrians, Kings, Wise men, or wise monkeys. My POINT is that they used and interpreted ASTROLOGICAL PHENOMENA to foresee/prophesy the birth of Jesus and locate the newborn Jesus, while modern Orthodox Christianity then denounces Astrology.
Is my point clear???

I also don't care if anybody interprets my questions as arguments. They are valid *questions* that I have about Christianity because Christianity claims to be the beholder of Truth, and I think there is sufficient doubt in the validity of the "proof" it presents for the "facts" it claims. Of course, my points become arguments if I then counter any responses from Christian believers who tell me their understanding of these events. Just because I argue, doesn't necessarily mean that my intention is antagonistic for the sake of being antagonistic. I think that this is enough said on this point, otherwise it's a waste of time going off on a tangent.

Judas: I don't know what the "Great Puppet Master in the sky" argument is. Yes, Judas made a decision, as I see it, to obey Jesus' command to hand him over to the Romans. Judas then felt extreme guilt at the consequences of his actions (i.e. the consequences of Jesus' command), and the rest of the male apostles denounced him for it. Poor sod.

The "why have you forsaken me" issue. Maybe it's me that's thick, but I can't see the logical progression of this automatically leading to affirmation of the Trinity. I suppose it depends where your initial standpoint is - I don't believe in the concept of the Trinity, and this argument isn't proof of the existence of the Trinity. Why would it be necessary for God the Father and the Holy Spirit to leave Jesus in order for Him to fulfil His mission, if Jesus is actually of the same substance as the other two?

Jesus dying on the cross. *double sigh*
Do I need to repeat the inadequacies of the Crucifixion story?
- Jesus severely flogged. Yes, absolutely. Any more than any other political prisoner? I don't think so. Jesus also still had some physical strength left to carry the (crossbar of the) cross at least part of the way down the via dolorosa.
- Jesus having enough physical strength left in him to make (at least) seven utterances while on the cross, despite needing to have strength to push himself up to ease the pressure on his chest.
- The suspicious event of his followers giving him "vinegar" to ease his thirst, just before he "died".
- "Water" and "blood" pouring from his side to "confirm" death - see my first posting for the inadequacies on this point.
- The Roman guards then didn't break his legs as they did the other two crucifixion victims, because being medically qualified personnel, they were absolutely certain Jesus was brainstem-dead from the blood and water pouring from the hole in his chest wall and that he was decomposing in the Jerusalem heat.
- Even Pilate, an old hand at ordering crucifixion for political insurgents, was surprised at the speed of Jesus' death, even in spite of the earlier flogging.
- Joseph Arimathea "persuades" Pilate to let Jesus' dead body down from the cross on the same day, only a few hours after being put up there, and to put him in his own private tomb, in a private garden, away from the general public. The fact that Joseph of Arimathea was a man of means with land and therefore money is purely superfluous, of course. And Pilate was way too honest a man to be bribed.....

<>

It seems to me, that you're heading towards the 'he only fainted and then went on to be revived' argument, first put forward AFAIK, in the 1960s, by a Jewish author whose name escapes me.
It's an untenable argument, although I can see where many people would like to believe it. As far as I know, again, "water and blood" indicate the puncturing of the pericardium. That's a bit more than just a faint!
I've asked before - why are we so suspicious of our forebears, so convinced they're lying for bizarre reasons of their onw. I don't see the same scepticism being applied to Alexander the Great! Why not?

Hi Della,
Excuse me, but exactly WHICH argument is more untenable???? The probability that Jesus was up on the cross for too short a time to actually die, or that Jesus did actually die, was decomposing, and was supernaturally revived/resurrected?

Do I need to repeat myself about this blood and water thing again????? The lance pierced the right side of his chest wall, right? i.e. it pierced his pleural cavity. The gushing out of water indicates a pleural effusion, which is indicative of right sided/congestive cardiac failure, but does not automatically indicate death or that the heart had stopped pumping. People can live for months, even years with large effusions.

Even if Jesus was unlucky enough for the lance to pierce his pericardium, the same outflow of water indicates a pericardial effusion, which is again indicative of right sided/congestive cardiac failure. Yes, such a pericardial effusion would have resulted in a degree of constriction on the heart, but wouldn't necessarily result in complete pump failure. Puncturing the pericardium does not imply puncturing the heart wall. If that had happened, Jesus would have exsanguinated with a huge loss of blood from that wound. There is no record of such a huge loss of blood.

Yes, it is a bit more than a faint - it's a dehydration and cardiac failure-induced unconsciousness. These do not indicate brainstem-death.

The reason such scepticism isn't applied to Alexander the Great is that he is known for what he was - an expansionist dictator and warrior/warmonger. His story doesn't command a belief in him as a God (any more). The story of Jesus' resurrection commands a belief in supernatural events. There's the difference.

The best bible to use these days, unless you are a Roman Catholic, is the New International Version which is not a re-translation of a translation but a completely new translation directly from copies of the original texts by scholars from many different Christian religions (with the notable exception of Roman Catholicism).
Q: Why didn't the RC Church join the NIV Bible project?

"My POINT is that they used and interpreted ASTROLOGICAL PHENOMENA to foresee/prophesy the birth of Jesus and locate the newborn Jesus, while modern Orthodox Christianity then denounces Astrology."

Since I believe in the Book of Mormon I have a unique perspective on this.

The Book of Mormon covers events that supposedly happened between 600 B.C. and several hundred years after Christ's death (and some people divide it into an Old and New Testament just like the Bible) and it describes miraculous astronomical phenomena occuring that marked the birth of Christ.

There is a huge difference between something you can see in the sky marking the time of a prophetic event and the idea that Jupiter and Venus know something about your love life.
Nerd42

Re: "Huge difference between marking the time of a prophetic event and knowing your love life."

I can see your point, especially when the majority of "Astrology" that we are exposed to these days is obviously tripe for the masses. I don't think we'll need to get into a discussion over the obvious crap that's printed in newspapers & magazines.

However, I still think that the various institutions of the Church would look unfavourably on modern "kosher" Astrologers.


By the way, how do you quote another person's text in these postings without having to type them out by hand?

"By the way, how do you quote another person's text in these postings without having to type them out by hand?"
By using Copy and Paste Those two functions are built into most all computers, but how you get to them differs depending on what kind of system you have. Are you using Windows or Macentosh/Apple ?
Nerd42

"However, I still think that the various institutions of the Church would look unfavourably on modern "kosher" Astrologers."
Um, yeah. Things happening in the sky are mentioned several times in the Bible. There was a few times in the Old Testament where God had the sun stand still so it would stay daytime longer than normal. Of course, there are many different explanations for this, assuming that the author actually did observe the day being longer. We don't know.

Wikipedia defines Astrology:
"Astrology is any of several traditions or systems in which knowledge of the apparent positions of celestial bodies is held to be useful in understanding, interpreting, and organizing knowledge about reality and human existence on earth. ..."

If you are going to use that broad of a definition, then the birth of Christ could indeed be considered an astrological event. However, astology, under the popular definition, is the undisputed domain of *other religions* outside of Christianity. It is associated with supersticion and magic (which here means or refers to satanism and witchcraft) which Christians believe is evil.

But, perhaps the popular definition is completely incorrect. As I've said, I know hardly anything about astrology. Perhaps it is a 100% mathematical discipline that has nothing to do with religion. But, based on everything I've ever heard about it, it is within the domain of the supernatural as I said in the previous paragraph.
Nerd42

Listen, is it okay if i get back to you on this? I am at work at the minute, and your questions deserve some research... tho' I am still not sure why you and others so adamantly want to not believe in the possibility of Resurrection, when the possibility of a faint and revival is an equally untenable theory!
I reiterate this link, which, I believe I have already given, and put a little extract, to be going on with.
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num9.htm

"Refutation of the Swoon Theory: Nine Arguments

Nine pieces of evidence refute the swoon theory:

(1) Jesus could not have survived crucifixion. Roman procedures were very careful to eliminate that possibility. Roman law even laid the death penalty on any soldier who let a capital prisoner escape in any way, including bungling a crucifixion. It was never done.

(2) The fact that the Roman soldier did not break Jesus' legs, as he did to the other two crucified criminals (Jn 19:31-33), means that the soldier was sure Jesus was dead. Breaking the legs hastened the death so that the corpse could be taken down before the sabbath (v. 31).

(3) John, an eyewitness, certified that he saw blood and water come from Jesus' pierced heart (Jn 19:34-35). This shows that Jesus' lungs had collapsed and he had died of asphyxiation. Any medical expert can vouch for this.

(4) The body was totally encased in winding sheets and entombed (Jn 19:38-42).

(5) The post-resurrection appearances convinced the disciples, even "doubting Thomas," that Jesus was gloriously alive (Jn 20:19-29). It is psychologically impossible for the disciples to have been so transformed and confident if Jesus had merely struggled out of a swoon, badly in need of a doctor. A half-dead, staggering sick man who has just had a narrow escape is not worshiped fearlessly as divine lord and conquerer of death.

(6) How were the Roman guards at the tomb overpowered by a swooning corpse? Or by unarmed disciples? And if the disciples did it, they knowingly lied when they wrote the Gospels, and we are into the conspiracy theory, which we will refute shortly.

(7) How could a swooning half-dead man have moved the great stone at the door of the tomb? Who moved the stone if not an angel? No one has ever answered that question. Neither the Jews nor the Romans would move it, for it was in both their interests to keep the tomb sealed, the Jews had the stone put there in the first place, and the Roman guards would be killed if they let the body "escape."

The story the Jewish authorities spread, that the guards fell asleep and the disciples stole the body (Mt 28:11-15), is unbelievable. Roman guards would not fall asleep on a job like that; if they did, they would lose their lives. And even if they did fall asleep, the crowd and the effort and the noise it would have taken to move an enormous boulder would have wakened them. Furthermore, we are again into the conspiracy theory, with all its unanswerable difficulties (see next section).

(8) If Jesus awoke from a swoon, where did he go? Think this through: you have a living body to deal with now, not a dead one. Why did it disappear? There is absolutely no data, not even any false, fantastic, imagined data, about Jesus' life after his crucifixion, in any sources, friend or foe, at any time, early or late. A man like that, with a past like that, would have left traces.

(9) Most simply, the swoon theory necessarily turns into the conspiracy theory or the hallucination theory, for the disciples testified that Jesus did not swoon but really died and really rose.

It may seem that these nine arguments have violated our initial principle about not presupposing the truth of the Gospel texts, since we have argued from data in the texts. But the swoon theory does not challenge the truths in the texts which we refer to as data; it uses them and explains them (by swoon rather than resurrection). Thus we use them too. We argue from our opponents' own premises."

I still find this argument persuasive.

Nerd,
Thanks for the info on the cut & paste business. I'll try and give it a go. I'm using Windows on a PC.
Your definitions of Astrology are far more eloquent than I have described. For the record, the definition I had in mind was the first one you gave from the encyclopaedia. Then, as you state, the more "modern" popular definition can be viewed as the work of the occult by the institutions of the Church. It is this point that I find hypocritical.

Della,
I've been meaning to get back to you on this article. I have read it, but haven't had the time to respond. I was caught up with the free time I had responding to Nerd.

1. I'm sure this was the general rule. However, it was Pilate who ordered his body down from the cross, after speaking to (the rich) Joseph of Arimathea. From the Gospels, it seems that Pilate wasn't particularly convinced by the accusations of sedition against Jesus anyway, and only crucified him to appease the crowd at that time. So, "bungling" a crucifixion was done in this case, when the executed bodies were usually left up there to rot for days.

2. Were the soldiers medically qualified and ascertained brainstem death? Did they check that his pupils were fixed and dilated? No.

3. I have explained the significance of the water and blood. And, I can assure you, by no means will any medical expert vouch for this.
Unless they are already Christians blinded by their faith on this issue.

4. So what?

5. I agree with that statement. I'm sure the disciples were astounded to see him alive. It doesn't mean that Jesus had actually been brainstem-dead.

6. If Pilate can be bribed, so can soldiers, who are gurading a tomb on private land. And yes, we are into a conspiracy theory. However, I'm not convinced that the remaining 11 male disciples knew of it.

7. Same answer as above.

8. Where did he go? Who knows! Whatever he did, he definitely needed to escape Israel/Judea, in order not to be caught be the temple priests again. Do a Google search for "Jesus in India", "Jesus Kashmir" and see what you find.
Read about the tomb in Srinagar, Kashmir, which is venerated by the local Muslims there.
I'm not saying that this is the definite story, but it is one of the viable alternatives, rather than there being "absolutely no data".

9. Yes, I think there is enough suspicion in this story for there to be some underhand dealings going on on the part of Joseph of Arimathea. The 11 male disciples weren't involved, and misinterpreted the events.
Jesus told them on numerous occasions that they didn't know his plan/intentions.

I don't find your argument persuasive.

"Then, as you state, the more "modern" popular definition can be viewed as the work of the occult by the institutions of the Church. It is this point that I find hypocritical."
Hmm ... perhaps you're missing something fundamental about religion.

Do you know why many Christians are "intolerant" ?
Nerd42

To add to what Gaggle said,

"these nine arguments have violated our initial principle about not presupposing the truth of the Gospel texts, since we have argued from data in the texts. But the swoon theory does not challenge the truths in the texts which we refer to as data"

This idea of accepting the truth of the texts is only applicable if not also using what that site has called the 'conspiracy theory'. The arguments given against this also rely heavily on the gospels as a source of truth.

blub-blub

Hi Nerd,
I must be missing something, because now I don't understand your point!
What am I missing?

And why are many Christians "intolerant"?

Blub blub,
I generally agree with you.
In my counterstance against the arguments in Della's nine points, I have approached them from the viewpoint that they MIGHT be true, i.e. I have tried to see their point of view as much as possible, to try to be as objective as possible. However, I have also retained a great deal of scepticism, in order to see whether the arguments of "proof" are watertight. I don't think they are.

Of course, I am of the opinion that to be totally objective is nigh-on impossible - there will always be some subjectivity.

This has been a fairly interestin thread to read, but I do wonder why you have to discuss fiction as if it could ever be real.

You may as well have a long conversation about the madness of hamlet. Was it real, put on or a bit of both?

Well its a play and only the writer would really know and even then Hamlet was his creation to do whatever he liked with.


I think we must view the bible the same way for this reason.

Genesis 3:1-5

1Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God made. He said to the women, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

2The women said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,

3but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'"

4"You will not surely die," said the serpent to the women.

5"For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good from evil."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Genesis 3:13-15 The serpent's punishment

13Then the Lord God said to the women, "What is this you have done?"

The women said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

14So the Lord God said to the serpent,

"Because you have done this,

"Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.

15And I will put an enmity
between you and the women
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel."



Snakes talking to people about fruit....Hello! Has anyone ever seen anything like that ever?

God telling lies to people if he were real then the later descriptions of God being perfect and good dont match up with this report of him lying. He did not say i will make you mortal for eating the fruit he just says you will die. God if he were a refect and good parent would teach not punish his children and tell them the reality rather than lie.

Later we are told that God is all seeing and all powerful, so why put a snake with a devious nature into his garden to upset his plan for Adam and Eve to hang about naming the animals. Surely if he wanted people to die and live lives of pain and strife he could have cut out the middle snake.

Why would a forgiving anf loving God who has set his world up with a deceitful serpent then suddenly decide to punish the serpent. The poor snake a pawn in God's devine plan is punished for doing his bit. That's hardly fair by anyones standard.

Now I know many christers* say it was not a serpent but the devil taking the form of a serpent. Well if God is all knowing why if he knows this does he punish all snakes. What a stupid, evil and vindictive God he must be.




Now all of the above is all just my logical look at the bits about snakes in genesis, to be honest I could do the same with other bits of the bible where it contradicts itself. Then we'd have christers* arguing about interpretation and their views would have as much weight and slant as mine, but here comes the real and inarguable gap between SCIENCE AND FAITH.....


In genesis we get a description of snakes that doesnt fit snakes. Some do crawl in the dust and bite the ankles of man but we all know that's not all snakes. Some people do have an enmity to snakes whereas other people (some of them are even christers*) keepsnakes as pets! So the bible is quite clearly wrong, made up, inaccurate, untrue a fiction...etc....





*I use the word "christer" not to offend people but to avoid offence as it seems that there are many people calling themselves christina who dont like the same term to be extended to others. Odd I know but then they believe in what the bible says so its hardly suprising that they come out with some weird thoughts.


one love