Hmm. There’s a longstanding view in Christian theology that mankind is inherently wicked and we deserve whatever evils come our way, and it’s only God’s mercy when things don’t go ill for us. I’ve never found that one compelling, but it’s there. The fact that we live in a flawed world has been addressed since Genesis, and attributed there to the fall of Adam and Eve. To my mind that’s just myth and allegory, trying to give reason for the unexplainable.
The problem of man’s suffering for no known reason is dealt with in the Book of Job, but since that’s the initial “Man is not in a position to judge God” stance, to apply it would be circular here. since I’m trying to make a case for it. So I am, at least at the moment, left without a counterproposal.
The only logical reason I can give you that you shouldn’t judge God is that you don’t believe in God, ergo, you have nothing to judge.
Whenever I hear stuff like that, I have to wonder why she didn’t stop to think that her so-called divine providence knocked her off the horse in the first place and nearly killed her.
Sure, and Zeus, Isis and Thor as well. Just keep in mind the fact that you are a finite creature judging a concept that is, at least for the standard idea of the Christian God, by definition beyond the scope of human understandng.
Christ’s disciples didn’t understand his parables while he was teaching them. While the idea of Christ’s return is a major theme of the NT, it’s clear they missed the mark on this one.
What I’ll keep in mind is that this “He is beyond all human understanding” is mostly said by those who think they are doing what he wants and that what he wants is to help them. At least in not buying the concept I’m not the one that is hypocritical.
There’s still a fairly solid body of material he did manage to impart (e.g., the Sermon on the Mount), and only a few items that didn’t make the transition. It’s a testimony to his teaching that his statements were remembered as well as they were when it came time to writing the Gospels.
And it’s a testament to the worth of his teachings that everyone remembers it totally differently, some recounting major events that don’t appear in the writings of others.
Each of the Gospels was written from a different person’s point of view to a different audience, and emphasizing different points or concepts. Consequently, they are bound to differ.
So, do you dismiss the entirety of the NT, or just those parts that are mythic in your eyes? I myself don’t find the infancy narratives to be believable, so I’m not trying to be snarky about this.
There is no way of knowing which 2nd and 3rd hand “witnesses” are reliable…or even if any of them are, for that matter. Can you make a case for any of the gospels being more reliable than the others? If not, then you should be asking yourself why you believe any of it.
Mark has the benefit of being the oldest (in most Bible historians’ opinion) and having been used as a source for both Matthew and Luke. It puts the disciples in a distinctly unpleasant light, which is unusual to the point of being unique for works of that period, making it more likely that it’s relaying accurate eyewitness testimony. The inclusion of John the Baptist, who was more popular and widely known than Jesus, as a precursor and possible inspiration for Jesus, is another favor for credibility, as early Christians would have more likely just as soon ignored him. There are numerous other points such as these.
Isaac Asimov, noted atheist, commented in his commentary on the New Testament something to the effect that, however the text reads, something formed a group of confused and frightened disciples into the seed of a major religion. If not resurrection, then what was it?