Why stay a Christian?

[wil]

Namaste Thomas,

He's asking a question. It is obvioous a virgin birth is an incredible event, and one that many think pivitol in belief of Christianity, yet we have some authors who neglect it in their discussion of the events of the time? Same with the resurection, we'd all be incredibly excited if JFK returned to life after getting shot and the footage put everywhere. If anyone was writing his story would they omit such an amazing event.

This is the question he asks....instead of answering or discussing the question the solution is to roast the messenger? A man of the cloth, a devoted follower of Jesus?

What is left? Thomas there are millions of us that don't live and die in our belief based on the doctrines of the past. I am incredulous at the thought of those that say 'take that away and he is just a man' 'just'?? Just a man who realized oneness with all that is thousands of years before science comes up with quantum physics? Just a man who promoted peace to the extent of 'love your enemies'? Just a man who embraced love to 'whatever you do to the least...you do to me?"

Just because those that followed him were so enamored they told the typical oral tradition around the fire...embellishing events to cement the memory, making things larger than life so they would be repeated. It is the fact that his words were so powerful, his understanding of our true nature (not an unworthy nature) sat just below the surface awaiting our discovery...

What is left?? What is left is not remembering some call and response song, but rememberring his words and how they resonate and raise our consciousness. What is left is realizing our onenness and ability to save ourselves from the earthly plane of existence....that free will is a choice....a choice that allows one to not get sucked into the material, but find heaven in our midst.

That is no small path my elder brother and wayshower blazed for us....and I am eternally grateful.

 

[wil]

As I awoke this morning I roll over and turn on the radio. The discussion was about chemicals we ingest and how low doses are being found to be increasingly a problem where our studies all concentrate on high doses of toxins. Why do they do this? Well some scientist back in the 1600's realized the issue and developed a protocol which we've been utilzing with modifications for years....it is the orthodoxy of toxin research.

But now we find the low doses of chemicals emitted from plastics act like hormones and are causing various cancers and abnormalities, so we need to look at everything a little differently.

This I see as an analogous to the discussion here. We have the conventional thought, we have another thought, some new ideas (not so new the same ideas have been discredited for centuries as the big dogs on the block scream louder) but with the advent of the computer and the internet, one doesn't have to travel across the world to compare documents, one doesn't have to delve into research libraries, and monastaries that are holding this old bible or that. One stands on the shoulders of thousands of years of research and is able to see what was impossible or improbable to see only decades ago.

They aren't willy nilly discrediting this part of the bible or that, they are looking at what was publised and when, what was added and/or modified and when....and determining closer and closer to what was said, and what was done.

We have a choice, we can enter into the discussion, utilizing the knowledge of today and yesterday....or we can choose to discredit those that are doing the work...

 

[Thomas]

Hi Wil —

OK. Let's suppose you've won me over. Suppose I apply the measure universally and without prior assumptions:

He's asking a question. It is obvious a virgin birth is an incredible event, and one that many think pivitol in belief of Christianity, yet we have some authors who neglect it in their discussion of the events of the time?

OK. So Mark missed it out ... but then Mark begins with the public mission of Christ ... but then two people who use Mark, Matthew and Luke, preface the story with a nativity sequence. Both are constructs to suggest that Jesus is somehow the promised Messiah, but its evident that they come from different source traditions, as they're not the same.

So then, we know, that by about 80AD, the scribes were already recording a manufactured mythology of Jesus, so we must assume that this process began from the moment He died, to be widespread and varied by the time the scribes came to record it.

I mean, Ignatius of Antioch (c 35-50 to 98-117), who was possibly a student of John the Apostle. In his epistle to the Ephesians, he writes:
"… Now the virginity of Mary was hidden from the prince of this world, as was also her offspring, and the death of the Lord; three mysteries of renown, which were wrought in silence, but have been revealed to us." or to the Magnesians "I desire to guard you beforehand, that ye fall not upon the hooks of vain doctrine, but that you may rather attain to a full assurance in Christ, who was begotten by the Father before all ages, but was afterwards born of the Virgin Mary without any intercourse with man."

So what we have here is a doctrine in place — as he is writing to churches to affirm the teaching, not to preach something new — so the teaching must have been in place in the lifetime of the apostles, and spread by them and their students. So my point is, if this doctrine is fabricated, it was fabricated by the apostles, as was the entirely of Scripture, which is a record of a fabricated mythology.

Same with the resurrection, we'd all be incredibly excited if JFK returned to life after getting shot and the footage put everywhere. If anyone was writing his story would they omit such an amazing event.

OK. Same rule, almost from the moment the guy was in the grave, people were spinning tales about having seen him. In which case, his crucifixion is really just the execution of a rather annoying pseudo-prophet who was troubling either the Roman or the Jewish authorities, or both ... so the central message of salvation.resurrection is another lie.

What is left? Thomas there are millions of us that don't live and die in our belief based on the doctrines of the past.

I think the assumption that anything that's old, is old hat, is a false one, but OK.

I am incredulous at the thought of those that say 'take that away and he is just a man' 'just'??

Really? I don't see why ... it's what you keep insisting to me.

Just a man who realized oneness with all that is thousands of years before science comes up with quantum physics?

Oh that! Where d'you get that from? It's all part of the myth, surely? I mean, it was hardly new or revolutionary ... the idea had been around for ages ... it was probably something the writers tagged into the text to give it some ooomph.

Just a man who promoted peace to the extent of 'love your enemies'? Just a man who embraced love to 'whatever you do to the least...you do to me?"

That? That's not new or original either ... so again, more borrowings ... I can explain that away by reference to Hebrew Scripture, and the logos philosophy of the Stoics, or Plato, or the world soul of Aristotle ... I mean, this isn't the stuff of religion, this is just pop philosophy.

Just because those that followed him were so enamored they told the typical oral tradition around the fire...embellishing events to cement the memory, making things larger than life so they would be repeated.

OK. Embellishments like 'the oneness of all' or embellishments like 'love thy neighbour' or 'whatever you do unto others you do unto me'? Things like 'suffer the little children' and 'it's easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle ..." I mean, 'the eye of a needle' is a common metaphor in Aramaic, so it's hardly a new idea.

It is the fact that his words were so powerful, his understanding of our true nature (not an unworthy nature) sat just below the surface awaiting our discovery...

But they're not His words, Wil. They're just a syncretic concoction of ideas knocking around at the time. A myth waiting to be invented. What someone did was put them all together, and concoct the idea that one man said them all.

What is left?? What is left is not remembering some call and response song, but rememberring his words and how they resonate and raise our consciousness.

It's curious that the words that resonate, it seems to me, are the ones that closely resonate with the ideals of post-modern self-determining romanticism, as do those same phrases in other religious traditions. They're not 'Christian' so much as romance-generic.

What is left is realizing our onenness and ability to save ourselves from the earthly plane of existence....

Didn't save Jesus, did they? I mean, the guy's dead and gone ....

Then his followers spin this mythology about him, when in fact the truth and reality is, he's just another dead man ... and there's a very strong argument that perhaps he never even existed at all.

That is no small path my elder brother and wayshower blazed for us....and I am eternally grateful.

I'm sorry mate, 'elder brother' and 'wayshower'? What brotherhood, what way — they're both concoctions, aren't they? I think you've fallen for a modern myth.

Thomas

 

[wil]

lol, too funny Thomas....you out there provin Jesus was nobody...just a fellow who repeated what everyone already knew....pop philosophy.... and that is winning you over.

When did Ignatious write that of which you quote? (and why the disparity as to when he lived?) Writings are usually dated by what they spoke about historically yes? We can assume he didn't write it in his first 20 years of life??

 

[Thomas]

lol, too funny Thomas....you out there provin Jesus was nobody...

I don't think it's funny at all. I'm just following your line of reasoning to its logical and inevitable conclusion.

I'm not trying to be funny, or difficult ... but if that's the rule, and I'm just highlighting the implication.

As for Ignatius, we're not sure of his dates, but they fall between the dates given. The letter I quoted was written whilst on his way to Rome to martyrdom, so I would place them post 100AD.

What is evident therefore, following your reasoning, is that a well-thought-out fabricated myth was established by then ... but then as Paul was writing around 50AD, he, too, bought into the myth (if indeed he is not part of it), so again we have a fiction in place, beginning with his birth, and ending with his death ... so why not assume that everything between those points is also a fiction, as indeed you argue that the miracles and the mysteries are?

... and like I say, according to your rule, it's most likely that the whole thing is a complete fiction, as Jesus is not mentioned in any contemporary historical accounts outside of the closed circle of authors. I mean, the story would have leaked out, surely ?

Step up, dude! No-one got anywhere doing anything by half-measures!

What it boils down to, is we invent myths to make our existence more palatable ... but that's all they are ... stories.

The question does remain, why did they do it? I mean, suppose the twelve concocted the whole thing, or suppose there was a split between the honest and the inventors, then the honest, realising this guy had got it wrong, obviously went away and are lost to us forever, whilst the inventors created this wonderful lie, one which they must have known would get them into trouble with Jews and Gentiles alike ... I mean you'd think after the first couple were killed someone would say, 'hang on, this is just a story, right, I mean it's a myth ...' I mean, those guys must have been pretty sick dudes to get so dug in that they couldn't dig their way out, and ended up believing their own lie, to the point where they got themselves killed for their efforts.

The whole thing is a disaster from start to finish, looked at that way ... anybody with an ounce of sense would walk very quickly away from all of it.

Thomas

 

[shawn]

It seems that people, in general, have this curious habit of being very dualistic in their thinking.
Considering the example of christianity we see that over the centuries and over the world people have more or less polarized into an either/or grouping of -he is the messiah and one can only be saved through faith in him,
or,
-he is nothing.
So we have an all or nothing situation.
This is strange.
Granted there are lots of other ideas about it, but the majority are one or the other and not in between at all.
Personally, my opinion of the matter has progressed from one extreme to the other and has then made its way to a moderate position where I see that something phenomenal indeed occurred,( and has repeatedly for as long as people have been around,) and there are great and profound truths to be uncovered through the study of it.
But what is of concern to me is that so many people are jumping on either one boat or the opposite and they become emotionally involved in something which they only barely intellectually comprehend.

We see that the entirety of christian thought is built upon the NT, yet scholars have numerous translations with much disagreement as to what each and every portion really means as to shades of meaning and inferences and such.
If we applied this methodology onto, say, engineering, how could we ever build anything of value or integrity?
There is, in engineering, universal standards which all can agree upon and if one person centuries ago figured something out and wrote a treatise on it, we can find that many have since picked up their work where they left off and have built upon it with excellent results.
If we are ever going to make any real progress with our religious wrangling we will apply the same kind of rule. If we don't we are going to continue to dispute matters emotionally which will lead to even more senseless violence in our world and we can not afford to do this at all.
It is perilous and foolish.

 

[Thomas]

It seems that people, in general, have this curious habit of being very dualistic in their thinking.

I think the problem lies in not following the train of thought to its conclusion. The art of philosophy is just that, and those recognised as philosophers — and indeed, as mystics — have exemplified this process in the pursuit of the nature of things.

Considering the example of christianity we see that over the centuries and over the world people have more or less polarized into an either/or grouping of -he is the messiah and one can only be saved through faith in him,
or,
-he is nothing.

I disagree. The many and varied denominations cover the middle ground from one extreme to the other. But again, the philosopher does not occupy the middle ground, for the philosopher there is none, there is either truth or not-the-truth. Thus every religion has its dogmatic element.

The philosophical pursuit of the implication of the historical-critical method as applied to the text eventually undermines the text itself, this is an often-cited criticism of the method, which has largely been demonstrated as inaccurate in its conclusions when it separates itself from the other invesigative sciences.

On the one hand, the critical method — exemplified in what is called 'The Quest for the historical Jesus' — presupposes the historical Jesus, the fact, is masked by a fiction, and therefore the true historicity of Jesus is unknowable, because the only texts we have as evidence of his existence are demonstrably false, as fictions — but there is no ancilliary data to identify the reality behind the veil. Thus the Jesus is lost.

On the other hand, the sociologist recognises the emergence of an idea, not of an abstract idea of salvation but one utterly focussed entirely on and in the being of an existant and historical person. An idea of a person that spread like a virus to every quarter of the empire.

The theologian argues for the reality of the man, and the essential truth of Scripture, including those elements that seem inexplicable, impossible unless the active agent transcends the natural order, that is that the active agent is the cause and source of the natural order, and disposes it according to his will.

The atheist argues that the whole thing is a fiction. An admirable one, a compendium of human wisdom perhaps, but a fiction none the less.

Considering the claims that separate the denominations, it is entirely reasonable to suggest that one of them must, and indeed might, contain the deposit of faith in its entirety.

We see that the entirety of christian thought is built upon the NT, yet scholars have numerous translations with much disagreement as to what each and every portion really means as to shades of meaning and inferences and such.
If we applied this methodology onto, say, engineering, how could we ever build anything of value or integrity?

False premise, surely? Engineering is a matter of empirical data. The data of religion is not empirical. The same rules cannot be applied. Religion by its very nature asks questions that go beyond the scope of engineering, or any of the physical sciences, and thus the same rules and methodology cannot be applied.

Thomas

 

[Ahanu]

If the physical resurrection is what Paul meant, Paul's religious claims need empirical evidence, because he would be claiming there is a place "UP" somewhere for resurrected bodies. I mean, it is not that complicated. Christians been divided over the issue for thousands of years. Their going to continue wavering just like the hellenistic and palestinian Jews during the time of Jesus on this same issue of resurrection. Geez! It all started in Judaism to answer the question of unjust suffering. Why the righteous followers of Moses dying unjustly? Lives taken senselessly. It was never originally in Jewish belief in the beginning anyway, unless you want to read the resurrection into it. Think the sacrifice of Isaac or something. Abraham says nothing about the resurrection, but Christians like Paul probably read that in there "according to the scriptures." Competing scholars axing themselves to death over what historically happend. It is not fun to watch. Both sides claiming to be right. Why stay a Christian believing in the concept of resurrection? Scientifically there is no heaven up there. Surely one can experience Jesus without the concept of resurrection, and in that experience they are a Christian. No need to sweat it.

 

[Thomas]

If the physical resurrection is what Paul meant, Paul's religious claims need empirical evidence, because he would be claiming there is a place "UP" somewhere for resurrected bodies. I mean, it is not that complicated.

More to the point, it's not what Paul, according to Catholic and Orthodox doctrine, is claiming.

Paul is talking about the perfection of the Divine Image in the Physical World, or rather his doctrine (according to their interpretation) is not that we leave this world, but that the veils that stand between this world and the world of the Spirit are drawn aside, and all is one, all in all.

Christians been divided over the issue for thousands of years. Their going to continue wavering just like the hellenistic and palestinian Jews during the time of Jesus on this same issue of resurrection.

Not all. That some abandon the truth is no reason for all to abandon it.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Let's get back to the point.

If we deny the mysterious aspects of Scripture as fabulous inventions ... and they are attributed to the works of the Holy Spirit, then logically one should treat all mention of the Holy Spirit as part of the invention, because logically the Holy Spirit is equally as fabulous as the actions attributed.

So here's a scenario. A man reaches for power, not only to overthrow the Temple, but to overthrow Rome, and set Israel free. Based on the well-accepted idea of a saviour, of salvation, he sets himself up as the Messiah and attempts a popular revolt. The Temple moves against him, to safeguard the population from an inevitable slaughter. But neither they nor the Romans want to be seen as the murderers of a popular hero. Nevertheless, once arrested, the crowd turns against him, and he's killed.

Immediately, a few of his followers, realising their defeat, and perhaps only one or two, begin to construct the myth of his divinity as a torch for the future. Meanwhile, the others of his followers loyal to his vision of power, go underground to escape detection, and continue to ferment revolution, one that was brutally put down some forty years later.

(We know, after all, that Judea, and Jerusalem especially, was in ferment against the Roman rule.)

Crushed and broken, the survivors cling to the myth, which accrues more and more detail by the syncretic absorption of the relevant data — itself just myths — from Hebraic, Hellenic, indeed all the available mythologies.

And who was the historical Jesus? A revolutionary, perhaps ... or maybe just another power-hungry individual who wanted it all. Perhaps mad, perhaps bad, but undeniably the focus of a false spiritual ideology, and perhaps even the material cause of the destruction of Jerusalem.

Mad then and/or bad ...

... but God? No chance.

Thomas

 

[wil]

I don't think it's funny at all. I'm just following your line of reasoning to its logical and inevitable conclusion.

Step up, dude! No-one got anywhere doing anything by half-measures!

Again Thomas, that is your logical conclusion. Surely not mine. I've been content in my beliefs for years and don't see myself reaching your logical conclusion...but one never knows. Half way?? I've said it numerous times on this board and elsewhere... if it turned out there was unrefutable proof that Jesus never existed it would not affect my religious belief or my love for the stories and my internal growth from reading them. My faith does not hinge on this miracle or that or existence of any individual but the power of the word.

Surely one can experience Jesus without the concept of resurrection, and in that experience they are a Christian. No need to sweat it.

Namaste Ahanu and exactamentary my dear watson. Sherlock Holmes and Watson did they exist? No. But has reading their stories inspired folks to become detectives and solve crimes...heavens to murgatroid...

Hi Wil —

OK. Let's suppose you've won me over. Suppose I apply the measure universally and without prior assumptions:

Namaste Thomas,


And that is just the crux of the biscuit is it not. This winning one over concept. I've got no need or impetus to win you over. I am ok that you are ok with your beliefs...they just aren't for me brother...nor are they for millions of other people. That is why folks like me exist...not for you or yours but for folks that believe in Jesus and reject you and yours. That is why Baptists and JWs and Mormons and whoever exist, because each does not resonate with all, each does not lead all to G!d or understanding and we find our own way.

Same with Jews, Muslims, Hindis, etc. Over half the Christians in the world aren't Catholic....it ain't universal. We've got plenty of bible thumpers out there that disagree with you, me and each other...it's ok.

To some it is about winning, about recruitment, believe it or not the JW wants to save you Thomas, but I don't have that need or desire, I appreciate our difference in understanding....and while you may be surprised to see me on the other side...I won't be surprised to see you!

 

[Thomas]

Half way?? I've said it numerous times on this board and elsewhere... if it turned out there was unrefutable proof that Jesus never existed it would not affect my religious belief or my love for the stories and my internal growth from reading them. My faith does not hinge on this miracle or that or existence of any individual but the power of the word.

So you're quite happy with the idea that you might well believe in nothing at all?

Thomas

 

[wil]

So you're quite happy with the idea that you might well believe in nothing at all?

Thomas

Namaste Thomas,

I'm so happy you've found your way down off your high horse!

 

[Thomas]

I'm not high-horsing, Wil, really I'm not.

I just wanted to establish the logic of the argument. How, if the text is fabricated, one can trust in anything it contains.

And what is the benchmark to determine what is, and what is not, fabrication.

Thomas

 

[iBrian]

How, if the text is fabricated, one can trust in anything it contains.

I think this is called "faith".

 

[Joedjr]

Just maybe G-d in not contained in a book. I doubt very much if there will be any complaints if you were to seek G-d outside the wording of the Bible. It seems all the major faiths of the world have their book, perhaps these books are but directions to a place but not the place.

If we don't we are going to continue to dispute matters emotionally which will lead to even more senseless violence in our world and we can not afford to do this at all.
It is perilous and foolish.

Thanks Shawn.

 

[Thomas]

I think this is called "faith".

Not really, not at all.
I can defend every point that argues the falsification of Scripture, and Wil can argue the case for its falsification ...

But the point is, I am arguing that something is true, Wil is arguing that it is not. A faith in what one believes is logical, but a faith in what one believes to be false, seems illogical.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

It seems all the major faiths of the world have their book, perhaps these books are but directions to a place but not the place.

But in this discussion, the argument I'm standing against is that the 'place' indicated by the book does not exist, but was made up.

Thomas

 

[wil]

Well then Thomas, if there is no fear of nose bleed the question could easily be asked of you....

So you're quite happy with the idea that you might well believe in nothing at all?

As you've stated. We've got virtually no evidence that Jesus existed accept for the bible. Our proof that G!d had a hand in the writing of the book is that the book says G!d had a hand in the writing of the book.

As Brian says, we both have a faith that resonates with us. Again, I don't have issues with that. Nor do I have issues that our thoughts differ.

 

[Thomas]

Well then Thomas, if there is no fear of nose bleed the question could easily be asked of you:
"So you're quite happy with the idea that you might well believe in nothing at all?"

You still miss the point.

I believe the text is the authentic testimony of witnessed events, and divinely inspired. I am not claiming the text is false.

I am saying that following your argument to its logical conclusion, nothing in the text can be considered reliable.

Again and again, you avoid the central question:
If you believe some of the text is false, how can you decide what is false and what is not, other than by an arbitrary decision based on personal opinion?

Thomas