Attn: Mountain Man. Where the rubber hits the road: Wicca vs. Christianity

[Dee Dee Warren]

False beliefs can make people act better. For instance, if a nanny believe she is on nanny-cam and would like to slap around a kid, she may refrain from that bad behaviour because she believes she would be filmed.

[technomage]

False beliefs can make people act better. For instance, if a nanny believe she is on nanny-cam and would like to slap around a kid, she may refrain from that bad behaviour because she believes she would be filmed.

Precisely. I would like to see how MM responds, but I quite agree.

[Glenn P]

False beliefs can make people act better. For instance, if a nanny believe she is on nanny-cam and would like to slap around a kid, she may refrain from that bad behaviour because she believes she would be filmed.

That's true. Some false beliefs will result in better conduct. Also true is that some false beliefs will result in worse conduct - for example the belief that God will reward me in Paradise if a strap a bomb to myself and blow myself up in an israeli Cafe.

With regard to tech's question, I think it has special issues connected to it. Mainly this one: If one is a Christian, then one is very likely to believe that it is various facts taught by Christianity that determine what is a "better" or a "worse" life. If Christianity is false, then abiding by Christian principles will only make one a better person IF there is an actual source of real values, and if the upshot of pursuing those values coincides (at least roughly) with the pursuit of Christian values.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Jack, I did nuance my statement with that in mind. A person can act better but that doesn't mean they are a better person. I don't believe that a nanny who doesn't slap a kid because she thinks she is filmed is better than she might have been.

[Glenn P]

I wasn't disagreeing with you, DDW. I was just adding that other stuff as my answer to tech's question, starting with your post because i agreed with it. He PMed me asking me to answer it. It just happened that i added all that in my response to your post.

[technomage]

With regard to tech's question, I think it has special issues connected to it. Mainly this one: If one is a Christian, then one is very likely to believe that it is various facts taught by Christianity that determine what is a "better" or a "worse" life. If Christianity is false, then abising by Christian principles will only make one a better person IF there is an actual source of real values, and if the upshot of pursuing those values coincides (at least roughly) with the pursuit of Christian values.

I do have to make a minor quibble here--if there is no "actual source of real values," but abiding by Christian values (in a society with relative morals) is still better than not abiding by those values, then you still end up with a positive change.

[Glenn P]

I do have to make a minor quibble here--if there is no "actual source of real values," but abiding by Christian values (in a society with relative morals) is still better than not abiding by those values, then you still end up with a positive change.

What I was getting at is that if there's no actual source of real values, then "better" itself is relative.

In other words, if someone lives by Christian values when in reality there are no actual values, then by what actual value system could we deem that conduct better? At best it could be better according to some relative convention that a lot of people find themselves approving of.

[technomage]

What I was getting at is that if there's no actual source of real values, then "better" itself is relative.

In other words, if someone lives by Christian values when in reality there are no actual values, then by what actual value system could we deem that conduct better? At best it could be better according to some relative convention that a lot of people find themselves approving of.

Oh, agreed. Living by Christian values in, say, Imperial Rome or Communist Russia (or Communist China, for that matter) can definitely lessen one's quality of life--not to mention shorten one's life expectancy. However, I was referring to 'better" in our modern Western society. It's somewhat of an ethnocentric judgement, but Western society is the society I understand the best.

[Glenn P]

Oh, agreed. Living by Christian values in, say, Imperial Rome or Communist Russia (or Communist China, for that matter) can definitely lessen one's quality of life--not to mention shorten one's life expectancy. However, I was referring to 'better" in our modern Western society. It's somewhat of an ethnocentric judgement, but Western society is the society I understand the best.

OK.

I don't really understand why "quality of life" was mentioned. So am I right in thinking that you are asking the following:

"Based on the relative standards that are prevalent in our own Western culture, are people who live by Christian standards generally living better lives because of it (regardless of whether or not Christianity is true)?" I think that's probably what you mean.

If that's so, then I think the answer is: sometimes.

[technomage]

OK.

I don't really understand why "quality of life" was mentioned. So am I right in thinking that you are asking the following:

"Based on the relative standards that are prevalent in our own Western culture, are people who live by Christian standards generally living better lives because of it (regardless of whether or not Christianity is true)?" I think that's probably what you mean.

If that's so, then I think the answer is: sometimes.

Mmmm ... no. I fear I've not effectively communicated myself. The question I'm asking is ... well, it requires a degree of critical thinking that I know you're capable of, but that you may or may not have engaged in quite yet. Stated more fully, my question is thus:

Assume, for a moment, that Christianity is provably false, and the falseness has been proven to your satisfaction. Would you feel that you have been wasting your time by living to Christian moral standards, or would you continue to do, because even if the beliefs are false, you believe the standards make you a better person?

It's not an easy question, and (for all or recent squabbles) I do apologize for that.

As a side note: as far as our recent squabbles, yes, I disagree with you vehemently on many issues. You may find it difficult to believe, but depite those disagreements, I still have a tremendous amount of respect for you as an individual, an for Christianity as a belief system. I retain that respect, even though I am persuaded that Christianity is based on a series of false beliefs ... not because they believe something false, but because (to the best of my understanding) because those beliefs, while false, still make them better people than they would be withot those beliefs. Fundamentally, my question is an attempt to see if you agree with my assessment that Christians are worthy of respect even if I feel that Christianity is false.

[gharfish]

Well, first and foremost, I take the mainstream view that Mark was the earliest Gospel, and that GoMatthew was not written by Matthew. Neither Mark, nor Luke, nor the unknown author GoMatt were eyewitneses.

I'm with the mainstream view too; that Mark's gospel was written first, of the four. I said so in my post.

But, now what of this "mainstream view that Matthew was not written by Matthew, Jesus' disciple" ? Who is saying 1900 years later that this is correct ? Not so, was the verdict of the very early Christian church. Matthew has canonical status because it was a work attributed directly to Jesus' original disciple, of twelve, Matthew Levi.

That leaves Peter, but the closest record we have of Peter is his recollections as recorded by Mark. (I also count the two Petrine epistles as pseudepigraphic.)

Yes, that leaves another of Jesus' original twelve, a firsthand and very close eyewitness to Jesus' teachings and deeds. "Mark" is regarded to have been the substance of Peter's public preaching at the time. It has canonical status because Peter endorses it, just as Luke's gospel would have Paul's endorsement.

You count both of Peter's letters to be from someone other than Jesus' disciple Peter ? There is some doubt out there, I know, that the 2nd letter is from Simon Peter (although it clearly says within--it's author, claims to be him); but why in the world do you doubt that the first letter is false ?!

Mark recorded Peters teachings after he died, and maybe after Jerusalem had already been destroyed.

When do you date Mark's gospel ? Who all (other's scolarly findings) do you rely on for a date that would be after Peter's execution ? The first gospel has been dated much earlier than AD 70 by so many Biblical scholars at this time--for a long time, that I am annoyed to hear that it might have been written after the sacking of Jerusalem. Uugh ! Not Mark !

But Mark's memory was not perfect (there are other errors in Mark's account), and he was not an eyewitness of the events. Additionally, the Gospel of Mark was not restricted solely to Peter's recollections: the NAB notes on GoMark say "Petrine influence should not, however, be exaggerated. The evangelist has put together various oral and possibly written sources--miracle stories, parables, sayings, stories of controversies, and the passion--so as to speak of the crucified Messiah for Mark's own day."

Mark relied on Peter, oral tradition, circulating short writings--Q documents; so what ? It's early records and personal sources of the best kinds that Mark works from.

So Peter's account is only one possible source for this pericope. But let us assume, for a moment, that this passage was from Peter: did Jesus say it, or did Peter hear it from another source and add it in? We do not know, and we cannot know-but we can know that apocalyptic literature is far more common as a written genre than as a spoken genre.

You are focusing on Mark's record of Jesus' Olivet discourse. I wasn't. But, Ok.

Peter is listed as an eyewitness to that discourse, along with James , John, and Andrew. We are told by Mark that Peter himself heard the whole thing. Why do you doubt then that Jesus said what Mark records in ch. 13 ? Why not believe it is accurate instead ?

I view GoMark's "Little Apocalypse" not as a genuine statement of jesus, but as a response from the early Christian community to the situation of Jerusalem--when Mark wrote this passage, Jerusalem was either already under siege, or (more likely) already destroyed.

Mark's gospel has been dated by many credible scholars by now, and for some time too, to have been written well before AD 70. So...just doubt, then. (Right ?)

I'm not sure of that--Mark 13:27 is one of the "proof texts" for the concept of the Rapture.

Who is teaching this ? This happens at the second coming. I'm not aware of anybody in the whole "camp" who regards it that way, and I've read many of these guys.

The RSV can be accessed online.

When it comes to translation, I do have some knowledge--but you are correct in that I am no expert, and I do rely on other scholars more learned than I.

Would you feel the same if a skeptic asked "Is it fair to have Jesus' crediblity as Christ hinge on a single word" if the word in question was anastasis (resurrection)?

Hey, these aren't the same at all ! Jesus spoke in no uncertain terms that he was going to be crucified and then rise from the dead. He said it again and again, and in different settings, different hearers.

In this case it is a word that according to a good amount of Greek scholars can have two meanings, depending on the immediate context. And do keep in mind that these men and women don't force "race" on the word "genea" here. What they do do is give both meanings in translation footnotes; that's all.

I have been saying all along that it doesn't matter to the futurist if the word is asserted to mean generation in the primary sense. But you know this. You are an ex-seminarian. In fact, "generation" as you say it means is that same which 'everyone from' partial preterists to dispensational futurists will say it does too.

Ghar, the Gospel of Matthew that we have was originally written in Greek. The account Papias speaks of was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, not Greek (additionally, it was a "sayings" gospel, not a narrative account). I'm not sure what book Papias was speaking of that was written by Matthew, but it was not the book we have.

This is one reason (among many) that GoMatt is attributed to an anonymous Christian living in Antioch. GoMatt used GoMark as a source--and we know Mark was not an eyewitness. Why would an eyewitness use the account of a non-eyewitness?

I, Ghar, know that Matthew is a book written in Greek--we have no other earlier Matthew in Hebrew or Aramaic. I haven't said word one about Papias. Can I retract what I said: that the Aramaic term Jesus likely used was an Aramaic one that could mean "race" (too) ?! I have conceded that "genea" in the Olivet discourse should just be considered--best considered--to mean generation in the normal sense of the word. Why are you pressing that issue still ? The term is used in the Syriac Pe[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]ta. That's all I will say about it from now on.

Unfortunately, that is precisely what you are left with. If ths was a genuine saying of Jesus, then the prophecy was broken. If it was an addition by Mark, later taken up by Matthew and Luke, then it becomes not a prophecy, but a commentary on the destruction of Jerusalem, and an indication that the Early Christians expected Jesus to return very soon even though Jesus made no such promise.

You say it ISN'T a genuine saying of Jesus. What are you trying to pull ? .....If, if, if !

No, it isn't necessarily a broken prophecy if it is a real saying of Jesus. And if you say it isn't genuine, and that as presented in the 3 synoptic gospels, then what business do you have in somehow using it against Jesus ? ...to discredit...point to his lack of trustworthiness ? What's going on here ?!

"...a commentary on the destruction of Jerusalem." Oh, brother. Who on earth these days are dating Mark and Matthew after AD 70 ?

Waitasec, Ghar--that is not the only governance, nor even the primary one. Let's look at the Greek.

Αμην λεγω υμιν ου μη παρελ(th)η η γενεα αυτη εωσ αν παντα ταυτα γενηται

Amen, I say to you shall not pass this generation until all these things be fulfilled. (I had to cheat--I couldn't find which symbol makes the theta.)

The primary restriction on generation is "this"--from the Greek root [greek] outos[/greek]--it parses to [greek]auth[/greek] in this phrase. It means "this one right here," or "this one now," and is a different word from "that one over there" or "that one then." And grammatically speaking, both the destruction of the temple and the return of Jesus were included in "until all these things be fulfilled."

Jesus is speaking of one generaration if "genea" doesn't mean the Jewish race. (I say it doesn't , but could.) Anyway, I didn't try to downplay the restrictive "this." I said that the generation that Jesus is speaking of is the one that will see all these things together do take place. When all the signs are evident, that generation will not pass away until he returns bodily to earth. That is what I meant by "all these things" (signs, taken together) grammatically governing "this generation."

When I was at Bob Jones University, it was outos, more then genea, that put the nail in the coffin of my acceptance of this passage as a genuine saying of Jesus. That means that everything referred to before that time must be fulfilled before the generation of the apostles passed away.

Again, you admit that you don't regard the Olivet discourse to be from Jesus. This stumps me because you began this thread by calling Jesus "a prophet who is now some 1900 years late for his own return."

Ghar, there have been four "abominations of desolation" before 70 CE:
* Antiochus Epiphanes set up a statue of Zeus in the Temple in 168 BCE. (He also did some other really nasty things, such as sacrificing a pig on the Altar, torturing some of the Jewish leaders, and burning their bodies on the altar.)
* Caligula attempted to erect a statue of himself in the Temple in 40 CE. (Not sure if this was ever carried out, or if the order was reversed before it was accomplished.)
* John of Giscala captured the Temple from Eleazar ben Simon, pillaged the temple treasury, and slaughtered what of Eleazar's followers he could catch, in either 68 or 69 CE.
* Then there was Titus Flavius, in 70 CE.

I know. I know. Only one that followed the discourse, in time, could qualify as the one Jesus was predicting would come. When did it happen ? Did Titus or anyone associated with him erect a statue of himself, themself--or any graven image, in the temple as an idol ? Did he or anyone desecrate the temple altar in a blasphemous way ? His men looted and destroyed the temple, period. Jesus said it would be torn down, and that is what happened in AD 70. No Daniel 9: 27, 11: 31, 12: 11 abomination of desolation then, or since (for the temple is no more). It can be still future, however, if the temple is rebuilt...in the future.

Ghar, to the Jews and early Christians (who were centered in Jerusalem until 70 CE, you remember), these were "end of the world catastrophes."

How do you know they perceived the seige of Jerusalem as being the end of the world ?

And that, perhaps, is the point, my friend. Everything on the list was fulfilled in 70 CE--with the exception of the return of Jesus Christ.

So, I can be assured (by you) that all the following went down before, and into/on, the year AD 70, right ?!

~ nations had risen against nations, kingdoms against kingdoms, in two way warfare. There was a notable increase in the number and seriousness of earthquakes, and there were famines (all worldwide) too.
~ the gospel had already been preached throughout the whole world as a testimony to all the peoples.
~ the blasphemous abomination of desolation as defined by the prophet Daniel's criteria...
~ suffering had taken place that was so severe that it was the worst that had ever befallen man before and would never be duplicated again in human history, future. The warfaring, earthquakes, famines, and other catastrophes then if not cut short by God would have killed everyone on earth.
~ anything that could have been taken to correspond with the phenomena described in Mark 13: 24 & 25, Matthew 24: 29, and Luke 21: (24b), 25 & 26.


".....I declare to you, from now you will not see me again until you say, "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord !" (Jesus, in Matthew 23: 39)

Technomage, do you see any signs yet that the Jews are prepared to say this to the rejected Messiah--for 1900 years only the gentiles' Jesus Christ ?

[Mountain Man]

Hey, Mountain Man.

Let us assume--only for the sake of this single question--that Christianity is false.

Do your beliefs, even if false, make you a better person?

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "a better person". As has been pointed out, false beliefs might compel one to alter their behavior and avoid doing harm to others, so if that's what you mean by "a better person", then, yeah, I suppose even if they're false, Christian beliefs would make me "a better person".

[technomage]

But, now what of this "mainstream view that Matthew was not written by Matthew, Jesus' disciple" ? Who is saying 1900 years later that this is correct ? Not so, was the verdict of the very early Christian church. Matthew has canonical status because it was a work attributed directly to Jesus' original disciple, of twelve, Matthew Levi.Yes, that leaves another of Jesus' original twelve, a firsthand and very close eyewitness to Jesus' teachings and deeds. "Mark" is regarded to have been the substance of Peter's public preaching at the time. It has canonical status because Peter endorses it, just as Luke's gospel would have Paul's endorsement.

Ghar, Papias was the earliest person to tell us that Mathew wrote a book--but the book Papias tells us about was not the book that we have. It's a long and involved study--if you like, I'll start a new thread and discuss the issues in detail.

You count both of Peter's letters to be from someone other than Jesus' disciple Peter ? There is some doubt out there, I know, that the 2nd letter is from Simon Peter (although it clearly says within--it's author, claims to be him); but why in the world do you doubt that the first letter is false ?!

Again, this is a complex subject, but yes--I have serious doubts that 1 Peter was written by Peter. My case against Petrine authorship for 1Pet is not as strong as it is against Matthian authorship of GoMatt, and the scholarship is more divided. If you like, I'll include a discussion of 1Pet in the new thread.

When do you date Mark's gospel ?

Sometime between 65 and 80 CE. Ghar, this is not just my conclusion, but the mainstream scholarly conclusion.

Who all (other's scolarly findings) do you rely on for a date that would be after Peter's execution ?

Papias implies, and Irenaeus explicitly states, that GoMark was written after the deaths of Peter and Paul.

Peter is listed as an eyewitness to that discourse, along with James , John, and Andrew. We are told by Mark that Peter himself heard the whole thing. Why do you doubt then that Jesus said what Mark records in ch. 13 ? Why not believe it is accurate instead ?

Primarily, because it is a developed apocalyptic pericope. Is there a core of actual words by Jesus? I don't now, but one of the fundamental aspects of apocalyptic literature is that the apocalyptic genre reflects current conditions at the time of the writing. If the passage was written before the siege of Jerusalem, then it is not apocalyptic.

No, it isn't necessarily a broken prophecy if it is a real saying of Jesus. And if you say it isn't genuine, and that as presented in the 3 synoptic gospels, then what business do you have in somehow using it against Jesus ? ...to discredit...point to his lack of trustworthiness ? What's going on here ?!

Ghar, my primary objection is that, since it is not a genuine statement of Jesus, the Gospels are not an accurate depiction of the life and ministry of Jesus. The "broken prophecy" argument only applies if someone rejects the "Gospels are not accurate" argument--it one insists that the Gospels are an accurate record, then "broken prophecy" is the only logical alternative.

"...a commentary on the destruction of Jerusalem." Oh, brother. Who on earth these days are dating Mark and Matthew after AD 70 ?

There's quite a list, Ghar. That's the majority scholarship position.

Anyway, I didn't try to downplay the restrictive "this." I said that the generation that Jesus is speaking of is the one that will see all these things together do take place.

Ghar, "this generation" means "this one right here, right now." "That generation" relies on a completely different word: "that generation" would be [greek]genea ekeina[/greek], if I've parsed it correctly.

This stumps me because you began this thread by calling Jesus "a prophet who is now some 1900 years late for his own return."

I did that because Mountain Man (my primary audience for this thread) insists on the Gospels being accurate.

Did Titus or anyone associated with him erect a statue of himself, themself--or any graven image, in the temple as an idol ? Did he or anyone desecrate the temple altar in a blasphemous way ?

Eleazar ben Simon seized the Temple treasury, supplanted the High Priest Annanias, and participated in the civil war in Jerusalem. John of Giscala used siege machines to attack the followers of Eleazarn ben Simon in the courtyard of the Temple, splattering the blood of worshippers on the altar. Simon bar Goria (leader of a faction of Sicarii) probably proclaimed himself Messiah, and arrayed himself in royal robes in the Temple courtyard before his capture by the Romans. There are allegations that some of these may have assayed to offer sacrifices on the altar themselves, rather than having the priests offer sacrifices, but nothing definite.

How do you know they perceived the seige of Jerusalem as being the end of the world ?

Ghar, up until 70 CE, the Christians still looked to Jerusalem as the central city of their faith. Just before and during the siege, many of the leaders of the Faith were killed for one reason or another--James the Just was murdered in 62 CE, Peter and Paul executed in 64.

Additionally, we have the fact that if these passages are apocalyptic literature, then they speak of world-shattering events--or, at least, the author(s) of these passages considered them to be world-shattering.

So, I can be assured (by you) that all the following went down before, and into/on, the year AD 70, right ?!

~ nations had risen against nations, kingdoms against kingdoms, in two way warfare. There was a notable increase in the number and seriousness of earthquakes, and there were famines (all worldwide) too.
~ the gospel had already been preached throughout the whole world as a testimony to all the peoples.
~ the blasphemous abomination of desolation as defined by the prophet Daniel's criteria...
~ suffering had taken place that was so severe that it was the worst that had ever befallen man before and would never be duplicated again in human history, future. The warfaring, earthquakes, famines, and other catastrophes then if not cut short by God would have killed everyone on earth.
~ anything that could have been taken to correspond with the phenomena described in Mark 13: 24 & 25, Matthew 24: 29, and Luke 21: (24b), 25 & 26.

Ghar, we can go through this if you like, but one thing needs to be realized: apocalyptic literature is not prophetic literature. That means that some of the "signs" you list are simply literary symbols of world-shattering events--not only do they not need to be fulfilled literally, they should not be taken literally. And some of them are literary symbols for real-world events, but couched in symbolic terms.

".....I declare to you, from now you will not see me again until you say, "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord !" (Jesus, in Matthew 23: 39)

Technomage, do you see any signs yet that the Jews are prepared to say this to the rejected Messiah--for 1900 years only the gentiles' Jesus Christ ?

Ghar, the passage you speak of was set just a few days or a week before the Triumphal Entry, and points precisely to that event.

[Lili]

Matthew 16:27-28 also seems to say that Christ would return sometime in the first century. Some have said that it refers to the transfiguration, but verse 27 says that everyone will be rewarded based on their works when Christ comes back, and there was no judgment at the transfiguration.

[technomage]

Precisely.

Mountain Man (and any other Christians reading this thread), I realize the information presented here is not sufficient to sway any of you away from Christianity. This is good, because doing so is farthest from my intentions.

However, the information presented here (along with a mountain of other information) is sufficient to persuade me that Christianity is based on false claims. Christianity is a false path--but I do not at all desire to sway even a single Christian away from Christianity.

Believe as you wish, with my full respect and blessing (should you need them). Allow me the same respect and blessing--or if you cannot, do not treat me as a fool because I do not follow your path.