Zone1 Christian Zionism

[ding]

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

According to you the miracles were used to seduce pagans. Can't see that happening if the pagans knew they were made up.

 

[alang1216]

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.

I can not use the embellished accounts to explain what was embellished because they are embellished. I have no idea what, if anything really happened.

 

[ding]

You don't accept honest answers.

Sure I do. Other than it was a conspiracy, there's no case to be made that 40 different miracles performed by Christ weren't historic. Especially when you walk through each and every account.

 

[alang1216]

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.

That sounds like you saying it.

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.

The 'details' of the embellished accounts are embellishments.

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

Yes, it is just you saying it.

 

[ding]

I can not use the embellished accounts to explain what was embellished because they are embellished. I have no idea what, if anything really happened.

That's my point. The miracles were the point of the account. Just like the flood was the point of the flood account. Migration was the point of the Tower of Babel account. And every conquest was the point of every single conquest account.

It's because the miracles were the point of the accounts that it can only either be true or a conspiracy. Jesus was portrayed as God. It's not surprising that that portrayal resulted in Jesus being worshiped as God. So if the miracles portrayed in FORTY accounts are not true, someone was secretly conspiring to make Jesus be worshiped as God.

 

[ding]

The 'details' of the embellished accounts are embellishments.

For what purpose? To lure unsuspecting pagans into worshiping Jesus as God?

 

[ding]

That sounds like you saying it.

No. It's you proving it because you won't use the accounts to prove your point because you can't because you are wrong.

 

[ding]

Yes, it is just you saying it.

If only you could back up your beliefs using the actual accounts. But you can't. Because they don't.

 

[ding]

Sales. Are commercials for laundry detergents a conspiracy?

It is when they are being sold as 40 miracles in a secret attempt at leading others into worshiping Jesus as God.

 

[alang1216]

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?

Seeing the different versions of the different miracles, and knowing how the NT was orally transmitted it is obvious to me that the miracles were subtle embellishments that crept into the tellings and retellings of the story of Jesus.

 

[ding]

Seeing the different versions of the different miracles, and knowing how the NT was orally transmitted it is obvious to me that the miracles were subtle embellishments that crept into the tellings and retellings of the story of Jesus.

If it is as you said, all embellishment, then it's all lies. And if it's all lies, then it is a conspiracy.

Feel free to point out anything you think is true in the accounts. But please, for the love of God, please use the details of the accounts for once. You bluster more than Trump.

 

[ding]

Seeing the different versions of the different miracles, and knowing how the NT was orally transmitted it is obvious to me that the miracles were subtle embellishments that crept into the tellings and retellings of the story of Jesus.

According to your "telephone game" argument, it's all just an accident that early Christians worshiped Jesus as God. That's not how the gospels portray it. And then there's the small matter of Jesus being worshiped as God immediately after he rose from the dead before any of your alleged "telephone game" mistakes were actually recorded. So not only do the accounts dispute your "telephone game" argument the actions and history of the first Christians dispute your "telephone game" argument.

You really do need to pick a lane. It's funny how you latched on to my explanation of embellished OT accounts and tried to apply it to the NT without actually looking at any of the accounts of miracles. So when that failed you went back to Ehrman's ridiculous argument "telephone game" which has no grounding in the historical events of the first Christians. I'm pretty sure the apostles who gave their lives for their beliefs didn't think they gave their lives because of a "telephone game" mistake.

 

[alang1216]

If it is as you said, all embellishment, then it's all lies. And if it's all lies, then it is a conspiracy.

Feel free to point out anything you think is true in the accounts. But please, for the love of God, please use the details of the accounts for once. You bluster more than Trump.

I'm getting bored of going in circles here.

This is my last word:
Fact: The NT (and OT) are theological works, not histories. The goals of the NT were to convince people that Jesus was the messiah. To do that, they went to great lengths to show that the Hebrew prophesies predicted Jesus. One result was the two, independently created, birth narratives. Were there two conspiracies or was it creative oral historians embellishing the original accounts? Hardly matters but the same process piled miracles on Jesus and had him rise from the dead. End of story.

 

[ding]

I'm getting bored of going in circles here.

This is my last word:
Fact: The NT (and OT) are theological works, not histories. The goals of the NT were to convince people that Jesus was the messiah. To do that, they went to great lengths to show that the Hebrew prophesies predicted Jesus. One result was the two, independently created, birth narratives. Were there two conspiracies or was it creative oral historians embellishing the original accounts? Hardly matters but the same process piled miracles on Jesus and had him rise from the dead. End of story.

It's your biases that are keeping you from being objective. You refuse to accept supernatural events are possible. What was it that you said... that if you had witnessed the events recorded in the gospels you would have believed Jesus was God too. Well... the first Christians - who were Jewish - did witness those events and that's why they worshiped Jesus as God. That's not something they would do on a whim. I don't see how you can believe Jesus behaving and saying he was equal to God is the result of a telephone game mistake.

 

[ding]

alang1216 you can disagree all you want but your words are your words.

I don't accept miracles because I've never seen one.

If I had witnessed miracles performed by Jesus I would have been a true believer. Show me a miracle today and I'm a believer.

You have pre-judged the accounts of the NT because of your bias. The first Christians who were Jewish did witness the miracles performed by Jesus and were true believers. Their belief was not due to "telephone game" errors.