Great news for Athiests

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Upon closer inspection of the Bible, I have discovered that it is not necessary to believe in Christ without proof:

John 20:27 - Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing."

Thus, rejoice! If there is a Christian God, you are not expected to believe until provided the evidence.

Or, at least this could provide some amusement the next time a Fundy starts bible-quoting. ;)

[Skeptical Greg]

A just God, certainly wouldn't give special treatment to one person. Would he?

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind
Upon closer inspection of the Bible, I have discovered that it is not necessary to believe in Christ without proof:

John 20:27 - Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing."

Thus, rejoice! If there is a Christian God, you are not expected to believe until provided the evidence.

Or, at least this could provide some amusement the next time a Fundy starts bible-quoting. ;)
Isn't that conclusion at least partly undermined by the reproach that comes next?

Jesus said to him, "Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed." (John 20:29)

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by ceo_esq

Isn't that conclusion at least partly undermined by the reproach that comes next?

Jesus said to him, "Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed." (John 20:29)

You get bonus points if you believe without seeing is how I read that.

[Skeptical Greg]

Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed." (John 20:29)


Any Hebrew/Aramaic scholars here?

Any chance ' blessed' can be mistaken for ' woo-woo'?:D

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind
You get bonus points if you believe without seeing is how I read that.
That seems like a reasonable interpretation. So you're OK if you believe after seeing, and really blessed if you believe without seeing. Although that does leave open the unpleasant possibility that you're f*cked if you just don't believe at all. :D

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by ceo_esq

Jesus said to him, "Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed." (John 20:29)
So, really,

"Blessed are those who take anecdotal evidence at face value."

or pehaps

"Blessed are those who takes only Thomas's anecdotal evidence at face value."

?

[kourama]

What if you're blind? Do you get any points for believing when you can't see?

Also, what if you have sever short-term memory loss, and see, and believe, then forget, then see and not believe? Which occurance counts?

This is why true-believers hate me. >:)

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by ceo_esq

That seems like a reasonable interpretation. So you're OK if you believe after seeing, and really blessed if you believe without seeing. Although that does leave open the unpleasant possibility that you're f*cked if you just don't believe at all. :D

Ah! But, once you are provided proof, indisputable proof (like Jesus letting you place your hand in his side,) would you have any choice but to believe? Thus, it is a no-lose situation.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind


Ah! But, once you are provided proof, indisputable proof (like Jesus letting you place your hand in his side,) would you have any choice but to believe? Thus, it is a no-lose situation.
What I was getting at was this: under your interpretation, Jesus says that Thomas and other "proof-believers" are OK, but they don't get as much divine credit as the "faith-believers". However, He never says that people who don't receive proof are somehow excused from believing. Thus, it might be a losing situation for people who haven't received proof and refuse to believe on faith.

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by ceo_esq

What I was getting at was this: under your interpretation, Jesus says that Thomas and other "proof-believers" are OK, but they don't get as much divine credit as the "faith-believers". However, He never says that people who don't receive proof are somehow excused from believing. Thus, it might be a losing situation for people who haven't received proof and refuse to believe on faith.

I see your point. I'd argue that the statement means that after death, the non-believers will be given the opportunity to poke and prod the wounds since Jesus wants all to believe.

[Checkmite]

I don't see where Jesus said that believers who have seen him aren't as good as ones who haven't.

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
I don't see where Jesus said that believers who have seen him aren't as good as ones who haven't.

John 20:29 - Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe."

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
I don't see where Jesus said that believers who have seen him aren't as good as ones who haven't.
I wouldn't put it quite that way, myself. But John 20:29 does suggest that belief in Christ as an act of faith is more meritorious than belief in Christ based on proof. As A_Feeble_Mind pointed out, confronting irrefutable evidence pretty much forces a reasonable mind to believe something, so believing under those circumstances isn't deserving of special praise.

[Skeptical Greg]

This thread has got me thinking..

No matter which side you are own, you have to see the Gospels as bits and pieces, of what would have been a much more complex series of events.

However, when you look at this story about 'doubting' Thomas, how much more contrived could a story appear to be?

There are others, where one or more disciples, look pretty stupid, but what would that say about, how Jesus picked his friends?

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Diogenes
There are others, where one or more disciples, look pretty stupid, but what would that say about, how Jesus picked his friends?
Good question. Jesus' close friends seem mostly to be cut from pretty undistinguished cloth. They displayed a range of character and personality flaws - cowardice, stubbornness, rashness, occasional obtuseness. Inexplicably, he decided to place one of the most fallible of his buddies in charge of his estate. Another friend was a two-faced murderous snitch.

Outside of Jesus' inner circle, it was arguably even worse. He frequently fraternized with a bunch of low-lifes, rejects and losers.

Yes, on the face of it Jesus appears to have had questionable social taste and character judgment. Is this what you're getting at?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by ceo_esq

Good question. Jesus' close friends seem mostly to be cut from pretty undistinguished cloth. They displayed a range of character and personality flaws - cowardice, stubbornness, rashness, occasional obtuseness. Inexplicably, he decided to place one of the most fallible of his buddies in charge of his estate. Another friend was a two-faced murderous snitch.

Outside of Jesus' inner circle, it was arguably even worse. He frequently fraternized with a bunch of low-lifes, rejects and losers.

However, this does set the stage for all sorts of parables, pontifications, object lessons and fable-like anecdotes..

" One day as the master and his students were walking through a field of grain on the sabbath, they decided to pick and eat some of it, etc. ......"

Did anyone notice that the question of ' stealing ' didn't come up?



Did anyone say ' contrived '?

[stamenflicker]

However, when you look at this story about 'doubting' Thomas, how much more contrived could a story appear to be?

There is some leaning to see this part of the story as an addition. I'll dig up the references if you make me. It's still a good story :)

Flick

[Loki]

Outside of Jesus' inner circle, it was arguably even worse. He frequently fraternized with a bunch of low-lifes, rejects and losers.
And his relationship with women probably could use a little improving too. For a demi-god heralding a "new way of living" into the world, he somehow couldn't find a single woman worthy of inclusion amongst his twelve closest confidants? Not even a token woman as a sort of "affirmative action" statement?

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by kourama
...

This is why true-believers hate me. >:) Well, if they hate you, they are obviously not true believers. :)

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Diogenes
" One day as the master and his students were walking through a field of grain on the sabbath, they decided to pick and eat some of it, etc. ......"

Did anyone notice that the question of ' stealing ' didn't come up?


It might also be noted that Messiah will usher in a world where the Law is observed universally. Encouraging Sabbath breaking is not quite ushering in such a world.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
However, when you look at this story about 'doubting' Thomas, how much more contrived could a story appear to be?

There is some leaning to see this part of the story as an addition. I'll dig up the references if you make me. It's still a good story :)

Flick

I'll take your word for it.. However, it is nice to have an authoritative concurrence..:)


Your attitude (at times) is refreshing Flick.. I'll swing back your way from time to time with the lamp..;)

[c4ts]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind
Upon closer inspection of the Bible, I have discovered that it is not necessary to believe in Christ without proof:

John 20:27 - Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing."

Thus, rejoice! If there is a Christian God, you are not expected to believe until provided the evidence.

Or, at least this could provide some amusement the next time a Fundy starts bible-quoting. ;)

Yeah, I think it's hard not to notice how skeptical Thomas is all the time, always demanding evidence from Jesus, even after he's seen a few miracles.

[Peskanov]

Diogenes said:
----
Did anyone notice that the question of ' stealing ' didn't come up?

Did anyone say ' contrived '?
---

Umm...You should read the good book more frequently, sinner:

Deuteronomy 23:24
24 If you enter your neighbor's vineyard, you may eat all the grapes you want, but do not put any in your basket.
25 If you enter your neighbor's grainfield, you may pick kernels with your hands, but you must not put a sickle to his standing grain.

Btw, here you have another one as an extra bonus; it's totally off topic but I found it looking for the first one:

Deuteronomy 23:1
1No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the LORD .
:D

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Peskanov
Diogenes said:
----
Did anyone notice that the question of ' stealing ' didn't come up?

Did anyone say ' contrived '?
---

Umm...You should read the good book more frequently, sinner:

Deuteronomy 23:24
24 If you enter your neighbor's vineyard, you may eat all the grapes you want, but do not put any in your basket.
25 If you enter your neighbor's grainfield, you may pick kernels with your hands, but you must not put a sickle to his standing grain.

Btw, here you have another one as an extra bonus; it's totally off topic but I found it looking for the first one:

Deuteronomy 23:1
1No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the LORD .
:D

I stand corrected. ( for the time being... I will make sure you haven't taken that out of context..)

[Gregor]

Jesus married Mary Magdalen in John. The water to wine trick was performed by Jesus at his wedding.

[Loki]

Gregor,

Jesus married Mary Magdalen in John. The water to wine trick was performed by Jesus at his wedding.
Well, the shotgun wedding to Mary wasn't what I was referring to - more the lack of women in 'executive' positions within the organisation. Or are you suggesting that Mary was Nancy to Jesus's Ronald?

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Gregor
Jesus married Mary Magdalen in John. The water to wine trick was performed by Jesus at his wedding. Some people hold that interpretation, but it certainly doesn’t emerge clearly from the Johannine text and it’s definitely a minority view among New Testament exegetes. Interestingly, Sylvia Browne enthusiastically recommends a book (http://www.sylvia.org/home/recommended.cfm) that argues that Jesus married Mary Magdalene. Some would take this fact alone to suggest that such a thesis is likely the result of subpar scholarship. ;)

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Some people hold that interpretation, but it certainly doesn’t emerge clearly from the Johannine text and it’s definitely a minority view among New Testament exegetes. Interestingly, Sylvia Browne enthusiastically recommends a book (http://www.sylvia.org/home/recommended.cfm) that argues that Jesus married Mary Magdalene. Some would take this fact alone to suggest that such a thesis is likely the result of subpar scholarship. ;)

The Tomb of God and some of the more recent books on the list basically take their lead from The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail. The Jesus chapters in the THBATHG are entertaining but nothing more than speculation.

The central premise of the THBATHG is based on a parchment containing hidden messages revaled through 'sacred geometry'. In fact the parchment was a 1950's forgery. The secret society 'The Priory Of Zion' which supposedly protected this secret throughout the centuries was also pure bunk. The Horizon program. 'The History Of A Mystery' thoroughly debunked the entire thing.

The person behind the scam ends up, suprise, suprise, to be none other Mr Plantard, who is identified in THBATHG as a direct descendent of Jesus! One of the other books on the list is written by a researcher connected to the Sinclair family who turn out, suprise suprise, to be descendents of Jesus too! (and if memory serves, King Arthur is somewhere in the family tree for good measure!)

THBATHG continues to be popular and credible, despite the fact that the above program showed the central permise to be bad history based on flawed research. However the myth will no doubt prevail for years to come.