by Ianto Watt
Now let’s look at the other possible explanation, that these 12 apostles, the 70 disciples and the tens of thousands of converts (in Jerusalem alone) were all idiots. And that for some incomprehensible reason they all repeated these same phony stories of miracles, and that it led to their deaths, in pretty short order. Now think with me here, grandson, if the first apostle dies, then another, then another, and numerous disciples too, one after another, and then the simple followers start getting axed, what do you think? Were they all so stupid that they couldn’t put two and two together and realize they were next in line for execution if they didn’t shut up? If the stories they related weren’t true, why would they continue to repeat them? What did they stand to gain, if the stories were false? Death? What a deal! Smart guys, right?
Judas aside, this doesn’t seem to have happened at all. In fact the killings simply produced more believers! And the new believers kept talking about the new miracles attributed to the previous martyrs who in turn believed the original reports of the miracles they swore they witnessed. Now this idea of explaining Christianity’s founding through the concept of mass stupidity is taking the idea of the ‘self-loathing Jews’ to an astronomical extreme. Could they all have been this stupid? Did God choose them as the Chosen People because they were stupid? I don’t think so. Maybe he didn’t pick them for looks, but if you have ever met any Jews at all, of any kind, stupidity is not the impression you get. In fact, it’s just the opposite reaction I have.
No, when you think of Jews, stupid is not the answer. They aren’t Huns. And by the way, please remember, Huns are not Barbarians. They’re Huns. If you don’t know the difference, well, you’ve obviously never met one. Or you’re stupid. In which case, you’re not a Jew, right? Here’s the difference; Huns break things, Barbarians take things. If you gave a Hun a Lamborghini, he would burn it. A Barbarian would redline it. Get it? Good. Anyway, so much for this line of reasoning (mass hypnosis or mass stupidity) which interestingly enough, is usually the answer pushed by self-loathing academic Jewish Wiener-Dogs. Life is funny, isn’t it?
No, the only answer that seems reasonable to a Barbarian is that the miracles were true. What else could have driven this incredible number of people to believe these stories, and to even suffer death as a direct result of this belief? And now what were these miracles?
Well, let’s think a little first, and put things in context. Since the Christians claim to supersede the Jews as the New Israel, and since they claim the same OT scriptures as their own, then there ought to be some correspondence between the miracles of the OT in the miracles related in the NT, wouldn’t you think? And to my way of thinking, it appears that there is. And so, let’s review the biggies in the OT.
To me, the biggest miracle in the OT, in terms of sheer size and duration, was the feeding of the Israelites in the desert for 40 years. That’s huge, as we’ve already discussed. So what miracle(s) correspond to this in the NT? Well, I would say it is the multiple times that Jesus is reputed to have fed the multitudes in the countryside. He fed 5,000 men (and their families too, one would assume) in the first report, which is included in all four gospels (Mark 6, for example). Now remember, here’s another example of men telling stories that would get them killed, so we have to assume that the story was true, because if it wasn’t everyone would have known it, because there wouldn’t have been these 5,000+ people telling everyone as well. In other words, this was hot news, and not because it was written down years later in the gospels. The people repeating these stories died for telling the stories now, not later, let alone much later (like a 100 years on).
No, stuff this really happened, and the hostility of the Talmudic High Priests and Pharisees is the only proof we need. In fact, all throughout the NT there is the theme that the Pharisees and the Priests were really agitated at Jesus because of his miracles. But they were afraid to move in for the kill for three long years because they feared the reaction of the common people. Now tell me, if Jesus hadn’t fed the people, why would the Pharisees care if these followers of Jesus kept telling people that he had miraculously fed 5,000+ people, multiple times? After all, there wouldn’t be anyone else among the common people backing their story up. In fact, if this is what had really happened, as the Wiener-Dogs insist, then the Pharisees (and the common folk) would have been howling with laughter! They would have been begging the Romans NOT to kill him, because he made them look so good by comparison, because he and his followers would have been demonstrably insane. Why kill a good show?
Oh yeah, and whereas the OT miracle of the manna occurred by falling from heaven each night, Jesus does it one better by taking a few loaves and fishes and blessing them, causing them to multiply, miraculously of course. Cool. They just keep growing till everyone’s fed, and there’s lots of bread and fish left over. This beats a perpetual motion machine! And to top it off, he does it multiple times! And all of these times were just leading up to the big event, where Jesus claimed that he would feed everyone who wanted fed, and feed them with his own flesh and blood. More on that claim later though, but for now, think about this. Could someone who could turn water into wine (at the Wedding Feast in Cana, another great food miracle) also turn wine into blood? His own blood? Hmmmm….For now though, let’s just keep in mind that these mass feeding miracles actually did happen, away from the towns (where there were no sources of bread or fish), because if they didn’t happen, everyone, the common people and Pharisees alike, would have laughed Jesus and the apostles out of town as they were telling everyone about their hallucination. And that would have been the end of their attempt to create their ‘legend’.
Now let’s look at another miracle, one that was the opposite of the OT miracle of striking dead the first born of Egypt (which surely would have included millions of Egyptians). In this comparison, Jesus does the opposite by raising people from the dead. Not once or twice, but again and again and again. Lazarus, the widow’s son, the ruler’s daughter, etc. Again, we’re struck with the obvious. Why did people continue to follow him, and with increasing crowds, if he didn’t do what the gospels report? Who would believe such a story if there was no evidence to back it up? Who else has ever been reported to have done this, with any credibility? And to have done it time and again, right in front of everyone? And why would the authorities get worked up over these reports if they didn’t have some truth to it? Why weren’t they just howling with laughter at these obviously insane people who claimed to have seen the dead raised to life?
It’s because the crowds believed it, and they believed it because they saw it. Let’s face it, if you had simply heard that someone was raised from the dead, would you believe it? No. But if you saw it happen, you would. And your belief in it would even embolden you to be willing to risk your own life to tell others. Why? Because you would have gained the hope of being raised from the dead by this same Jesus fellow. And that, I contend, is exactly what happened, and what panicked the Pharisees, and which then led to the willing deaths of thousands of these martyr-believers early on in the Church.
And that begs an answer to the question, how can you do this sort of miracle-thing half-way? Either you were dead (in the tomb 3 days, like Lazarus) or you weren’t. And you either fully came back to life or you didn’t. No halfway stuff here, there weren’t any ICU’s and respirators back then. And remember, Jesus didn’t have the opportunity to set these things up (no advanced communications or transportation that would be needed to co-ordinate things). No, it wasn’t like that. Instead, people came to him, saying ‘so-and-so is dead, can you help’? And he’d say, ‘sure, let’s walk the 10 miles to your place and have a look’. Then when they get there, there’s a crowd of mourners (as the person has been dead for a while, maybe even wrapped for burial), and Jesus says ‘quit crying, they’re only asleep’. He says this before he sees the person. The crowd heckles him, as he’s obviously an idiot. Then he commands the person to rise, and they do. The crowd goes nuts, word spreads, and the fame grows, and travels
rapidly, even to the ears of the authorities. Not good!
Then, of course, there’s the incredible number of times Jesus heals the sick (oppositely analogous to the afflictions of the Egyptians with the 10 plagues). And how many times did the authorities haul people in to question them, like the parents of the crippled man who was healed? And how many times does scripture say that the people were afraid of the authorities, and that they knew they would suffer for telling the truth that, yes, indeed, so-and-so had been healed? So now we’re back to the original thesis of the experts- the crowds must have been either suffering from mass hypnosis, or they were all incredibly stupid to believe such an obvious falsehood. Well, what do you think, grandson? Somebody’s stupid here, but I don’t think it was the people who believed these stories.
Now there were lots of other miracles too, as the whole New Testament is a sort of listing of the greatest of them. But it also claims that there were so many that they couldn’t even begin to mention them, as it would require more books than anyone could ever write (or at least 67 volumes, eh?). This is quite a claim, and the miracles recorded in the NT are pretty amazing in their scope and number. But there are even more that have continued to occur outside the NT, just like those that occurred outside the OT, and which were recorded in the annals of the elders and even the secular historians of the pagan world. In fact, the reports of them have continued until this very day. And as usual, Wiener-Dogs hate to even talk about them. But it’s a relatively simple process to uncover them, as the Church requires multiple miracles to be attributed to a dead person’s influence before they can be canonized (declared an officially recognized ‘saint’). And unless I’m mistaken, the Holy Roman Church has been doing this canonization-thing for almost 2,000 years, non-stop.
Pope Leo I Repulsing Attila - Raphael - WikiPaintings.www.wikipaintings.org15
Now let’s look at my favorite miracle from the time of Jesus onward. It parallels the ‘miracle of what didn’t happen’ in the OT, when Alexander the Great came and didn’t even try to capture Jerusalem. Remember, this isn’t in scripture, it is in the everyday secular histories of the pagan Greek world which testify to this one singular exception to Alexander’s habit of taking every capital city on his ‘Conquering-the-World Tour’. So what’s the counterpart in the Christian era?
Well, just like Alexander, another ‘tourista’ came to visit the ‘New Jerusalem’ as Rome was known, in 452 AD. (This would be 777 years after Alexander came to Jerusalem, if he came in 325 BC, another numerical factoid I like, but which probably doesn’t mean anything. Or not.). Take a look at the painting (above) of this meeting of Attila the Hun with Pope Leo I, outside Rome. The painting shows Attila seeing a vision of St.’s Peter & Paul, hovering over the Pope with swords drawn, ready to attack him if he made one false move. And guess what? Attila didn’t attack. For once in his life, the Great Hun backed down and left town without even a threat. No bluster, no demands, doesn’t even get his parking-ticket validated. He just leaves, terrified for his life by the vision he just saw. And then he vanishes from history, just like Alexander.
Now you don’t have to believe he saw Sts. Peter and Paul hovering over the Pope. After all, those two had been dead for about 400 years. All you have to do, if you’re a Wiener-Dog, is explain why, when Rome was weak and defenseless, having already suffered from a severe famine, and with no army available and her walls down, Attila didn’t attack. Or even demand tribute. Oh yeah, and then explain why everyone else said it was because of the vision, and then they recorded this story for the next 1500 years. And explain too why a great painter like Raphael would bother to paint this epic scene. All because no one believed it? Sure. So if that’s the explanation, then now we’re back to explanation of ‘mass hypnosis’ (or mass stupidity) theory coming to the rescue of modern Wiener-Dog historians. Or maybe Attila’s mummy called and said it was time for a long nap? Isn’t it great to have a job where, whenever you can’t explain things (which, by the way, is their job), they can fall back on this same lame excuse? Great work, if you can get it. All you have to do to apply for this job is to take out your spine and brain, and you’ll be hired in an instant. Tenure included. Idiots.
Here’s another great parallel between the OT and the NT. Jesus predicted the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple the second time, just like Isaiah the Prophet did. Both did it a generation or more before it happened. Both were mocked. Both were right. Both were murdered by the Pharisees. Both were dead-accurate, literally.
Want another great prophecy, from modern times? How about when Lucia of Fatima predicts that WWI will end and WWII will occur (this is in 1917, before America entered WWI to save the stupid Anglishmen). She also gives the name of the Pope who would be the ruler of Holy Rome (Pius XI), and the sign of the coming war. That’s just like when Isaiah prophesied that the Persians would defeat the Babylonians (this was when Babylon was at the height of its power) and then names the ruler, Cyrus, who would lead the Persians. Pretty good guessing, if you don’t believe in prophecy, eh? In both cases, the ruler the prophets named hadn’t even come to power. And how do you guess the name of a future pope? He gets to pick it himself!
I could go on and on about the miracles in the NT, especially the ones that parallel the Ark of the Covenant (you touch it, you die), but you get the point. And so, in answer to the question, ‘Does Christianity have an impressive history of prophecy and miracles?’ I have to answer, yes, it does. And so, let’s ask the next big question of contestant #2;
Does Christianity promises us something of
great value or reward? YES and NO.
Once again, just like with the Jews, it all depends on your outlook on time. If you’re looking for a great deal in the here-and-now, you’re out of luck, Chuck. All that Holy Rome promises is that you’ll get your butt kicked from now till you die, if you do it right. But after that, it gets better. Really. You get everything (except the 72 virgins Mohammed promises his believers). No fears, no tears, no mortgage payments, no IRS, and best of all, no inflation! But these are simply the things you don’t have to worry about anymore. They aren’t the real reward. These things are small potatoes compared to what you get as your reward for believing.
The reality of the Christian reward is an incredible deal, to my way of thinking, grandson. The real reward is you get to see everything in creation through the eyes of the Creator. It’s called the Beatific Vision. You see with understanding, and you see it all. You even get to see God. Not that you can understand him, though, at least not entirely. How could you? He’s infinite. But progressively, you understand more and more, and since there’s literally an infinite number of things and people and angels to understand and know, besides God, you’ll need an infinite amount of time to absorb it (and react with awed praise). And that’s exactly what you get. Pretty straight forward, I think. Pretty huge. Just like Pascal said. Finite bet, infinite payout. Pretty good bet, so far.
Now the difference in this version of heaven and the other versions (pagan, Jewish, Mohammedan, etc.) is the motivating factor behind this God’s actions and thoughts: Love. Who can really comprehend it? Only a parent can come close. And that’s exactly why this Christian heaven is built on the structure of the family, with God as the parent (of idiot adopted children who eventually repent) and who loves us in spite of our ways here in the Big Casino. Like I said, it’s a great deal, the best offer I’ve come across. Except for the part of the butt-kicking here and now. But with a personality like mine, I’m gonna get that anyway, so what have I got to lose?
But let’s face it, that part of the promise is totally consistent with what their scripture describes. Everybody gets killed for their beliefs, or lack of them. But hey, we’re going to die anyway, right? So maybe this is the bet to make. But now let’s plow on to the next question in our task of finding out which slot to bet on………….
Does Christianity have an unbroken line
of Priestly succession till today? Yes.
Oh, did I call Holy Rome a ‘government’? Well, that’s because that’s what it is, and it happens to be the biggest government on earth. It’s even bigger than the IRS! And it’s not surprising that the meaning of the word ‘apostle’ is ‘ambassador’. And Holy Rome actually does have actual governmental ambassadors in practically every country on earth (with the exception of The People’s Republics of Boulder and Berkley).
On a related note, all those Bizarro Protestant sects that claim the Holy Roman Church isn’t really the original and true Christian Church have some explaining to do, by the way. If the Holy Roman claim is bogus, where was the real ‘universal’ Church? After all, that’s what ‘catholic’ means. It comes from the two Greek words ‘kata holos’, meaning ‘concerning the whole’. The whole world, and the whole of mankind, that is. Universal, in other words. And if a non-catholic (Bizarro) Christian claims the Holy Romans aren’t the true Church, then how do they explain the 212 year period between the time of the death of John, the last Apostle (in 100 AD) and the visible appearance of the Roman Church, after Christianity was legalized by Emperor Constantine in 313 AD (the Edict of Milan)? What happened to all those disciples? And what about Linus, Cletus, Clement and Evaristus, the popes who succeeded Peter after he was crucified in 67 AD and before John died? And all the ones who followed until Pope Miltiades in 311AD? Obviously, the machinery of governance was already in place (although underground) even before the last of the Apostles died, and there was no dispute about who outranked whom. The Apostle John never said to Pope Cletus, ‘wait, I outrank you’! Where are all the writings of those who claimed, in 150 AD, let’s say, that the Church was led by someone other than these men? Where are these writings?