Zone1 Christian Zionism

[ding]

The NT was embellished for the same reasons that the OT was embellished.

Which is?

 

[ding]

Same answer I gave the first time you asked.

Humor me. Tell me again what knowledge was being passed down when Jesus performed miracles?. Because there isn't any. Which is why you can't back it up. Give up. Admit you believe it was a conspiracy.

 

[alang1216]

The account was about the migration from Mesopotamia. Which I already shared with you. See?

Can we agree on this?

Event: migration from Mesopotamia
Embellishment: God's miracle scattering the people over the face of all the earth

 

[alang1216]

That has nothing to do with the question of were the miracles performed by Jesus historic events or were they embellished or made up. You are arguing they were embellished. You need to show how they were embellished and explain why.

Aren't embellishments made up by definition?

 

[alang1216]

If the miracles never happened then why were they embellished or made up? Using the accounts you need to show how and why? Which you can't do because they weren't embellished.

As I said, if Jesus was just a Jewish preacher, I doubt Christianity would appeal to pagans. It didn't even appeal to Jews. If Jesus performed miracles then he was something powerful and special and pagans might pay attention to his message.

 

[alang1216]

Which is?

Good PR

 

[ding]

Can we agree on this?

Event: migration from Mesopotamia
Embellishment: God's miracle scattering the people over the face of all the earth

Isn't that basically what I said. You can do the same thing for the flood, Lot and their conquests too. But what you can't do that for are the 40 miracles performed by Christ. Because the "whys" are impossible to explain. The "whys" are easy to explain in the OT.

You only have two options; believe the miracles were historic events or believe it was an epic conspiracy. There's no middle ground here.

 

[alang1216]

Humor me. Tell me again what knowledge was being passed down when Jesus performed miracles?. Because there isn't any. Which is why you can't back it up. Give up. Admit you believe it was a conspiracy.

If Jesus was just a Jewish preacher, I doubt Christianity would appeal to pagans. It didn't even appeal to Jews. If Jesus performed miracles then he was something powerful and special and pagans might pay attention to his message.

 

[alang1216]

Can we agree on this?

Event: migration from Mesopotamia
Embellishment: God's miracle scattering the people over the face of all the earth

Isn't that basically what I said. You can do the same thing for the flood, Lot and their conquests too. But what you can't do that for are the 40 miracles performed by Christ. Because the "whys" are impossible to explain. The "whys" are easy to explain in the OT.

You may have convinced yourself that the "whys" are impossible to explain but you have not convinced me. The "whys" of the NT are as easy to explain as "whys" of the OT.

You only have two options; believe the miracles were historic events or believe it was an epic conspiracy. There's no middle ground here.

No, you saying it doesn't make it true.

 

[ding]

Aren't embellishments made up by definition?

Yes. So are conspiracies. The difference being the intent and secrecy. It's not a secret that the OT accounts were embellished to teach lessons about the covenant, obedience, justice and Israel's special relationship to God even if atheists don't know this. And surely no one would think the Israelites were conspiring to harm anyone by weaving in these lessons in accounts of historical events.

But if there were a group of people who presented accounts of 40 miracles performed by Jesus as historical events, then there is no way that anyone can argue it wasn't a secret and it wasn't intended to harm others.

 

[ding]

As I said, if Jesus was just a Jewish preacher, I doubt Christianity would appeal to pagans. It didn't even appeal to Jews. If Jesus performed miracles then he was something powerful and special and pagans might pay attention to his message.

You are literally describing a conspiracy to trick pagans into worshiping Jesus as God.

 

[ding]

Good PR

Do you believe that is an honest answer?

 

[ding]

If Jesus was just a Jewish preacher, I doubt Christianity would appeal to pagans. It didn't even appeal to Jews. If Jesus performed miracles then he was something powerful and special and pagans might pay attention to his message.

You are literally describing a conspiracy to trick pagans into worshiping Jesus as God.

 

[ding]

You may have convinced yourself that the "whys" are impossible to explain but you have not convinced me. The "whys" of the NT are as easy to explain as "whys" of the OT.

And yet you can not use the accounts to explain what was embellished, what really happened and why it was embellished. You are being as dishonest as Trump. Congratulations. You have become what you hate.

 

[ding]

No, you saying it doesn't make it true.

It's not me just saying it. It's your inability to use the accounts to explain the event, how it was embellished and why it was embellished.

And the only time you have tried to provide a "blanket" explanation (without actually using any of the details from the accounts) it comes off as it was a conspiracy to trick pagans into worshiping Jesus as God.

So, no. It's not just me saying it.

 

[ding]

You may have convinced yourself that the "whys" are impossible to explain but you have not convinced me.

If compiling 40 different lies of Jesus performing supernatural feats and secretly selling it to pagans as historic events to trick pagans into worshiping Jesus as God doesn't convince you, I'm wondering what it would take to convince you.

 

[ding]

If Jesus performed miracles then he was something powerful and special and pagans might pay attention to his message.

Can we agree that this assumes the pagans believed the miracles were authentic?

Because otherwise, why would they pay attention to it, right? That is your argument, right? That the pagans worshiped Jesus as God because they believed he performed these miracles?

And can we agree that whoever it was that was recruiting pagans, had to know that they were lying to the pagans about the authenticity of the miracles? How is that not a conspiracy?

 

[alang1216]

Yes. So are conspiracies. The difference being the intent and secrecy. It's not a secret that the OT accounts were embellished to teach lessons about the covenant, obedience, justice and Israel's special relationship to God even if atheists don't know this. And surely no one would think the Israelites were conspiring to harm anyone by weaving in these lessons in accounts of historical events.

But if there were a group of people who presented accounts of 40 miracles performed by Jesus as historical events, then there is no way that anyone can argue it wasn't a secret and it wasn't intended to harm others.

The NT embellishments were no more secret than the OT ones and weren't intended to harm others any more than the OT ones.

 

[alang1216]

You are literally describing a conspiracy to trick pagans into worshiping Jesus as God.

Sales. Are commercials for laundry detergents a conspiracy?

 

[alang1216]

Do you believe that is an honest answer?

You don't accept honest answers.